It’s not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.
Men’s murderous revenge
Illustration: Spooner
It’s not angst over custody: fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners.
Since Arthur Freeman was found guilty of murdering his four-year-old daughter, Darcey, much of the media focus has been on the distress of fathers going through separation and custody disputes. There has been a call for more support for fathers.
However, we must ask ourselves whether we are losing sight of the victims and, more importantly, whether this is the best approach to preventing these deaths from occurring in the future.
While the community understandably struggles to comprehend a parent killing a child, our research shows that these are not inexplicable tragedies. There is a particular type of filicide (the killing of children by parents) that occurs in the context of the separation of the parents.
In these ”spousal revenge” cases – as recognised by the Freeman jury – fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners. There is usually no prior violence against the children. In fact, they appear to love their children. The act of killing is directed towards harming the child’s mother. The motive is revenge.
In the case of Freeman and Robert Farquharson (found guilty of three counts of murder of his sons Bailey, Tyler and Jai, aged two to 10, who drowned in a dam near Winchelsea), both fathers indicated that they wished to punish their ex-partner. Shortly before killing Darcey, Freeman told his ex-wife to say goodbye to her children and that she would never see them again – clearly to make her suffer. Farquharson told a friend that he would make his ex-wife suffer by taking what mattered to her most – her children.
Contrary to some claims, these cases are not about fathers losing access to their children. The reality is that in both cases, the fathers had access to their children and, in both cases, killed them during it.
There is no logic to the thinking that if a person is distressed about not spending enough time with their kids they would decide to kill them.
If, however, they are consumed with anger and hatred towards their ex-partner and wish to hurt them, then it is, tragically, a very effective means to do so.
The killing of the children in such cases should be recognised as a form of violence against the mother. We need to explore the relationship between the parents in order to understand the killing of children. In particular, the father’s attitudes and behaviour towards the mother before, and after, separation must be examined. VicHealth has clearly identified the underlying causes of violence against women as including belief in rigid gender roles and a masculine sense of entitlement.
What we really need to challenge is the sense of entitlement that some men have over their families, an entitlement that leads them to believe that their partner has no right to leave them and no right to form a new relationship, and that punishing her is justified because of the suffering they themselves experience.
The current focus of commentary suggests that men are victims of the family law system. The mothers seem to be implicitly blamed for the distress their partners experienced when they left them.
Let’s be clear: the first and foremost victims here are the children whose lives are taken. The mothers, whose children have died in perhaps the worst way imaginable, are also the victims, as are remaining siblings and other family members. Darcey Freeman’s mother, Peta Barnes, had expressed concerns about the safety of her children before Darcey’s death. She also expressed concerns about Arthur Freeman’s ”anger management issues” and mood swings. It is important that such concerns are heard and responded to appropriately by a broad range of professionals coming into contact with separating parents, as well as by family and friends.
The family law process must make children’s safety its absolute priority. Importantly, the federal government has a family law bill before Parliament that prioritises the safety of children in family law matters.
The Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoriaacknowledges that separation and family breakdown can be incredibly difficult for parents. Parents should be assisted to deal with separation and encouraged to take responsibility for their behaviour. As a community, we need to focus on building positive and respectful relationships.
We support the call for greater services and support. We ask that these services be equipped to identify and respond to risks to the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents. We need to ensure there is accurate and reliable screening and risk assessment for all forms of family violence. These cases demonstrate that the risk of harm to children is closely linked to risks of harm to the mother.
Cases such as Freeman’s have a profound impact on the community and we are right to search for answers. Unfortunately, there has been very little research on parents who kill their children in the past decade in Australia. If we are to find ways to prevent these deaths, we need a far better understanding of why and how they occur.
impropriety? Learn the language….
Hat tip to Sbry for this!
There is a collaboration of differences within the court system itself. If a judge orders you to a specific person, i.e. psychologist, GAL, etc… it is presumed that this person has been before the judge; for the judge to determine their merits. In that example, the question of the judges opinion of that person is called upon. Why would a judge specifically ask for this person, and although he/she has been before the judge, what were the reasons for the judge to specifically require a person to see this specific person?I believe that the first instant this happens, the litigant has the right to know why, the very reason a judge chooses another person to come into any case.
What exactly is it that the judge saw in this person? How long has this person been before this judge? Has there been any other functions that the judge and this person been to? Do they have the same circle of friends? How many cases has this judge ordered litigants to see this person? Does the judge have this persons direct number? Has the judge called this person? (In the last 3 months, 6 months, 9 months?) It is questionable when a judge orders anything out of the normal function and I figured when we have more to lose, that is when the judge gets nasty…that’s when they require more, expect you to jump through hoops set on fire, when in all essence, they know you will not be able to.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-indifference/
Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one’s acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.
In law, the courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to determine if a professional has violated an inmate’s civil rights. Deliberate indifference occurs when a professional knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Even though it is difficult to identify what does and does not constitute deliberate indifference, courts have recognized several factual scenarios where deliberate indifference exists. For example, intentionally refusing to respond to an inmate’s complaints has been acknowledged as constituting deliberate indifference. [Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1366 (7th Cir. Ill. 1997)]; Intentionally delaying medical care for a known injury (i.e. a broken wrist) has been held to constitute deliberate indifference. [Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994).]
The following are examples of case law discussing deliberate indifference
Prison employees who act with deliberate indifference to the inmates’ safety violate the Eighth Amendment. But to be guilty of "deliberate indifference" they must know they are creating a substantial risk of bodily harm. If they place a prisoner in a cell that has a cobra, but they do not know that there is a cobra there (or even that there is a high probability that there is a cobra there), they are not guilty of deliberate indifference even if they should have known about the risk, that is, even if they were negligent–even grossly negligent or even reckless in the tort sense–in failing to know. But if they know that there is a cobra there or at least that there is a high probability of a cobra there, and do nothing, that is deliberate indifference.[Billman v. Indiana Dep’t of Corrections, 56 F.3d 785, 788 (7th Cir. Ind. 1995)]
Deliberate indifference is defined as “a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.†Crayton v. Quarterman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103709 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2009)
Deliberate indifference is defined as requiring (1) an "awareness of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists" and (2) the actual "drawing of the inference." Elliott v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91125 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2009).
Learn the language……..
Claudine Dombrowski: A Battered Mother Victimized Again by the Kansas Courts. Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski. Truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.
Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts
Testimony by Claudine Dombrowski at the hearing of the Kansas Joint Committee on Children’s Issues on Nov 30, 2009 in Topeka about problems with child placement and removal.
