• TO – Presiding Judge – Family Court Division Bertilo Soto
• Administrative Judge – Domestic Violence Division
• Lawson E. Thomas Court House
• 175 NW 1st. Ave.
• Miami, Florida 33128
• Judicial Qualifications Commission
• POB 14106
• Tallahassee, Fla. 32317
• Complaint on Behalf of Client – Baby G
• Case # 2017 – 012360 FC 04

I am Jill Jones Soderman, executive director of the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts, forensic expert and consultant to the above-named litigant in the case noted. I have been a child analyst and family therapist by training and experience for many years.

In 2005 a twelve-year-old boy I knew committed suicide after he had been transferred by the family court system into the hands of his abuser. This tragedy led to my learning about and studying the massive corruption, malfeasance, and fraud that has burgeoned to a public health crisis through juvenile, dependency, and family courts.

I found that this boy’s suicide was not unusual; indeed, child and adolescent suicides have increased at massive rates since the year 2000.

What do they have in common? High-conflict custody battles.

In 2008 I founded the FCVFC to confront wrongful custody transfer by family court judges and court actors who have embraced the discredited concept of “parental alienation” as an expeditious practice to ipso facto determine custody and end custody litigation disputes by arbitrarily and capriciously eviscerating one parent out of the life of the child or children.

The self-satisfied notion that one parent is guilty of lodging false allegations, defaming the other parent, and alienating affection from that parent (using dubious psychological platforms), is the process that must be examined in the current complaint being presented against Judge Bernard Shapiro.

History of the False Narrative Intervention of “Parental Alienation”

Around the year 2000, therapists for children and families in crisis from internal, systemic family violence began to help their clients understand that the violence they were enduring was against the law and should not be endured.

At that time, domestic violence legislation and services began to emerge. These changes began to embolden the subjects of abuse, to report crimes and seek services for themselves and their children, through law enforcement and the courts.

However, in the family courts, a strange thing happened. Court actors decided to deny that the crimes had occurred.

The accuser, they decided, was either lying or crazy. Witnesses and even experts who spoke on behalf of the victims were denounced as conspirators and liars.

Then, in an Orwellian shift, the accused abuser became the victim.

If the accused was an alcoholic who demonstrably neglected and endangered children, that subject must have been driven to drink by the accuser.

To top it off, the accuser was then described and diagnosed with many disorders of personality and character. These psychological and characterological defects were then delineated, described, and defined in terms that elevated the accused and declared the accused to be the victim of false allegations and false narratives.

Twenty years later, if anything, the situation is far worse.

This is the simple version of the story. But how can they get away with it?

• To the public, abusers often appear as someone who “could never do such a thing.”
• Certain court actors, such as the evaluator and the abuser’s lawyer, may very well know differently, having heard the abuser’s confessions, but they will make excuses and see “parental alienation” as the most horrific of crimes.
• Abusers can even sometimes confound the psychological testing by a Jekyll-Hyde misrepresentation of themselves.
• The judge is invited to follow the logic of the case as presented by the lawyer with the largest retainer and litigation budget.

Indeed, the fabrication of events and circumstances can become so confusing that it may seem almost impossible to confront them, as psychological interventions and instruments are being weaponized to thoroughly undercut and immobilize the party who has filed a complaint.

“I do not believe what appears plainly as evidence, because the psychological testing says differently,” seems to be the new mantra delivered by family court judges.

Reason for Complaint against Judge Bernard Shapiro

This complaint against Judge Shapiro is being placed because, as will be made clear through this complaint and exhibits attached, Judge Shapiro violated Petitioner Mother’s due process right to self-representation:

• to assert claims against her adversary,
• to examine and cross examine witnesses, and
• to present her argument.

Judge Shapiro silenced Plaintiff Mother’s attorney at every juncture of every proceeding, rendering him useless to defend his client.

In a similar manner, during the status hearing of February 10, 2020, Judge Shapiro

• did not examine witnesses
• did not allow the appearance of critical witnesses
• did not allow a psychological report of the plaintiff mother ordered by the court

and proceeded to transfer a five-year-old child into the full custody and isolation of the father, against whom had been brought complaints of brutal, sadistic, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

Because of Judge Shapiro’s due process violations, as well as his abundance of bad faith, bias, and depraved indifference to the safety and welfare of the child, Petitioner Mother has requested the removal of Judge Shapiro from this case, asserting that she cannot procure a fair trial in this court.

