Championing for child victims and their protective parents | a 501(c)3 nonprofit

U.S. Family Courts Eat Their Young

U.S. Family Courts Eat Their Young

Judges send children to their deaths, as protective parents are made to feel helpless, as lawyers stand by and do nothing, even though remedies exist.

U.S. family courts are drenched in blood and bathed in tears as loved ones of babies and young children are sent to slaughter by judges possessed of a sadistic cruelty and a taste to inflict pain on helpless protective parents. Protective parents are being  compelled by court orders to send children for visitation with a parent accused of sexual abuse against children in the family and sometimes for engagement in the latest trend of cottage industry pretender professionals in the area of reunification therapy, forcing engagement with the accused parent.

Reunification therapists pander to the predator parent. Lawyers charge immense legal fees to manipulate the criminal code, infusing criminal defense techniques of raising reasonable doubt and irrational prejudice to paint the predator as a victim.  They raise the sentiment that the child “misunderstood and misinterpreted” the affectionate gesture or actions of the parent whose predatory sexual abuse is described in the hackneyed phrases associated with the buzzphrase “parental alienation,” a theory created by Richard Gardner, MD.

Gardner’s theories in his self-published works of the 1980s pressed theories of the rights of men to have sex with their children, indicating that early sexualization of children would increase the birth rate of the white population. Gardner’s theories created an “underserved” population of litigants: men who were criminally accused of incest became the initial pool of litigants Gardner defended, infusing the defense of incest abusers with reasonable doubt by impugning the motives of  female accusers as jealous, manipulative, controlling subjects and children falsely characterized as unreliable reporters.

The facts are that children are excellent reporters, and interviews with children are problematic only when the interviewer does not leave intact the statements, verbiage, flow of language of the child with the intent of understanding the child’s language. For example, a child may happily report to her mother, “Daddy put his pee pee in my wee wee”  correctly understood to be, I peed in the toilet and Daddy then peed, urinated, in my urine that was already in the toilet bowl.

The experts of the FCVFC are child advocates and experts in deciphering, interpreting, and analyzing communication as well as interpersonal family dynamics in the course of unraveling complex, emotionally charged scenarios. The FCVFC has also developed an expertise in understanding fraud, malevolence, and the coordination of experts in judicial proceedings associated for the purpose of transferring children into the custody and isolation of predators because of the power and money associated with doing so.

The trend that began in the 1980’s ignited by the Gardner parental alienation concept generating reasonable doubt on behalf of predators has created a legal industry that has eroded the credibility of the legal profession and turned judges into predatory partners with child traffickers in all forms, now most prominently represented by those associated with the non-profession profession of reunification “therapists” who drive children crazy with the assertion of “misperception.”

Family court cases in Chicago today, bumbling around under the radar, are real-life horror stories that will no longer be allowed to live in the gray, blurry netherworld of doubt.

A two-year-old boy was anally raped and died of his injuries as a result of the rulings of judges involved in his case and lawyers who stood by and did nothing to prevent his death.

Following his death when the father was not criminally charged, the judge associated with his case then demanded that the sister of the child who had been killed attend visitation with the father who is associated with the death of the child. That child was then allegedly raped by the father who most recently “allegedly” killed his two-year-old son. The sister was hospitalized (8/23/2022) as a result of the assault on her.

Also in Chicago today, a phalanx of judges have presided over the case of an originally three-year-old child (now six years old) who reported the sexual abuse perpetrated on her multiple times. Even before her cries of paternal sexual abuse reached court, authorities were fighting to discredit the child and support the right of a very credibly accused abuser to regain full personal, physical, unsupervised visitation of the child.

The coterie of hostile court actors in lockstep pose imminent danger to the child. They have been committed to discrediting the child and her protective parent, who is also under attack by government agencies and court actors in a manner that is not only wholly unfounded, baseless, and senseless, but also incredibly overtly vicious.

Three court actors viciously aligned to undermine the safety of the child. This included first Judge Maritza Martinez, who secreted evidence of the child’s abuse in the form of videotapes. Cory Blalock, the attorney for the child, has been a consistent rabid advocate for the father. He has made contact with medical providers at UCMC as well as CPS and actively undermined the reporting of the child, which was first substantiated and then unsubstantiated following his contact and persuasion to refer to the child as having been coached and indicating that her testimony against the father was unfounded.