Listen Now:
Podcast Powered By Podbean
Standard Podcasts: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player
Compelling stories from parents and grandparents about problems with placement and removal of children
By Earl Glynn On December 4, 2009
See this video: Claudine Dombrowski Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter
Claudine Dombrowski
Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts
Read details in written statement.
This is an truly incredible story that should never have happened in America.
Parts of the Kansas Judicial system should be disciplined for how it has victimized Ms. Dombrowski, who was an abused mom.
Instead of quotes from the audio, please consult these pages that document Dombrowski’s long and difficult battle to protect her daughter:
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.
- Courts Have Continued Abuse of Manhattan Women, Manhattan Free Press, July 12, 2001.
- Manhattan resident fights custody battle for daughter, Kansas State Collegian, July 26, 2001.
State Rep Bill Otto: “No crime? You haven’t been guilty of anything? This is a court order that says you can’t go to any school functions?”
“I was under court order till 2004 to not even call the police after I was being beaten because … I was not ‘co-parenting’”
Dombrowski: “These friends of the court make recommendations to the judge. The parents … don’t have a right to see these documents. They do this behind closed doors.”
Otto: (To Secretary Jordan): “You have no rights as a parent …?”
Secretary Don Jordan: “This would be something extreme … I’m not familiar with the situation.”
Otto: “Can a judge do that? … Is that legal… ?”
Jordan: “Under the right circumstances … I hesitate to speculate.”
Sen. Roger Reitz: “This is something that only … the judicial system can really answer … It would be helpful … to have someone … representing the judicial system … to give us some ideas how this could happen.”
Dombrowski: “When you are a victim of domestic violence, and suddenly there’s a child involved, the typical …. power of control is that ‘I’ll take your children from you’. They will and they can the way the laws are setup.” …
“I was told that I’m not to talk to my daughter about the violence. That’s why I don’t see her. That’s why I see her supervised. He was criminally convicted. “
“When women try to get away from people who hurt them … I heard somebody say it’s really hard to believe you won’t call the police … I tell people not to contact the police, because as soon as you walk into court with a DV (domestic violence) and children, you’re already cutting your throat. You will lose your children. That’s the way it is right now.” “… on the 16th of this month I’ll probably go to jail for breaking the gag order and talking about [being the victim of] violence as it relates to my case.”
Reitz: “… someone ought to be able to deal with this in a way that would address her problem. It doesn’t seem like we’ve done the right thing with regards to this little niche of the law.”
Dombrowski: “The criminal convictions are completely tossed aside and they don’t have any bearing on the family court … The eight criminal convictions that my ex had before getting custody of my daughter were completely dropped [in family court]“
Chair Kiegerl: “I cannot believe that abuse is totally ignored. I cannot believe you can prohibit a person from speaking about their own case.”
“The one thing [where] … I disagree with you is abuse should always be reported.”
State Rep Peggy Mast (R-Emporia): “Domestic violence is a control issue. Sexual abuse is a control issue. Is there any correlation between domestic violence and sexual abuse? Why is that not something that is considered when we take someone to [family] court that has a history of domestic violence?”
Dombrowski: “Yes. That is something I’ve asked myself for 16 years. … It comes back to the family court that has a veil of immunity. … They don’t fully understand the impact of the violence. What battered women have … if they report the abuse, then they’re failing to protect their child … if they don’t report the abuse, they’re still failing to protect their child. So, both ways, they’re going to lose their children …”
For anybody who abuses their wife … [from] a 1996 presidential task force … there is a 70% increase that those children will be abused and/or sexually abused after there’s been battery with the mother.
Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudea: “In 2004 …. I talked with the homicide department in Sedgwick County…. During that time there had been 21 homicides in Sedgwick County and 18 were due to domestic violence …”
“A lot of women do make those phone calls and unfortunately, sometimes it ends in their death.” …
“I want to apologize to you for being treated like a pedophile … not being able to go to a music concert.”
“I commend you for what you’re doing.”
Dombrowski: “I have not talked to my daughter in 10 years [except] for the confines of supervised visits. I’m not allowed to talk to her about anything. All she knows is what her dad has told her.”
See this video: Abused Mom Wants Unsupervised Visits with Daughter
Listen to Claudine Dombrowski:
Domestic violence is on the rise in Shawnee County, Kansas
http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct… By Jessica Drew
Interview with Claudine Dombrowski and Shawnee County, Kansas District Attorney Chad Taylor.
http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct/20/domestic_violence_rise_shawnee_county/
"I remember curling up in a ball to protect her from the kicks," domestic violence survivor, Claudine Dombrowski, described.
Claudine Dombrowski is a survivor to domestic violence, a cycle she went back to many times. "I had a choice I could see my daughter or I could never see her again. The abuser had complete control, so I got my daughter back and went back to him."
Going back to an abusive relationship is a problem District Attorney Chad Taylor said his office sees quite often. "We see it everyday, and it’s just a matter of the psychology of the cycle of abuse," Taylor said.
The number of cases coming across Taylor’s desk is growing. "Our year to date projections for 2009 total is going to be an increase of about 80 percent for the domestic battery cases that we filed," Taylor said.
Claudine fights to help women like herself who have fallen in the hands of abuse. "This was the crow bar, and then I was beaten and raped," Dombrowski said.
She said she never reported her beatings until after her daughter was born.
Taylor said it happens often, "It goes from bruises to hospitalization, to like we said this is all about homicide prevention."
Claudine said even if you haven’t been a victim, you probably know someone who has and you can help them. "Don’t think it’s you…get rid of the scarlet letter of shame, it’s the most important thing."
Taylor wants to show there’s help out there for victims. "Making this a priority and letting people know that this will not be tolerated in our community," Taylor said.
Taylor’s office gave us statisitics on Domestic Violence in 2008 the DA’s office received 1267 cases, out of those 508 were filed. Starting from January 1st until October 16, 2009 there have been 1347 cases received, and out of those 849 cases have been filed.
One Domestic Battery charges, in 2008 there were 723 received and 246 filed for court. The projections for this year are 784 received and 443 filed, meaning an eighty percent increase on Domestic Battery.
Dr. Sharon K. Araji Talks about Domestic Violence in Contested Child Custody
This 28 minute Documentary explains how Abusers use the Court System to continue to abuse the mother for leaving, by taking her children.
Guardian ad Litems, Mental Health Professionals, Supervised Visits, Fathers Rights —
All make money by keeping the battered mother away from her children and by giving the children to the documented batterer.
These are crimes and in Family Court they are dismissed and turned into profit for the above so called ‘experts’.
Child trafficking is legal in Family Courts.
Run Mommy, Run, Their is no justice— ‘JUST US’ perps-—batterers, GALs, MHPs, Custody Evaluators, High Conflict experts, Supervised Visitation, mediation… the list goes on and on.