We are seeking the Committee’s review of this case and sanction of Judge Shapiro for being an individual who is not fit to serve in a position of authority which requires not only intellectual and academic credentialing but also evidence of moral and characterological fitness.

Jill Jones Soderman

Executive Director FCVFC

*****

COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE BERNARD SHAPIRO

From the Beginning – Case History

The case noted above came to the attention of the court in 2016.The filing of divorce was lodged by the mother of then-four-year-old Baby G. She described the first three plus years of Baby G’s life as a period in which Baby G had to be watched over and guarded from numerous life threatening episodes of neglect and abuse.

The basis for separation focused on life threatening, bizarre acts on the part of the Defendant Father that clearly placed the life and basic welfare of Baby G at risk. Baby G’s father’s lifelong personal history is one that was known to the mother and included terrible early neglect, abuse, and subsequent recurrent psychiatric illness.

This history, as documented by hospital/medical records, included episodic hospitalizations for such symptoms as hearing voices that would tell Defendant Father to kill his wife and new baby infant, then toddler. Even though he rejected the baby from early on, when he was even briefly in contact with her, he would injure her repeatedly. Defendant Father Baker Acted himself for fear of his impulses in responding to the voice commands to kill his wife and baby.

After approximately three plus years of attempting to protect Baby G from numerous episodes of life-threatening neglect and abuse, the mother felt she had no alternative but to seek a divorce and seek sole custody of Baby G. The initial case disposition was to afford full custody of Baby G to the mother, with supervised visitation to the father. The mother was represented by the same attorney from the petition of divorce filed in 2016, through the domestic violence hearing in May of 2018, described below.

Domestic Violence Hearing May 28, 2018: A Critical Hearing to Establish Evidence and Witnesses

At the onset of litigation in the Miami Dade County Family Court, the Plaintiff Mother was represented by counsel. During the course of court proceedings, Judge Bernard Shapiro consistently stopped the attorney from speaking.  Judge Bernard Shapiro would not allow the Plaintiff Mother’s witness to testify.

In this domestic violence hearing of May 28, 2018, the mother was subject to numerous violations of due process, equal access to the court, slander, defamation, bias, and overall rude, prejudicial treatment by Judge Bernard Shapiro.

As will be described in greater detail, the record shows that Judge Shapiro displayed overt rudeness and prejudice toward the mother of Baby G and her privately retained lawyer. By contrast, the attorney for the father, and all subordinates related to the father were treated with deference and clear privilege. As will be indicated by the court record, the mother was denied the ability to present both witnesses for her defense and evidence of neglect and abuse on the part of the father; which was the underlying basis for the mother having made the decision that she had to leave the marriage in order to protect her child.

As of January 2020, Plaintiff Mother terminated the services of the attorney and made the decision to represent herself – in order to speak truth for her child.

Petitioner Mother represented herself at the February 10, 2020 status hearing requested by Plaintiff Father’s attorney. Her appearance on the record was clearly stated as Pro Se.

Immediate Basis for the Complaint: Status Hearing sua sponte Custody Transfer, February 10, 2020

Attorney for the father filed an “Emergency Hearing to Suspend Petitioner/Wife’s Time Sharing With Minor Child.”

Judge Bernard Shapiro took testimony from the Guardian ad Litem, and  the reunification therapist.

Judge Bernard Shapiro designated the GAL and the reunification therapist as witnesses and swore them in. As he then conducted the trial, he proceeded to violate the following:

1. State statutes for what constitutes an emergency.
2. Title 10 of the Family Law Act.
3. What constitutes a substantial material, unanticipated change in circumstance, terminating a long-standing custody agreement as to residential custody and decision making.
4. Court Due Process: Judge Shapiro accepted hearsay statements and uncorroborated testimony, compounding the violations by also accepting as fact, without evidence and without opportunity for cross examination, that Petitioner Mother suffers from an undiagnosed mental illness, an illness that was unable to be detected on reliable psychological testing requested by the court. (The absent psychological evaluator forwarded that testing, opining in absentia that the mother presents herself as “better than she really is and is not admitting to undetectable, never defined crimes mental illness, criminal activity or of coaching and alienating the child.”) Respondent Father did not even have to go before the court to perjure himself.
5. Best Interest of the Child Standard: Evidence will show that Judge Shapiro and related court factotum have transferred the child into the hands of her documented abuser. The evidence of the record shows no thought of caring for the child, other than the unsubstantiated hearsay confabulations of the reunification therapist, delineated below. The code of conduct as a licensed psychologist clearly states the first principle of her license is to do no harm. The records and films of Baby G attest to the immeasurable suffering the reunification therapist has imposed on Baby G and her family.

