To: Commissioner Lisa M. Dubé / Jackson County Courthouse / 415 E 12th Street, 7th Floor / Kansas City, MO 64106 / (816)881-3730 / Div43.firstname.lastname@example.org
To: GAL Dana Outlaw / Dana Outlaw Law Office / 1946 NW Copper Oaks Circle / Blue Springs, MO 64015 / (816)229-6100 / email@example.com
To: GAL Jared Frick / Law Office of Young, Kuhl & Frick, LLC / 3300 NE Ralph Powell Rd / Lee’s Summit, MO 64064 / (816)246-9981 / firstname.lastname@example.org
This is to notify the above-named recipients that we are filing malpractice complaints against all relevant parties, pursuant to the case laid out in this document and other attached documents.
The subject child of this report has been sentenced by the family court to live with her father, where she must be in the presence of her three-years-older half-brother who raped her on November 2, 2014, when she was eight years old, as well as multiple other times.
The father’s conscious, malicious neglect facilitated the rape.
Malicious neglect surrounding the rape
The father knew his 11-year-old son was sexually provocative and physically aggressive with his daughter. He also knew of his daughter’s fears and apprehensions around his son.
In spite of these factors, he created a living space in which the children slept in the same room together, even together on the same couch in the living room, because the boy was “afraid of the dark.” Though there were two individual bedrooms available, the father encouraged his son’s sleep arrangements /contact with the younger girl.
In addition, the doorknob of his daughter’s bedroom remained broken for six to eight months of visitation.
The subject child complained to her mother of being uncomfortable at the home of the father, but the father continually threatened them both that if they did not comply with visitation demands, he would take them back to court.
Background regarding the father
The father impregnated the subject child’s mother when she was seventeen years old and he was twenty-five years old.
The father took no interest in the pregnancy, nor did he take any interest in the child when she was born, nor for years following her birth.
The father initially denied paternity of the child, Until this mother took the paternity test he insisted on.
When the subject child, the rape victim, was approximately four years old, the father encountered her and her mother by chance at a gas station. For a brief time he expressed interest and took her to his house for informal, unofficial visitation.
When the father married another woman, the subject child, at five years old, served as a flower girl in their wedding.
When the father appeared again, the little girl, then nearly six, did not want to see him and resisted contact. At this time the father briefly pursue obtaining primary custody of the child.
Again, after many months of absolutely no contact with mother or child, the father again pursued primary custody of the now nearly eight-year-old child, serving her mother with legal papers. Among the reasons he offered for wanting custody of this child—having taken custody of two other progeny—was the fact that he wanted to use her as a tax deduction.
The years of the father’s lack of contact with mother or child explains his ignorance about the mother’s current social status, was living with her fiancé in their new home, pregnant with her second child. He made allegedly outlandish claims that she was a drug addict living in squalor.
On March 11, 2014, the father’s motion to gain primary custody was dismissed, though he was never held accountable for the false claims he had filed against the mother and his attempt to disrupt the safe, comfortable home the child’s mother had provided, with a real protector whom the child loved.
However, the family court did require visitation. The child was forced to attend visitation with the father, who threatened her that if she did not submit to it, he would put her mother in jail.
Disclosure of sexual assaults
On April 11, 2015 the child spoke with her mother and grandmother to disclose that she had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of the half-brother. The next day, Mother and Grandmother went to the police (police reports attached). The documented testimony of sexual abuse led them to the logical next step: obtaining a protective order.
Over the course of the following weeks, the subject child attended full forensic physical and psychiatric evaluations (June 1, 2015) and counseling, where it was disclosed that she was vaginally raped after her brother punched her in the stomach and forced her to pull down her pants. As she received therapy through MOCSA (Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault), the child advocacy center, she disclosed more abuse, as early as oral sex forced on her at age 4. The father had given this rapist half-brother a gun, and the rapist used it to assure the child that if she disclosed all that was going on, he would kill her and her mother. The rapist half-brother raped her multiple times.
The mother pursued criminal charges in the juvenile courts, but was told she could not acquire a protective order because the situation was too complicated.
Instead, the half-brother was ordered through juvenile courts to have no contact with the subject child. This order was I effect until he turned 18, which was December 12, 2020.
The subject child was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and depression, and was placed on relevant medication.
For four years the child was with her mother except for sporadic visitations when the father would appear to pick her up.