The Tactics and Ploys of Psychopath Aggressors in the Family Law System
n the twenty years I have been advising parents, children, and their legal advisers in several hundred cases in Family Law matters, I have often been asked, “Why is it that children are so often ordered to have contact with, and even into the custody of, parents who have abused them and have perpetrated violence against their partners.”
The answer to this question is not simple and involves an examination of the requirements of Family Laws which stress the importance of children having both parents in their lives after parental separation, the dynamics of legal processes, and the often very clear gender biases of the principals involved in judicial processes.
But one of the most outstanding and consistent features of proceedings involving the care of children post-separation are the conduct and behaviours which can be identified as clearly fitting the definitions of psychopathy/sociopathy.
The major personality traits of the psychopath are supremacy and narcissism. The afflicted individual must be in complete control of their environment and all persons who are a part of that environment or can serve the psychopath’s purposes in maintaining control.
The psychopath is capable of using both aggressive anger and passive anger with cunning and guile, to achieve their goals of exerting control. Examples of such contrary behaviours are the aggressive violence against intimate partners, with the frequent inherent abuse of children, designed to groom friends, relatives, and professionals into believing they are harmless and indeed very stable and friendly. If thwarted in attaining these goals, however, the passive can quickly turn into the aggressive.
In furtherance of these traits, the major tactics and ploys of the psychopath are:
- denial of wrongdoings in the face of clear evidence;
- refusal to take responsibility for behaviours and actions;
- minimisation of the incident and consequences;
- blame being placed on others;
- misrepresentation, fabrication, embellishment and distortion of information and evidence;
- minimisation of all information and evidence regarding wrongdoing;
- claims of victim status, alleging the victim was the aggressor;
- projection of their own actions and behaviour onto the victim; e.g. she abuses/neglects the children/ she is an alcoholic or drug abuser. This is based on the belief by the psychopath that attack is the best form of defence.
The grooming of friends, relatives, and professionals is very clear in many cases, and in particular some psychiatrists, psychologists and family evaluators/reporters have been hoodwinked by such tactics and ploys by the psychopathic individual. Their reports, of course favouring the psychopath, have very considerable influence on the Courts and their determinations. Very often clear evidence of intimate partner violence such as convictions, Domestic Violence Orders, Apprehended Violence Orders and Restraining Orders against the psychopathic aggressor and medical evidence of injuries suffered by the adult and child victims are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant by such professionals.
Such professionals now refer to such cases as `high conflict’ cases, when it is clear that they are situations of a violent aggressor/tormentor/persecutor and their victims. It is easy to see how the cases in Austria and America where young girls were imprisoned for many years by controlling individuals and regularly abused in several ways were undetected, when the aggressors/persecutors/tormentors were able to convince their family members, relatives and associates that they were reasonable, normal people. The same often occurs in other cases of violence and murder where neighbours report that the accused murderer is a nice and friendly neighbour. They do not recognise the Jekyll and Hyde aspects of the psychopath’s ploys and tactics and of those they have effectively groomed in their beliefs.
The high conflict which usually occurs in such cases is most commonly engendered by the respective lawyers, conditioned by operating in an adversarial process and arena, whose own major goal is to ‘win’, whatever may be the justness and fairness of the result.
It is not difficult to see, therefore, how the psychopath is able to readily gain the sympathy and support of some of the professionals engaged in the Family Law system and for them to abandon and forfeit their professional objectivity and impartiality in such circumstances. In blaming others the psychopath will allege the former partner is mentally ill and in some cases the former partner may be suffering a Complex Post Traumatic Disorder after suffering years of physical, mental, and sexual abuse and violence. This is often misinterpreted and misdiagnosed as a Borderline Personality Disorder or similar psychiatric term. In effect it is a classic ‘blame the victim’ scenario.
The groomed professionals then enable the psychopath to achieve their primary objective, which is to maintain power and control over their victims, their former partner and children. It is an act of vengeance and spite but mostly it is to maintain the power and control and feelings of supremacism and narcissism. “I am faultless and flawless and in control of my whole environment” are the unvoiced cravings of the psychopath, and “I can continue to inflict my tortures on my victims with impunity” are the psychopath’s continuing behaviours.
The Family Law and their shared parenting provisions and its administration by the Family Courts have become ready enablers for the psychopath.
Charles Pragnell is an Independent Advocate for Children and Families.
“Hearts Across America” — Million Mom March Mother’s Day 2011, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C.
American Mothers Political Party Proudly Endorses
The Mothers Movement is a persistent, insistent civil and human rights campaign. We will never give up until this horrible nightmare for children and nurturing safe mothers ends.
This page will be updated as events and information are disseminated through Mothers Day 2011
If you have an event going on anywhere on Mother’s Day Please go to the contact and send to us. We will promptly add to this page!
For up to minute information: Please Visit the Facebook page – Million Mom March
Travel and Lodging links: (if you Google search cheap air or cheap lodging and others you will be able to find more). We placed the following links below as a start and idea’s only. We do not endorse any of the following. * Special Offers – Southwest Airlines * Washington DC Hostel’s * Cheap Flights and Lodging *Amtrak *Greyhound * Expedia *Washington DC Hotels/Motels
Mr. President,
Mothers across the Nation are losing custody of their children to pedophiles and batterers through your Fatherhood Initiatives’ Program’s are speaking out. Fatherhood Funding receives in excess of $500.000.000.00 to fix bad dad, these funds are diverted and used to take mothers children and give them to the abusive father under the pretense of ‘involving fathers’ in their children’s lives.
Mothers across the Nation call for a Congressional investigation into the failure of family courts to protect children and potential fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Obama (and Congress) you are killing children with the tax payer’s money. STOP FATHERHOOD FUNDING NOW! Here is a sample letter that all can write to their congressman.
For mothers throughout the United States – corresponding events planned on Mother’s Day 2011.
EVENTS:
• California who would love to be there but can’t please join us here in California! EVERYONE COME MARCH AGAINST JUDICIAL CORRUPTION WITH US
• MOTHERS DAY IN WASHINGTON DC AND CALIFORNIA
Mother’s of Lost Children and other organizations are marching in Washington D.C on Mother’s Day, Sunday May 8 and Monday May 9, 2011.
For those who cannot go to Washington, a march will be held at the CA State Capitol in Sacramento CA on Monday May 9th at 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.
• We will bring attention to the issue of how our broken family and juvenile court systems are harming children
• Speaker Pro Tempore Fiona Ma has graciously agreed to speak at our event.
• We are assembling a panel of experts: attorneys, investigators, child abuse experts, judges, domestic violence experts, psychologists, authors, etc.. to speak.