Medical and psychiatric professionals provided extensive evidence, none of which was properly dealt with in the court of Judge Bernard Shapiro.

On February 10, 2020, Judge Shapiro did make a finding: Petitioner Mother was guilty of “coaching” and “alienating” the child, terms that have no scientific merit, terms that are independent of logic or justification.

The Debunked Concept of Parental Alienation Deployed

It appears that Judge Shapiro subscribes to and advocated for the scientifically discredited and thoroughly debunked theory of parental alienation (PA). The concept of PA rejects a need for evidence, discards witness testimony, and considers the thoughts and feelings of children as irrelevant.

Via the destructive concept of PA, any criticism of one parent by the child or the other parent will drive punitive actions toward the one who criticizes.

The founder of the “parental alienation” concept, Richard Gardner MD (a pedophile who committed suicide when confronted with the dark outcomes of his machinations), proposed that children are sexual beings and that all men have the right to have sex with their children. Further, Gardner states in his self-published writings, that mothers are jealous of the attention paid by these men to their children.

The embrace of this degenerate PA concept— which populates a culture of perversion and abuse, however counterintuitive this appears— is in fact the state of jurisprudence perpetuated by Judge Bernard Shapiro in his courtroom

Judge Shapiro’s embrace of the PA concept was shared by court actors Guardian ad Litem and the reunification therapist. The PA concept is not only not an accepted theory, it is deplored, rejected, and ridiculed based on, now, massive amounts of clinical evidence, well studied by multiple licensed professionals. The improper practice of a viciously destructive, sadistic cruel form of manipulative control impelled by power and control has become a practice that enables those who should never have rights to children to steal rights that could never be legally won.

Judge Bernard Shapiro: Suppression of Evidence

Judge Bernard Shapiro is well known to be roundly condemned for transferring thousands of children into the hands of abusers. The unfortunate Baby G and her family now join the ranks of lambs to the slaughter in a lawless, immoral court that shows no basic decency or mercy for children. Cannons of law, ethics, manners, due process, and equal access to the court are concepts that have had no presence whatsoever for Baby G in Judge Bernard Shapiro’s court, as will become clear in a review of the transcript attached to this complaint.

Judge Bernard Shapiro’s violation of Baby G’s rights were mirrored by the previously mentioned court actors, forming the basis for blocking evidence and testimony from the Plaintiff, rudeness and disdain for the Plaintiff’s attorney, and the Plaintiff herself being  referred to in the hushed tones, as a “bitch.” All this set the tone of contempt for the helpless child and vulnerable mother.

Upon review of the court file discussion with the Plaintiff Mother’s attorney, there is no indication and no evidence that Judge Shapiro ever admitted evidence or testimony in any of the appearances before the court.

There is, however, evidence that Judge Shapiro consciously blocked all evidence providing factual information and eyewitness testimony to events. Even when Judge Shapiro was presented with video-taped evidence of interactions between Baby G and the Defendant Father referred to in testimony, such evidence was re-interpreted to fit the false narrative presented to defend the Defendant Father.

Evidence that Baby G was bitten, beaten, punched, starved, severely bodily injured, verbally demeaned and humiliated, to name a few of the vicious, sadistic acts to which she was subject were all blocked from evidence by Judge Shapiro. As this body is well aware, the consequences of not admitting these items into evidence, i.e., not being part of the court record, may mean that the injuries sustained by Baby G did not “legally” exist. The injuries perpetrated by the Defendant Father against Baby G continue as scars on her body, her psyche, and her soul.

The transcript of the entire court hearing on, wherein Judge Shapiro, sua sponte transferred the child from the protective parent into the hands of her abuser, totally isolating Baby G from her protective parent mother and placing her into her worst nightmare, is all the evidence needed to support these claims.