This safety ended on May 22, 2019, when the child’s father kidnapped her. She was 13 years old. He picked her up from school without informing her mother and refused to return her to her mother.
When the mother filed a Family Access Motion to reclaim her child, the child was returned to her for two months.
After two months with her child, the guardian ad litem and the caseworker appeared to remove the subject child from the mother’s care without under a fabricated accusation of physical assault. They gave the child to the father and told the mother she could see the child under supervised visitation for an hour a week at $40 an hour.
After two months, the mother discovered that no judge had ordered this arrangement—the guardian ad litem and caseworker had acted illegally.
Once the child was in the father possession as kidnaper, he isolated her, cutting her off from all contact with her mother. He manipulated her antidepressant medication, starting and stopping the meds, which creates a rebound impact of intensified depression. He accused the mother of drug abuse and physical abuse of the child. He is also alleged to have told the child that if she returned home her mother would put her in a mental hospital for a year.
The subject child wrote an email to her mother expressing the torment she experienced at being away from her mother. She was never able to send this email, however, because the father allegedly turned off the wifi in the house.
The subject child has attempted suicide while in the court-mandated isolation of the father. However, this suicide attempt has been callously concealed by the father and the court factotum, who have sadistically facilitated the father’s insatiable need for control and isolation of the child.
Insight into the father’s thinking
A conversation between the father and a teen friend of the subject child offers a window into the father’s motivation for the kidnaping and isolation.
We have attached the copy of the obscene conversation that was read in court during the trial of January 20, 2020. It includes a picture of the father as he shared private thoughts with the teen. This conversation suggests the initiation of a sexual interaction, as well as the trauma bond created through the demand for compliance typical of psychopaths.
The restraining order without cause and without notice
On December 18 2020, Commissioner Dubé filed a restraining order against the mother, without cause. The mother was never notified until she was in the courtroom that week, being handcuffed and taken to jail.
The accusation? She had supposedly “withheld” her daughter from the father, who had not made attempts to see her.
The mother also found out as she was being handcuffed that court dates had been occurring since May of that year. They claimed to have notified her, but because they had addressed the information incorrectly, she had not received the notifications.
So the mother was sent to jail, the week before Christmas.
The subject child said that she didn’t want her mother to be away from her little brother for Christmas, so she voluntarily went to the father’s house so the mother could go home.
In January of 2021 the subject child attempted suicide for the second time.
Court hearing January 2021
On Jan. 19th, 2021 a hearing took place. The mother believed this hearing was convened to formalize the withdrawal of yet another useless attorney.
Instead, to her astonishment, she found that she was in fact facing a hearing to inform her that an injunction had been filed against her. The mother had no idea that she was supposed to come to this hearing prepared to argue against this injunction.
For the benefit of some who will be reading this letter as an article, a preliminary injunction indicates that the person is so harmful, an extraordinary course of action must be followed. This preliminary injunction prevented the mother from seeking to get her daughter back until a full trial could be concluded.
However, this preliminary injunction was filed without probable cause, since this mother was in fact not harmful to her daughter. The mother, now without an attorney (a pro se litigant), requested that the case be continued.
The judge denied her request.
The lineup of attorneys hired by a family who could not afford attorneys only failed to protect the child in any manner shape or form. The attorneys were present as window dressing to provide an appearance of due process where there was none.
The documents related to this case have been sealed. Ostensibly this is to protect the child, but we believe it is rather to protect the Monsters Among Us.
Action to be taken
The above noted brief summary of the atrocities in this case form the initial statement that will be enclosed as part of the individual complaints against each of the judges, guardians ad litem, Child Protective Services, and other factotum who have been responsible for the ongoing harm this child and family have suffered.
In addition to complaints to official government bodies against each and every actor in this cabal, legal intervention will be initiated in court on the part of the child and family.
The violations inherent in these acts merit the attention of legal action of 18USC1512, Federal criminal statutes that address witness tampering, intimidation, and beyond as to their addressing the multiple civil rights violations in this case.
The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts has sent this case to our legal division for review for damages / malpractice / abuse of power / child abuse charges against every perpetrator of harm to this child, court actors, and the psychopath sperm donor, the father, who meets every element of the Hare scale for inclusion in the ignominious class of miscreants to which he has been diagnostically assigned.