• We would also like to have a survivor’s panel comprised of those who have survived or are currently surviving (somehow) abuse by a perpetrator of DV or child abuse AND abuse by the family or juvenile court system.
• If you have contacts who may be willing to participate in our panels, please send their contact info to Sue at 209-217-4948 skyleramelia@yahoo.com
During the past two decades, mothers have been losing custody of their children (even nursing infants) in increasing numbers to fathers who are convicted or identified batterers, child molesters, drug addicts, gang-bangers and felons. Family courts force children into the custody of abusive fathers at alarming rates, allowing these men to continue controlling and abusing their victims. Research shows that 70% of batterers who ask for custody get it. Safe mothers who left the abusers in order to protect their children are frequently labeled "unfriendly" and are inappropriately ordered to supervised visitation or denied all contact with their children.
The National Fatherhood Initiative website states in 15 years it has "ensured that two million more children are living with their fathers". The Leadership Council research indicates 58,000 children are placed with abusers every year. These statistics may be connected. Read more here:
The Oak Tree
by Johnny Ray Ryder Jr
A mighty wind blew night and day
It stole the oak tree’s leaves away
Then snapped its boughs and pulled its bark
Until the oak was tired and stark.
But still the oak tree held its ground
While other trees fell all around
The weary wind gave up and spoke.
How can you still be standing Oak?
The oak tree said, I know that you
Can break each branch of mine in two
Carry every leaf away
Shake my limbs, and make me sway.
But I have roots stretched in the earth
Growing stronger since my birth
You’ll never touch them, for you see
They are the deepest part of me.
Until today, I wasn’t sure
Of just how much I could endure
But now I’ve found, with thanks to you
I’m stronger than I ever knew.
The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World
- Blessings on the hand of women!
- Angels guard its strength and grace,
- In the palace, cottage, hovel,
- Oh, no matter where the place;
- Would that never storms assailed it,
- Rainbows ever gently curled;
- For the hand that rocks the cradle
- Is the hand that rules the world.
- Infancy’s the tender fountain,
- Power may with beauty flow,
- Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
- From them souls unresting grow–
- Grow on for the good or evil,
- Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
- For the hand that rocks the cradle
- Is the hand that rules the world.
- Woman, how divine your mission
- Here upon our natal sod!
- Keep, oh, keep the young heart open
- Always to the breath of God!
- All true trophies of the ages
- Are from mother-love impearled;
- For the hand that rocks the cradle
- Is the hand that rules the world.
- Blessings on the hand of women!
- Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
- And the sacred song is mingled
- With the worship in the sky–
- Mingles where no tempest darkens,
- Rainbows evermore are hurled;
- For the hand that rocks the cradle
- Is the hand that rules the world.
- William Ross Wallace
The Hand That Rocks The Cradle
Is The Hand That Rules The World
Claudine Dombrowski Presents BMCC8 January 2011 Albany, NY
Uploaded by KansasFederalFraud on Mar 6, 2011
Claudine Dombrowski Presents BMCC8 January 2011 Albany, NY
The genocide against Battered Mothers and THEIR Children.
Battered Mothers Custody Conference http://www.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org
Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence
Mothers File Suit Against US (Dombrowski et el V. US) Inter American Commission Human Rights Entire petition here:http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308
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 protect them.
Peter Jamison’s in depth investigative report:: Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-synd…
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. (Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered–though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details….) But of course, Dad didn’t exactly encourage or welcome contact either–that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.
But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren’t even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)
Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn’t "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court’s rules regarding discussion of this case.
All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn’t even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy’s elbow the whole time.
Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent’s attempt to discuss court matters–ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn’t be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents’ legal issues, which I’m sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.
I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn’t play any part of this.
Under Kansas law, visitation isn’t shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.
Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants–except in private to her own mother.
And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately–either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.
So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.
No, once again our major concern was Claudine’s political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine’s first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)
But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY’s blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I’m not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can’t shut us up.
And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine’s "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman–no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes–earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody’s facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won’t give her name, though it’s in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.
So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine’s facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine’s facebook page, too–through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook–even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you’ll find articles and links about those cases as well.
And all this policing of Claudine’s personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON B. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can’t even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.
And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn’t like is that–as they put it–this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don’t like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don’t even like Claudine’s facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine–apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn’t see.)
So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!
Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court’s decision is–after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can’t really speak her mind–not as long as she’s a minor and dependent on her father.
We are not optimistic as to the outcome.
But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system’s control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about. Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.
But at least it’s something to hope for.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1GEXUJFwo
Uploaded by KansasFederalFraud on Mar 6, 2011
Claudine Dombrowski Presents BMCC8 January 2011 Albany, NY
The genocide against Battered Mothers and THEIR Children.
Battered Mothers Custody Conference http://www.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org
Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence
Mothers File Suit Against US (Dombrowski et el V. US) Inter American Commission Human Rights Entire petition here:http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308
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 protect them.
Peter Jamison’s in depth investigative report:: Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-synd…
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. (Dad admitted under oath that the phone does go to fax mode when not answered–though he denied "inhibiting" phone access, which is not surprising. But then, how did Mom know to testify that the phone was set on fax when she called? Oh those little details….) But of course, Dad didn’t exactly encourage or welcome contact either–that much was evident. In fact, it was pretty clear to me that he was extremely negative about Claudine, and doing his best to crush any contact between her and her daughter.
But like many abusers, he projected his own motives onto the child, now a teenager. SHE was the one who was "uncomfortable." She was the one who was "afraid." Afraid of what? Physical abuse, sexual violence? No, there was no evidence of that beyond vague innuendos about "fighting" that allegedly occurred in the distant past (These innuendos weren’t even brought up in January. Must be a new game plan.)
Apparently we are supposed to believe that this teenage girl is "afraid" because Mom allegedly doesn’t "follow the rules." What rules? Apparently the court’s rules regarding discussion of this case.
All this was echoed by Guardian ad Litem JILL DYKES. And once again, just as in January, Ms. Dykes didn’t even feign professional neutrality in this case, as she literally sat at Daddy’s elbow the whole time.
Are you kidding me? The typical teenager would blow off a parent’s attempt to discuss court matters–ASSUMING any such discussion took place, which Claudine denies. They certainly wouldn’t be "afraid" of such a discussion. Annoyed perhaps. But not "afraid" or traumatized. This is just classic projection. That this teenager is such a hothouse flower that she is somehow irreparably injured by any possible or potential references to her parents’ legal issues, which I’m sure she already knows all about anyway. Nonsense.
I would humbly suggest that it is Hall Richardson and his enablers who are "afraid" of any possible open or frank discussion of this case. Or any contact between this mother and daughter. And their little "feelings" shouldn’t play any part of this.