The well-established best practices of interviewing children in therapy, in forensic evaluation, and in family treatment, are strictly mandated to be audio and video recorded for authentication and evaluation. However in this case, Baby G was strictly separated from her mother to enter sessions with her abusive father and locked away behind three locked doors – all without video tape or audio recordings.

Our only view of what went on behind these closed doors exists in the Affidavits and emails prepared by Baby G’s mother as she was asked to enter the office. The reunification therapist requested the presence of Baby G’s mother when Baby G barricaded herself under a desk. As Baby G was red faced, crying, and gasping for air, she was also trying to throw chairs in the therapist’s office and refused to come out from under the table for more than an hour beyond her session time. Pictures of the exhausted, drained, and despairing Baby G speak for themselves as to the sessions conducted by the therapist, which the therapist referred to as “wonderful.”

“Do No Harm” does not appear to be an oath ever subscribed to the reunification therapist, who in her email recounted confabulated events, recommending more such sessions and more such intensive work.

There are no videos or audio accounts from the reunification therapist. The only videos and audios we have from Baby G are her FaceTime interactions with her father. These videos are attached on a flash drive and speak for themselves – they speak to the dramatic trauma caused to Baby G by the therapist’s pseudo-scientific and sordid reunification therapy. Accusations of “coaching” are absurd on their face. Under scrutiny and scholarly analysis the idiocy of accusations of “coaching” are demolished.

In the May 2018 hearing, Defendant Father was allowed to present witnesses and evidence, including:

Defendant’s brother – named as an abuser of Baby G.

Defendant’s sister-in-law – named as an abuser of Baby G.

The DCF Investigator – Accused of undermining the investigation into allegations of physical and sexual abuse of Baby G.

Testimony regarding the DCF investigator’s statement to the Plaintiff that Defendant Father and his brother came to his office, well dressed, with lawyers. Even though they clearly presented as individuals of wealth, this was viewed as an immaterial statement by Judge Shapiro.

Affirmation of the dating relationship between the female lawyer for the Defendant and the DCF investigator were not viewed by Judge Shapiro as prejudicial or a conflict of interest.

Testimony admitted to the hearing included a phone recorded message between Defendant Father and his brother and sister-in-law in which Baby G is on the phone. Defendant Father can be clearly heard directing Baby G to “tell Tio that you love him. Tell Titi that you love her.”

In private communications with Baby G, she stated, “You do not understand, if I don’t say what he tells me to say, if I argue, he will hit me harder.”

Defendant Father’s documented pattern of behavior directing Baby G as to what to say (in a manner that appears to suggest that the child is making autonomous, spontaneous statements). When carefully reviewed we see that the enthusiastically presented material has been staged and directed. It emerges as the child stating that she has been threatened, intimidated, and told that “this is the way it must be done, or else.”

When the child is left to private conversations on FaceTime – phone conversations ordered by the reunification therapist – when Baby G’s door closed, when she is alone on the phone, not leaving the room, Baby G very clearly, independently, makes statements that are clearly alarming to the reunification therapist, contrary to the message the therapist wishes to impart to the court. (transcript Feb 10, 2020) These statements by Baby G are irrefutable corroboration of the allegations of abuse perpetuated by Defendant Father against Baby G.

Unconscionably, the reunification therapist never included in her reports Baby G’s statements that are contrary to the therapist’s PA agenda.  The statements that the therapist does include in her reports have no corroboration from audio or video recording that can be objectively verified or peer-evaluated. In fact, in meetings that are not recorded by video or audio, self-reported by the therapist, we are treated to the “reunification therapist” version of events.  In statements made by the therapist reporting the contents of sessions between father and child, we are treated to “touching” accounts of loving reunifications that are “believed” by the child who emerges from the office, shaken, red faced, and hyperventilating.

Comparisons of session descriptions as related by the therapist and then the same session written up by the child’s mother, as per her presence in the interaction, bear little resemblance to each other. Detailed descriptions offered by the reunification therapist give an alternate description of events interspersed with explanations for the alternate reality as interpreted by the reunification therapist.

Statements made by Baby G in the privacy of her room, attached in a thumb drive and accessible in audio and video, never support the positive statements noted by the reunification therapist. In fact, Baby G says to her father on the FaceTime video, “[The therapist] says I have to say loving things, so I will say nothing.” The Defendant prods and pushes Baby G, who is remarkable resolute. The audio and video recordings present an unforgettable picture of a determined five-year-old who refuses to be pushed.