Under Kansas law, visitation isn’t shut off because somebody is "uncomfortable" for vague and specious reasons. If that were the case, then controlling and manipulative parents would be cutting off access for whatever reason they dreamed up that day.
Unfortunately, given the dynamics of domestic violence, children who are in the control of abusers often find it necessary to parrot what the abusers want for their own survival. Which makes if very difficult for this child to speak up and articulate what she wants–except in private to her own mother.
And frankly, this ordeal shows a complete double standard. Were this a custodial mother blocking visitation for such vague and specious reasons, she would no doubt be labeled as an "alienator" with "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS). And the situation would be addressed immediately–either visitation would be enforced by the courts or the mother would lose custody all together. But I digress.
So no visitation from May to the present. But this actually was a minor issue as far as the court was concerned.
No, once again our major concern was Claudine’s political activity. The players in Shawnee County are very upset with how well known this case has become (my last blog posting on this case had readers as far away as Australia.) And they are blaming Claudine for all of it, even though when pushed, Judge DAVID DEBENHEIM fiercely denied that he was trying to "stomp" on Claudine’s first amendment rights. (Huh. Could have fooled me.)
But even in cases where OTHER bloggers like Nancy Carroll at Rights for Mothers had discussed this case (http://rightsformothers.com/), Claudine was blamed. In fact, the opposing attorney submitted into evidence printouts from NANCY’s blog to show that Claudine was out of compliance with their gag order. Message to the Hoffmans: Nancy is not Claudine. I’m not Claudine either, for that matter. And you can’t shut us up.
And honestly, did the Hoffmans really have to embarass their employee like that? They trotted out a young and painfully ignorant employee of theirs to "testify" about Claudine’s "alleged" facebook and twitter activities. This fresh-faced young woman–no more than a high school graduate with a few "computer" classes–earnestly told us that every posting and link on somebody’s facebook page had to personally "approved" and/or "posted" by that person. Yes, dear friends. She did say that. And meant it too, so far as I can tell. I won’t give her name, though it’s in my notes. I refuse to further humilate her. But honestly, your great aunt Rose probably knows more about facebook than this girl.
So the significance of this was what? There are supposedly "references" to her case on Claudine’s facebook page! Oh the horror! And you know what? This blog may very well end up with a link on Claudine’s facebook page, too–through an automatic feed mechanism. It will go straight to facebook–even when Claudine is sleeping or brushing her teeth. Or sitting in court. Because you know what? Claudine is a well networked activist with probably hundreds of facebook friends working on issues related to child abuse, domestic violence, human rights, and family court reform. Many of us have discussed this case before. Just as we have discussed many other cases like this one, where the courts have backed up the abuser and shut out or ignored the protective mother. And for your information, you’ll find articles and links about those cases as well.
And all this policing of Claudine’s personal and political activities on the internet is particularly hypocritical when you consider the following: Attorney JASON B. HOFFMAN and GAL JILL DYKES had no qualms about violating professional ethical boundaries and becoming facebook "friends" with this child! (I saw the screen shots.) Mom can’t even post a photo of her daughter per court order, but these folks feel free to do as they like. Not that the judge was interested in this matter at all. Big surprise there.
And this is the crux of the matter. What the court in Shawnee County REALLY doesn’t like is that–as they put it–this lady "has a cause." Or she has "become a cause." They don’t like the "venom" (i.e. the truth) that has come out about this case, and the attention it has received nationally and even internationally. They don’t even like Claudine’s facial expressions! (Yes, the judge made a point of addressing this. "You are your own worst enemy!" he thundered at Claudine–apparently over some grimace or frown that I didn’t see.)
So make sure you never show anything but a happy face in front of Judge Debenham, even when you are possibly losing all contact with your only child!
Claudine is supposed to hear later this afternoon what the court’s decision is–after her daughter will presumably be allowed to speak her mind with the judge. But of course, she can’t really speak her mind–not as long as she’s a minor and dependent on her father.
We are not optimistic as to the outcome.
But you know what? In a little over two years, this girl ages out of the system’s control over her life. Perhaps then, real change will come about. Abusers and their enablers often win the battles. But they seldom win the war. That puts off any real healing in this case for another two years.
But at least it’s something to hope for.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Sham in Shawnee County (Topeka, Kansas) | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sham-shawnee-county-topeka-kansas#ixzz1GEXUJFwo
KENTUCKY JUDGE CATHERINE RICE-HOLDERFIELD Jails MOTHER Kimberly Harris for NO REASON – ILLEGAL – deprivation of HUMAN Rights..You can Not Shut us all up!!!!
Free Kimberly Harris Mother of Christian Coffey Now
Please Follow the following links; http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Kimberly-Harris-Mother-of-Christian-Coffey-Now/198830253477144?sk=wall
-
Whoa! Supporters are speaking out! Thank you!! Free Kimberly Harris Now! Please share this link.
Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield – Topix
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
-
Rosa Parks went to jail! Kimberly is a HERO, and now an even bigger hero to her son Christian Coffey. The love of a mother. Their bond will NEVER BE BROKEN!
Mariah Carey – Hero There’s a hero, If you look inside your heart, You don’t have to be afraid of what you are, There’s an answer, If you reach into your soul, And the sorrow that you know will melt away. [chorus] And then a hero comes along, With the strenght to carry on, And you cast y
-
What do you want the Channel Four I-Team to investigate? Tell us about it.
Call (615) 353-2474 Your E-mail:Phone Number (optional):
Subject:Kimberly Harris (name in Warren County Jail is Coffey) placed in jail for what OTHERS are posting on Facebook. -
Rosa Parks went to jail! Kimberly is a HERO, and now an even bigger hero to her son Christian Coffey. The love of a mother.
-
Kimberly Harris mother of Christian Coffey is in jail because she has online supporters. Read the judicial complaint Kimberly made in her case trying to protect her son from further abuse. And now she is being abused. Kimberly Harris is a hero!
-
Liz Duke SO SORRY KIMBERLY, I PRAY THAT YOUR STRENGTH OVERCOMES THEIR EVILNESS biggggggggggggggggggggggggHUGGGGG
Please LIKE and SHARE this public page in support of Kimberly Harris who is now in jail.
Free Kimberly Harris Mother of Christian Coffey Now
Page: 53 people like this.
5 hours ago · Unlike · · Share
-
You and Lj Thomas like this.
Please LIKE and SHARE this public page in support of Kimberly Harris who is now in jail.
Free Kimberly Harris Mother of Christian Coffey Now
Page: 53 people like this.
16 hours ago · Like · · Share
-
Tiffini Flynn Forslund and 2 others like this.