The Role of the Reunification Therapist

Judge Bernard Shapiro deferred to the judgment of the reunification therapist, thereby abandoning his role as fact finder in keeping with his duties under the rules of evidence and rule of law.

The reunification therapist has made it clear in her testimony throughout the case that she is acting as a “reunification” therapist. This pseudo-science is a field of practice not recognized by any scientific, ethical, clinical body in existence, because of its association with the debunked, discredited concept of Parental Alienation.

the reunification therapist’s testimony begins on page 31 of the Hearing on February 10th, 2020. On page 32, lines 14 through 18 she states that she is trained as a forensic interviewer, by profession. But a central vital element of all legitimate forensic work is detailed documentation (video and audio filming) to verify, validate, and review, and to consult and compare material. Since July 2019, the reunification therapist has conducted approximately twenty or more sessions with the child and the family. Oddly, from all of these sessions, there is not one video or audio recording validating any of the events described by the therapist. What we do have is extensive hearsay testimony from the therapist that conflicts with available video and audio evidence, as well as medical records and witness testimony.

The therapist accused Plaintiff Mother of “coaching” Baby G to disseminate false charges against the Defendant. The reunification therapist did not define terms nor did she describe a process by which this alleged coaching has taken place or how the child acts and interacts to support her false narrative that the child’s grievances against the father are “false.”

The reunification therapist states that the child’s testimony is not consistent in that it does not contain details of events and lacks adequate content. However, abundant evidence to the contrary exists in the form of drawings and videos in which Baby G describes in great detail who, what, when, and where the horrific events occurred. Judge Shapiro has perniciously barred this material from being admitted into the court record.

The reunification therapist described the joyous, touching reunion between father and daughter in her first reunification session between Baby G and her, but there is no documentation beyond the reunification therapist’s testimony. Baby G denies any such event.

Common sense tells us that where there is a child who is consistent and persistent in her allegations of abuse, with video documentation to support, with members of the community to testify to the child’s statements and credibility; these should carry more credibility than an unverified opinion of a hired expert whose analysis is based on debunked parental alienation pseudo-science.  Sadly, Judge Shapiro failed to act with common sense in this matter.

The reunification therapist goes on to describe the Plaintiff Mother and Defendant Father “interacting with each other, having fun, playing a game.” She suggests this is just such a lovely experience for Baby G to observe. While we risk being redundant, it is critically important to remember that this statement is not documented by any form of objective evidence such as video or audio recordings of the interaction described. This testimony is based on unsubstantiated hearsay testimony with no authentication. As such, it cannot be considered as reasonable or credible testimony.

In contrast, Baby G possesses six (6) recorded FaceTime videos of her interactions with the Defendant Father, the individual she has repeatedly accused of being her abuser. This evidence is accompanied by a variety of other video and audio interactions between Baby G and the Defendant Father.

Furthermore, emails between the reunification therapist and Defendant Mother differ widely as to the reporting on the same session at which they were both present. The context of Baby G having barricaded herself under a table and trying to throw chairs at her father to keep him away from her were generally consistent between the two reports. However, and consistent with PA nonsense, the level of distress experienced by Baby G was minimized by the reunification therapist. The photo of Baby G taken following the session speaks for itself and is attached as evidence to this document.

In short, the reunification therapist’s testimony and evidence are neither credible nor reasonable and cannot be taken seriously by any court of law, failing to reach a Frye Reid or Daubert level of scientific reliability. Her actions in this case must either be viewed as callous and incompetent or as engaging in a fraud upon the court. Her testimony must be thrown out (stricken from the record) and cannot stand as a source of reliable evidence on which to make any decision, much less a custody transfer, given the delicate nature of this case.

In summary, the reunification therapist described in her own PA terms, i.e., her own confabulations, the dynamic she asserted to have played out in her office. the reunification therapist’s proposed dynamics took place behind two locked doors, absent any video or audio recording, and absent any witness other than the trapped child, her abuser, and his enabler, the reunification therapist herself.

In the court of Judge Bernard Shapiro, the testimony of the child or her protective family was never allowed.