Christian’s VoiceAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU of KY)
Please help, why is Kimberly Harris in jail because people are supporting her on the internet? She is in the Warren County Regional Jail in Bowling Green Kentucky. Her Civil Rights have been violated. And on what charges? Please message us.
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU of KY)
18 hours ago · Like · · Share
-
-
Christian Coffey is being held in Bowling Green foster care. He is begging to go BACK home to his mother where he had been after he was beaten by his father Steven Hardin Coffey. Steve Coffey was charged with 4th degree assault and child ab…See More
17 hours ago · Like
-
Please post on he ACLU of Kentucky’s FB page, call them as well about this case. Thank you.
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU of KY)
Nonpartisan organization providing legal aid, community education and advocacy on a variety of social issues affecting the most vulnerable populations.
Page: 1,064 people like this.
18 hours ago · Like · · Share
-
Van Mark Smith likes this.
-
-
-
Christian’s Voice Tyler agreed.
17 hours ago · Like
-
RECENT ACTIVITY
-
"Please help an innocent mother…" on American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU of KY)‘s Wall.
-
"Christian Coffey is being held…" on his own photo.
-
Christian’s posted a photo to American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU of KY)‘s Wall.
Send them the info on this case in their news tips section. Thank you.
News Tips
20 hours ago · Like · · Share
Scroll down to the NEWS section and you will find an email listing of reporters. Please send them an email about this case. Thank you.
Personnel Directory | Kentucky.com
Personnel Directory
20 hours ago · Like · · Share
Ken and Kimberly Harris speak out in this video, about their son Christian Coffey. Please share.
Corrupt Judge Catherine Rice Holderfild "Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey" Bowling Green, Kentucky
Elaine Barnes Bateman Interview with Christian’s Mom and step dad. Bowling Green Kentucky PETITION For Christian http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-christian-against-more-abuse Corrupt Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield won’t help abused child!http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bowling-green-ky
20 hours ago · Like · · Share
-
-
Christian’s Voice Kimberly says " He (Christian) can’t fight for himself, so I’m going to fight for him." She sure is fighting for him, she is in jail for her son. Kimberly Harris is a hero!
20 hours ago · Like · 2 people
-
Read the Judicial Complaint Kimberly Harris made against the judge who just put her in jail.
Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey: Judicial Complaint Against Judge Catherine Rice Holderfield in W
stoptheabuseofchristiancoffey.blogspot.com
20 hours ago · Like · · Share
Please contact the media in this case. The list is in the comment below. Thank you.
-
-
WBKO Main NumbersPhone: 270.781.1313
After Hours News Hotline: 270.781.6397
WSMV ch 4 Nashville Tenn at 615-353-2231 or 615-353-4444- Kimberly is from Springfield Tenn, call this station over and over.
-
Christian Coffey Hey Judge– I Claudine Dombrowski am responsible for everything on the www about you! THE TRUTH can NEVER be Silenced.
The Hands That Tie: KENTUCKY JUDGE CATHERINE RICE-HOLDERFIELD COURT WHORE « Battered Mothers-A Human
Why would a family court judge place a child in the foster care system when he has a Mother more than willing to take care of her son?
-
Posts from Topix: Concerning judge Catherine Rice Holderfield
May 18, 2010
I was wanting input from any parties who have appeared before this air head. Do you realize that these judges are not even voted in? In any case I have never seen a less prepared judge, and I have seen many. I was not in court for any reason other than to observe. This is the second time I have witnessed this judge, not have paperwork in front of her, not review papers, and also side with in some cases criminals who are STILL in jail, unreal. I am filing a complaint against this judge. The process is not hard and I believe if enough people file complaints against these "laid back" draw my pay check judges, we may get a few of them "retired" We can’t vote them out like some of the politicians, so we have to file complaints with the judicuary board. If you have had dealings with this judge or any judge in bowling green who you feel acted as if they didnt care, or was rushed or too busy to really look at your case, or just didnt seem to be using sound legal judgment and common sense I urge you to file complaints. It is the only tool citizens in the "commonwealth" have, Here is a link to get a form
http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5411B29D-C0…
Fill it out and send it off. It is time some of these worthless public servants got there walking papers! -
May 18, 2010
I agree. I have been to our justice center and it seems the judges half listen to whats going on. It is really just a big money pit for the lawyers, and their cronies, which is of course other lawyers. All a judge is is a use to be lawyer. Do you really think a person has a chance in the court system? It is really corrupt here because of it being such a small community.
Only way you will be dealt with fair here is have a relative with some pull, or a lot of cash., otherwise step up and take it like they want to give it to you. I have seen posts on here before. The sherrifs dept, d.a. office, they are all in together. Get real!
-
Friday at 1:59pm · Like · 1 person
-
Lorraine Tipton They cannot harness the wind!
Friday at 6:03pm · Like · 2 people
-
KIMBERLY HARRIS MOTHER OF CHRISTIAN COFFEY IS IN JAIL!
COFFEY-HARRIS , KIMBERLY KAY
Age: 45 Class: COUNTY INMATE
Race/Sex: W/F
Intake Date: 3/4/2011
…See MoreFriday at 6:07pm · Like
-
Christian’s Voice Call WSMV ch 4 Nashville Tenn at 615-353-2231 or 615-353-4444
FBhttp://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/WSMV-TV-Channel-4-Nashville/94568081714 PLEASE CALL NOW!Friday at 6:38pm · Like
-
Gail Lakritz There is a "commission" of Family Court Judges that is based in Williamsburg, VA where my case was. It seems to me that the proceedings, including all individual meetings and social get togethers of these judges should have certified non-biased court reporters to take down every word that is said. Tactics are passed on at these things, and we,the voters should be allowed to hear what is being said.
Friday at 7:54pm · Like · 2 people
-
STEVEN HARDIN COFFEY- WARREN COUNTY, JAIL, KENTUCKY —STOP THE ABUSE OF CHRISTIAN COFFEY— JUDGE CATHE
justiceformothers.blog.com
"Stop the Abuse of Christian Coffey" Kimberly Harris mother of Chrisitan Coffey is going to jail tomorrow in Bowling Green ,KY. Why? Because her story
Why The U.S. Should NOT Sign the CRC
by the Parenting News Network™
The United States stands alone among industrialized countries in the western world as well as many others in the third world, in having not signed onto the United Nations’s “Convention on the Rights of the Child” (CRC). This is as it should be. While on an unconsidered read, the idea of proclaiming the human rights of the child would seem to be unassailable, and the CRC’s language may read to the non-legally-trained eye as laudable, the United States should NOT sign on to this document.
Here are just some of the reasons:
– This document is a treaty, a law. And as a prospective law, it is not at all well-worded. Laws that are vague, overbroad, and not well-worded are dangerous. They can give rise to unintended interpretations and outcomes. Given the powerful status of the United States in the world, and also the delight with which other countries might enjoy claiming a violation of a treaty by the United States, this makes an ill-worded law extremely problematic.