The testimony of the reunification therapist suggests that Baby G. stated that she was “penetrated” by the father. That is a fabrication. Neither the mother, nor any member of her family ever made such an accusation. The process of asserting claims and denying claims made autonomously by the reunification therapist have been made irrelevant as statements and evidence from the victim and her protectors are completely bypassed.

The reunification therapist is the source of contested, undocumented evidence that contradicts the witness testimony sworn to under oath and in affidavits, yet restricted from being heard in court by Judge Bernard Shapiro.  And, as we suggest, the reunification therapist is the confabulator. The reunification therapist denies evidence that exists and is documented clinically and medically: including, but not limited to, medical records of bruises and beatings from her head and her face – across her body; and hospital records that speak of acute, agonizing trauma in which Baby G clearly identifies her father as her abuser.

The reunification therapist has submitted deeply flawed, and possibly fraudulent, testimony. Her submitted testimony is nothing more than hearsay upon hearsay, fully unsubstantiated and unverified. Further, the testimony she has submitted is contested by the video and audio testimony of the subject child and supported by the hospital and medical records kept out of the court record.

All of these critical pieces of evidence have been barred from being admitted by Judge Shapiro.

Judge Bernard Shapiro has based critical legal decisions on an illegitimate discredited psychological theory advanced by a practitioner whose practice is deeply flawed. Judge Bernard Shapiro has based his decision making on non-scientific evidence that is not accepted by any legitimate psychological or psychiatric practitioner.

Judge Bernard Shapiro: Manipulation of Witness Testimony and Further Procedural Complaints

Examples of considerable due process violations, orchestrated by Judge Shapiro include such critical events as that noted in the transcript of May 28, 2018, in which witnesses for the Plaintiff Mother were excluded. Plaintiff’s brother was removed from the witness stand in the middle of testifying.

When Plaintiff’s brother, Baby G’s uncle, was thrown off the stand, Attorney for the Defendant referred to this critical witness, a member of Baby G’s household as “someone they just dragged off the streets.” Plaintiff’s mother and sister were never allowed to provide any testimony. Judge Shapiro stated in the hearing of May 28, 2018, as he dismissed all witnesses for the Plaintiff, “I have heard enough, I am disgusted with the way she [Plaintiff Mother] has behaved.”

Witnesses for the Plaintiff Excluded from Providing Court Testimony

May 28, 2018 DV Hearing:

• Plaintiff’s brother
• Plaintiff’s mother
• Plaintiff’s sister
• Teacher from Baby G’s school, Angels Reach Academy
• Other teachers from the child’s school

Teachers from Baby G’s school were prepared to provide testimony and school records, indicating that Baby G would frequently wake from afternoon naps, startled and screaming for her father to get off of her. On more than one occasion Baby G stated to her teachers that her father punched her in the face, in her eyes, and in the nose. She told teachers that her father touched her vagina and forced her touch his penis.

However, testimonies from Baby G’s teachers were not allowed into evidence, ostensibly because the mother worked in the same building.

This was a groundless objection, because Baby G’s classrooms were in a different part of the building where Plaintiff Mother worked. Plaintiff Mother was never present when the child woke up from naps. The child’s outcries were spontaneous and instantaneous, as she moved from sleep to terrified consciousness. There was clearly no coaching and no distorted communication. Multiple witnesses were present for these episodes on multiple episodes.

The teachers at Baby G’s school are mandated reporters. They called DCF to report the distress experienced by Baby G, a previously chatty, happy child and eager learner.

Further, Baby G’s teachers noted that Baby G began touching her vagina and kissing little boys on the lips.

Exclusion of these teachers from giving testimony in court was unconscionable.

Judge Bernard Shapiro limited witness testimony to the following:

• The Guardian ad Litem, who wrote no report and confined his comments to a few emails.
• The reunification therapist, who also offered no written report and confined her comments to emails shared with the attorneys and the GAL. the reunification therapist’s emails were set up as “evidence” to the court, stating that “coaching” was going on, without indicating where, how, or by whom. The reunification therapist barred Baby G’s grandmother, and any family member, from bringing her to “parenting sessions,” stating in an email, that though the grandmother was very polite and quiet, saying nothing to disturb the sessions or contact between the reunification therapist and her client, Baby G and her father, still the grandmother was “alienating the child . . . and coaching her by body language.” She does not identify or describe the body language that accomplished this coaching.
• The psychological evaluator, in absentia. Judge Shapiro allowed the psychological report prepared by the psychological evaluator to be presented in court by the GAL, and the reunification therapist. The report was addressed in court
  1. before the report was completed (as per commentary by the GAL).
  2. without the report having been viewed by the subject of the report.
  3. without the psychological evaluator’s presence (which meant no cross-examination could be conducted).

After the hearing, but before the psychological evaluator completed the report, the reunification therapist and the psychological evaluator were contacted to obtain their opinions on certain subjects, such as “coaching by the mother.”

In preparation of the psychological evaluation report, the psychological evaluator interviewed the following people:

• The Guardian ad Litem (GAL).
• The reunification therapist.
• The DCF caseworker, who was dating the female attorney for the biological father of Baby G, who failed to conduct any meaningful case investigation.
• The biological father of Baby G.
• The mother, whose reports of abuse he completely discredited.
• No one else.

The psychological evaluator’s cursory psychiatric review noted indisputable facts about the Defendant Father, such as psychiatric hospitalizations, a Baker Act commitment, suicide gestures, and police reports. However, the psychological evaluator interpreted all of these as insignificant, in the past, and not now relevant to the custody evaluation, i.e., to the father’s care-taking capability.

We wish to be absolutely clear about the Defendant Father’s psychiatric history, his tragic, terrible history of abuse at the hands of his parents (which we view as credible) as well as all psychiatric statements of illness. This history is not meant as a criticism of him, or any attempt to minimize the pain and suffering he certainly has experienced. These facts, in and of themselves, do not preclude him from access to the child or even custody, given appropriate guidelines. Rather, these facts are brought forward to demonstrate the level of hypocrisy on the part of this court and the apologists who lie and distort the very seriousness of these facts.

It is imperative that personality and personality disorders be understood:

• What are the elements of health?
• What are the elements of pathology, severe pathology, or psychopathy,?
• What conclusions should be drawn from what set of signs and symptoms?

These are things that must be understood, and the conclusions that are drawn from evidence of such personality disorders should raise red flags about suitability for custody. Even the filing of criminal charges and investigation of crimes should be considered, rather than, as was the case here, a massive denial of well-established scientific knowledge and verifiable facts.

There is no indication or statement in reports or indicated in any part of the discussion of the Defendant Father that he has any remorse as to acts of abuse of the child that has and continues to cause her great pain and suffering.

Neglect is a very serious issue as well: the court record, known to Judge Shapiro, is that Baby G has multiple medical issues related to her premature birth. She suffers from, among other things, gastroesophageal reflux disease, an illness in which she can experience acute gastrointestinal pain if she does not follow a rigid feeding and diet schedule. Not feeding Baby G according to her diet plan is not a minor matter.

Known to all parties is the fact that, discussed in mandated court counselling with Arturo Cid, the Defendant Father “forgot to feed” Baby G, in addition to “feeding her garbage”; that is, not junk food—GARBAGE)

Judge Bernard Shapiro: Evidence of Bias

Judge Shapiro allowed no cross examination of witnesses. He conducted examinations form the stand, directing conclusions as he moved along in his interactions with witnesses. No objection was tolerated in these proceedings.

Bernard Shapiro’s court has established a pre-conceived paradigm in this case: Defendant Father can do no wrong. Plaintiff Mother can do nothing right.

However, the facts will show that Plaintiff Mother is and has been through her life, a devoted daughter to her parents, caring sibling to her sister and brother, a participant in the student body of the school she graduated from as valedictorian at age sixteen. Plaintiff Mother was accepted for college at Harvard, but wanted to remain close to her family, so she attended a local University in Florida where she excelled, worked, paid for graduate school, and attained master’s degrees in psychology and special education for children with special needs.

Plaintiff Mother did not leave or divorce Defendant Father when it was clear that the marriage was insufficient on every level. She did not leave him when he suffered bouts of depression and could not work, but instead worked to support the family. When the financial and emotional burden required greater help, Plaintiff Mother and Baby G were welcomed into her family’s home. Plaintiff filed for divorce only when she came to the inescapable conclusion that she could not protect Baby G while remaining in the home with the Defendant and in close proximity to him.

The  Child Psychiatrist Who Examined Baby G: Testimony and Authenticated Hospital Records Dismissed

The child psychiatrist testified that Baby G had suffered from depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from trauma sustained at age four. At age four Baby G had been hospitalized with trauma-induced mutism and fainting with her eyes open and her body in a rigid position.