– Article 1 of the treaty specifically permits variation in the laws setting forth the “age of majority”, specifically in instances in which the age of majority is attained earlier than age eighteen. While such variation is necessary and will occur, the United States cannot enter into a treaty effectively endorsing the laws of countries in which the age of majority for some purposes is set so low that young children may be married, forced to cease school and enter the labor market, or conscripted into the army.
– Article 2 calls for nondiscrimination based on “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.” It also states that the child may not be discriminated against on the “basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.” This sounds good, but the umbrella list of items as to which a country may not discriminate is impossibly vague and overbroad. “Non-discrimination” could be argued to include the elimination of special assistance that the United States provides to some under its disability laws, but not others (because this “discriminates” against non-disabled individuals). The United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world without universal health care or socialized medicine, so this document arguably either dictates that the United States comport with the social entitlements of other countries, or else outlaws assistance to impoverished children under welfare and Medicaid laws (because this “discriminates” against other children who are not entitled to such benefits). The United States also “discriminates” in the benefits it may provide to citizens and legal aliens versus illegal immigrants. The United States also has various laws in place for child protection, that arguably would be invalid under this Article’s proscription against discrimination against children based on the “activities” of the child’s parents (e.g. in some ways it could be said that a child is being “discriminated against” if the child appropriately is removed from a household where the parents sell drugs or engage in prostitution.)
– Commentators on Article 3 have elucidated numerous problems with this Article, including, among others, that it dictates laws that must be passed by “parties” (i.e. countries) that would violate the system of federalism under U.S. Constitution, which explicitly limits the encroaching power of the federal government in numerous areas of the law, particularly those involving the welfare and education of children, that are the province of the separate States. The United States cannot sign onto a compact as to which it would be instantly in violation. This Article of the CRC also provides that “competent authorities” (an undefined term) must set the standards for institutions established for the “protection of children.” The United States can neither be placed under the dictates of third world countries regarding what constitutes a “competent authority”, nor implicitly endorse bad ideas in numerous other countries where we hold to higher standards.
– Article 4 continues the demand for laws to be passed that pose a constitutional federalism problem for the United States, as well as calls for measures to be taken to implement the treaty “to the maximum extent of [a country’s] available resources”. Given that the resources of the United States are vast compared with those of signatories such as Moldavia or Kenya, and that the United States already provides far and away more financial assistance, directly and indirectly to other countries than does any other country in the world, this apparent demand in the vaguely worded Article 4 for a potentially enormous diversion of United States taxpayer resources to “the framework of international co-operation” is unacceptable.
– Articles 5 and 6 suffer from dangerous vagueness. Article 5 requires signatory countries to elevate local “customs” to a protected right as “duties” of children’s parents or guardians customs. The United States cannot endorse a treaty that would, for example, defer to “customs” such as the mutilation of children’s bodies for religious reasons. Article 6 uses the unfortunate language that every child has an inherent “right to life”, which in the United States is a phrase already well-used in the law and public discourse, signaling the anti-abortion position.
– Articles 7 and 8 include more requirements that signatory countries pass laws, in this case, to the child’s right to “a name” (a meaningless or frivolous demand in the context of the United States), but the child’s right to a “nationality”. The badly-worded provision appears to include the rule that allows other countries to interfere with U.S. citizenship and residency laws.
– Article 9 conflicts with established laws in the United States. It is not only unneeded, but also in a badly-worded way that is at once too broad and too narrow, dictates a potential demand for changes in U.S. law based on the consensus and customs of other countries. The provision arguably endorses the removal of children from the child’s parents if that removal is considered to be “in the best interests of the child”. The examples given (of child abuse, which is undefined, or parental separation) do not limit the provision to those events. In the United States, family liberty interests are a fundamental right, and we do not remove children from their families merely because some third party think the child’s “best interests” could be better served elsewhere. The government may only intervene in circumstances in which the child’s life and health require intervention.
– Article 10 appears to permit non-citizen parents and even minor children themselves to leave the United States at whim to enter into third world countries, including countries that have not signed the Hague Convention. It also potentially directly contravenes U.S. immigration laws in that it would demand that the United States allow entry by foreign national children whenever the child has a parent illegally resident in the United States, including one being held in prison. On the other hand the same Article contravenes United States asylum laws by providing that children’s right to leave another country are “subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others…”, implicitly endorsing human rights violations of other countries based on their “moral precepts”.
The rest of the document is equally bad. Some of these provisions are discussed athttp://www.parentalrights.org/. The text of the treaty can be downloaded athttp://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={612CB07E-B43F-4605-BEFB-42F92F4CF2EE}&DE=
Whether or not you agree with this or that critic, whether or not your politics falls to the left or right, liberal or conservative, you nevertheless need to appreciate that a badly worded law, open as it is to the multiple interpretations and meanings ascribed to it by others — such as the consensus of opinions by “democratic” vote of representatives of other countries whose religious, cultural, and moral beliefs regarding what is appropriate for children may be wildly adverse to yours — is a dangerous and ill-advised thing. The United States must not endorse any compact, contract, or treaty in derogation of the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. To learn more about the U.S. Constitution, see the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview
California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody
Page 1 — By Peter Jamison Wednesday, Mar 2 2011
Read the rest of the article here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/
Courtesy of Joyce Murphy
Joyce Murphy (right) fled California with her daughter because family-court officials wouldn’t listen to her accusations against her ex-husband. He was later sentenced to prison for sex crimes.
Courtesy of Califonia Department of Justice
Rex Anderson (left) and Henry “Bud” Parson were both convicted of child molestation after family courts awarded them custody of their daughters.
Karen Anderson suspected that something strange was going on between her ex-husband, Rex Anderson, and their 15-year-old daughter. Prior to the couple’s separation in 1998, the girl would sometimes put on high heels and makeup, "visiting" her dad while he worked late at night in the family’s basement. It was the same retreat in which he stored the dildos and artificial vaginas he used to stimulate himself sexually.
After the divorce, Rex was given primary custody of his daughter, as well as the couple’s 8-year-old son. Karen says this was because he had a full-time job as a facilities engineer at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, while she was unemployed. While staying with her on weekends, her daughter would sometimes say she hated herself and wanted to die.
In 1999, Anderson, a resident of San Jose, decided to take her concerns to Santa Clara County Family Court. Like similar courts across the state, it is charged with adjudicating high-conflict divorces — managing the division of property, child support payments, and the often bitter process of establishing a plan for shared child-rearing. She urged the court to investigate whether her daughter was at risk of sexual molestation, and whether Rex’s custody rights should be restricted as a result.
Family Court Judge James Stewarttemporarily barred the children from seeing their father while the court looked into the abuse claims. But instead of seeking evidence as to whether molestation was taking place, he hired a Menlo Park–based psychologist,Leslie Packer, to evaluate both parents. Among Packer’s tasks was to assess, in light of their psychological profiles, whether the accusations were likely to be true. After a series of interviews and personality tests, such as the Rorschach inkblot test, she delivered her opinion: Karen’s fears for her daughter were unfounded.
"Karen’s suspiciousness goes to the extent of paranoid thinking, particularly in regard to her husband’s actions," Packer wrote in an evaluation delivered to the court. "There is a basis in her concerns with her husband’s unusual sexual practices, but it appears that most of her speculations about her husband’s possible sexualized attitudes toward their daughter are not based upon documented or reality-based evidence." Rex regained primary custody of his children.
Today, Rex Anderson is serving a 23-year sentence at Pleasant Valley State Prison inCoalinga. In 2003, he pleaded no contest to 25 counts of sex crimes against his daughter, including child molestation, sexual penetration of a child with a foreign object, and use of a minor to create pornography. When she turned 18, his daughter left his care and reported years of abuse to police in El Dorado County, where they were living. (SF Weekly is withholding her name as a victim of child sexual abuse.)
Seldom are a parent’s allegations against an estranged former spouse rejected out of hand, only to be vindicated so completely. Yet observers say the Anderson case represents just one unfortunate outcome of systemic problems in the family courts’ methods for investigating accusations of abuse.
Looking out for the children who find themselves in the middle of bitter divorces is the most important function of the state’s family courts, and arguably one of the most significant duties of the judiciary as a whole. Yet evidence has mounted in recent years that it is a responsibility in which family court officials are sometimes failing dramatically.
Interviews with dozens of parents, activists, lawyers, judges, children, and former family court employees, as well as a review of hundreds of pages of family and criminal court documents, indicate that the system’s methods for assessing whether child sexual abuse or spousal battery has taken place — findings that are critical to deciding whether a parent should retain custody of or visitation rights with a child — fall short of the standards accepted by domestic-violence experts and the criminal-justice community.
The results can be tragic. In some cases, such as Anderson’s, abuse allegations have been confirmed decisively, in the form of criminal convictions, after a poor custody decision was made. In others, court officials have ignored existing domestic-violence convictions, sending children to live with admitted batterers. In at least one case, an infant boy lost his life because of a judge’s refusal to take seriously warnings about an unstable parent.
Family court officials face difficult decisions in cases where the truth is often clouded by high emotions. Every day, in courtrooms throughout the state, those decisions doubtless lead to many beneficial outcomes for the children whose futures are at stake. In the morass of ill will and "he-said, she-said" exchanges that characterize bitter divorces, the facts can be hard to tease out.
For this reason, SF Weekly has focused exclusively on cases, both in the San Francisco Bay Area and the rest of California, where allegations of domestic violence or child molestation were backed up by criminal convictions — and, in one case, a murder-suicide. In all of them, the courts seem to have failed to follow basic procedures, including some dictated by state law, for weighing evidence of a parent’s abusiveness before making crucial custody decisions.
Absent an exhaustive review of the state’s family courts, it is impossible to say how common such cases are. The reasoning that guides custody decisions can also be difficult to decipher. Court officials — including a number of those approached for this article — frequently decline to explain their decisions or recommendations, citing client confidentiality or judicial ethics. Read the rest of the article here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/
Republican Senate Majority Leader in Arizona involved with Domestic Violence: NO CHARGES FILED filed due to legislative immunity
Joint statement issues by State Senator Bundgaard & Ballard on Sunday:
http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/02/27/joint-statement-by-state-senator-scott-bundgaard-and-aubry-ballard-regarding-friday-night/
Click here to see video with pictures.
Domestic violence is a huge issue that has affected women and children for centuries, and it still does for many who have been involved with some of Arizona’s state legislators.
There are at least three state legislators involved with this kind of inhumanity towards our society’s most vulnerable.
Readers of Three Sonorans read about Russell Pearce’s past history with domestic violence, and how this may have rubbed off on his sons, one of whom was just arrested this month for the same violence against women.
What is even more sad is how members of both parties, including the Democrats, will actually make excuses for this type of unacceptable behavior, and start blaming the victim, but this is also part of the history of domestic violence cases.
From El Numero Uno vato in the state Senate, Russell Pearce, to now dropping on the deuce, the Republican’s number two, Senate Majority Leader Scott Bundgaard, who had his own domestic violence issue this weekend.
Scott Bundgaard, the majority leader of the Arizona state Senate, was briefly taken into custody on suspicion of domestic violence Friday but was released because he was immune to arrest under rules of the Arizona state Constitution.
via State Sen. Bundgaard involved in domestic violence incident.
Bundgaard gives his position of Number Two a perfect representation.
And just like another former state representative, Jan Brewer, who was busted with anextreme DUI and even caused a car crash on the freeway but was let go because of “immunity” and never charged again, unlike President George W. Bush who got charged with DUI, this whole Republican party seems to be drunk with power.
From recovering alcoholics like W and Glenn Beck, to Boehner who is as emotional as an alcoholic would be, our leaders are intoxicated with the power they have, and with this power comes violence.
If you are violent with the women and children in your own families, ones that you take vows before the Eternal God to love until death, then how are they ever going to care about the innocent women and children they kill in their wars, aka “collateral damage,” or the women and children they target with their policies?
Speaking of crazy policies, Scott Bundgaard is one of the co-sponsors of an anti-immigrant bill known as SB1225 which pretends to defend immigrant women from violence but really gives Sheriff Arpaio more tools to get tough on immigration.
Also co-sponsoring the bill with him is Ron Gould of the 14th Amendments repealing bills, and in total there are 10 right-wing extremists sponsoring this immigration bill.
The Latino community is strongly opposed to SB1225. For some reason we don’t trust Ron Gould and Scott Bundgaard to have our immigrant women’s best interests in mind. Forgive us for not trusting them… do you?
All Democrats should vote NO on SB1225! Now is not the time for right-wing immigration bills co-sponsored by Ron Gould and Scott Bundgaard. Now is the time to balance the budget!
Wanna sign on to Bundgaard’s anti-immigrant bill SB1225? Ron Gould already has, and they are two teabaggers we can trust? The other names are blurred as they will be focuses of future articles.
Click here to see video with pictures.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 27th, 2011 at 6:41 pm and is filed under Headline news, Immigration news, Right-wing hate, Women’s rights, political news. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
nikitasjustice
Nikitas Justice's 