She recovered from the acute symptoms of trauma but according to the child psychiatrist disclosed to him the abuse she suffered at the hands of the Defendant Father. This disclosure was made when the Plaintiff Mother was not present, so that there could be no accusation of “coaching.” The child psychiatrist made a referral to Kristi House trauma treatment center for abused children.

Hospital Social Worker –Testified that the Child Was Credible

Upon Baby G’s arrival at the hospital, the social worker interviewed her, separately from her mother, and subsequently testified that Baby G’s recollection of events was consistent and credible. She also interviewed the mother and testified to her credibility as well. The social worker also testified to a bruise where Baby G said her father had grabbed her.

Having heard no testimony from Plaintiff Mother’s witnesses, as per the DV Hearing of May 28, 2018, Judge Shapiro stated, “I have been toying with the idea of giving father full custody of the child.  If I find in any way that you [the mother] are interfering, I will grant full custody of the child to the father.”

Further Commentary

The following commentary appears more as instruction to the Defendant’s apologists than to provide evidence of paternal abuse and interference with the child.

At the time of the Domestic Violence hearing, there were two open criminal investigations against the father and uncle, one for sexual abuse and the other for physical abuse. The child described physical beatings, which are documented in color photos. The child described a square paddle, which caused hematoma bruises on the child’s buttocks; black eyes and facial bruises to her cheeks and mouth are also documented in color photos. The child has clearly identified the Defendant Father as the source of many injuries to her.

She has also clearly stated that her uncle, aunt, and cousins were engaged in physical and sexual abuse. She also clearly stated on multiple occasions, including on FaceTime videos confronting her father, in inescapable tones, precisely what her father and others had done to her.

Defendant Father has a documented history of suicidal and homicidal ideation, indicating very clearly that at times he felt compelled to kill his wife and baby daughter. He has indicated that he saw Baby G as “Satan.”

All of the Defendant Father’s disturbing history is being ignored, minimized, and dismissed by the GAL, the psychologist, and the Judge.  This includes records indicating that the father suffered from very significant psychiatric illness and multiple episodes of psychotic symptomatology, interspersed by long periods of depression. The records and documents which authenticate this are in our hands.

We have copies of all authentic hospital records, supporting these and other deeply concerning mental health illnesses of the Defendant Father. The court should be taking testimony on this material and exploring the risk to Baby G and her mother; but instead they are attempting to suppress, deny, and confuse facts related to the imminent harm presented to this child and her mother.

We suggest that though the Defendant Father may be seriously psychiatrically disturbed, he is not unintelligent. His clear and consistent efforts to hide, in every possible manner, his bad acts, make him exponentially more dangerous.

However, even if Defendant Father were to murder Baby G, Judge Bernard Shapiro is covered by Absolute Immunity.  The Guardian ad Litem and the reunification therapist may also be covered by some qualified immunity.

Oddly, the false narrative propagated by these court actors apparently attempts to allege that the Plaintiff Mother’s reasonable concerns for the child are somehow spawning the Defendant Father’s very serious criminal and mental health history. The seemingly pre-conceived narrative is clear: “Sadistic sexual and physical abuse of the child does not exist – all are a malicious fantasy of the mother, advanced by the 4–5, now six year-old child. There are no bruises, there are no injuries, and there is no documentation. There are no witnesses.”

This is the disinfected, sanitized, bleached record that the court of Judge Bernard Shapiro apparently hopes to generate through autocratic practices and violations of every Constitutional protection and Canons of Ethics that apply and purportedly govern Judge Bernard Shapiro’s practice on the bench.

All discussion of abuse, neglect, and danger to the child has been met by Judge Shapiro with rage against the Plaintiff Mother for “interfering with” the Defendant Father’s right to possess the child and do with her as he pleases. Judge Shapiro has created an atmosphere of abject denial of facts, denial of reality, disinterest in facts, and repression of relevant subject matter surrounding critical facts.

The false construct of “reality” imposed upon the court record is a depraved, sadistic plot to construct a false narrative, indicting the preposterous notion of the Plaintiff Mother falsely accusing the Defendant and the illogical exoneration of the Defendant Father’s heinous and depraved acts of abuse.