Investigation by the sex crimes unit detective at Chicago police department—the same detective who was responsible for the arrest and final prosecution and jailing of R Kelly—found the child absolutely credible as per body cam testimony by the child. This detective eventually left the Chicago sex crimes unit in preference for dealing with violent crimes, a position that she finds far more equitably managed than was her experience in the sex crimes unit.

The case in question was taken to the prosecutor’s office in Chicago. The prosecutor refused to file charges to follow through with it against the father. He discredited the child’s testimony, including a statement that involved documentation of the father hitting the child as a naked baby held upside down by her legs with a ruler, as depicted in a photo. The prosecutor stated that the father had a right to impose discipline on the child.

The disclosures of the child have been consistent and have followed every time that the child had been contact not only with the father but with the father’s mother, who was the supervisor. Just as the child was fearful of her father, she was even more fearful of the father’s mother, whom the child disclosed had also inflicted injury on her by cutting her with a knife.

At least 15 disclosures of a consistent and clear nature were verbally particularly communicated by the child, who could not help but speak because of her continued state of trauma.

Jill Jones Soderman of the FCVFC has consistently reported and filed complaints against court actors, which included Katherine Postillion, the attorney for the father, who has made a recent career out of attacking not only Jill Jones Soderman in court, but also the mother of the child. Katherine Postillion has been providing testimony on behalf of her client advocating for him by fabricated, false reporting against the mother, invoking extraordinarily toxic dangerous diagnoses of the mother that do not even being to apply to her. Katherine Postillion’s aggressive attacks on all parties associated with the defense and protection of the child are extraordinary, especially as compared to the usual lack of defense for protection of children.

In this case we applaud the efforts of the attorney for the child and her mother, who has had to traverse dramatic efforts to continually counter proper procedures related to forensic evaluation of the case. Each and every court actor appointed to analyze and review the case has strategically omitted critical information detailing eye witness accounts and affidavits in which witnesses of acts of domestic violence by the father against the child’s mother have been clearly documented by independent observers who had no stake in the case. They came forward because of the highly disturbing actions in the case, which included the highly sexualized interaction between the child’s abuser and his own mother, whose hostile interactions with her daughter-in-law and her grandchild have been features of this case from the onset.

Further, Kerry Smith, the psychological evaluator of the case, provided not only a grossly superficial and inaccurate reporting of an evaluation, but also omitted from the report critical material that was in her possession. We know this because in her sloppiness in failing to even review the material she forwarded, as part of the review material backing up her case, affidavits and statements of critical witnesses to abuse and those who made accusations of physical and sexual abuse that occurred in the presence of onlookers. She neglected to exclude this material from the pack of material she used to support her report. Also, she refused to include a copy when demanded for court review. She failed to provide her file in the course of court proceedings, and to date has not included that file. Yet she is included as a court witness by Katherine Postillion, the attorney for the father.

The glaring presence and alliance of the court-appointed guardian ad litem has also been astoundingly controversial, because just as the GAL has avoided a review of reports and material on the case documenting child sexual abuse, and failing to view critical video and police reports, which had led to the arrest of the accused abuser, the GAL’s attack on the child in court proceedings examining the child’s therapist have been extraordinarily alarming because of their inappropriateness and their clear lack of understanding with regard to the interviewing of children who have experienced acute trauma—and not just children, but toddler babies who have been exposed to acute trauma.

Several judges have recused themselves from the proceedings around establishing protections for the child. This would include precluding the father from any visitation or contact with the child, as it has been clear that supervised visitation has allowed breeches of his physical contact with the child, as well as his verbal engagement with her in which he is sexually provocative and inappropriate, as has been fully documented in many forms that have been repeatedly reported to the court and filed as complaints against all parties in the case who have failed to protect the child.

Most recently we have seen Judge Arce, who had no familiarity with the case but who was assigned to force the case into conformity to move forward with a trial that never should have been allowed to proceed because of the clear need to preclude the father from contact with the child, as is so clearly documented as causing the child continued pain and suffering with each interaction. Judge Arce delivered a devastating coup de grace to the case by appointing a psychological evaluator to interview the child and her mother, a Dr Jaffe, who is entirely unqualified to even begin to be considered as a candidate for having any association with a child abuse case. As a Psy.D., Jaffe has training and expertise in drug addiction and no listed qualifications in any areas of work related to child sexual abuse. His inadequacy to the task did not stop him from forwarding a contract of engagement to the protective parent in the case, securing his engagement and payment for fees.

Thus an entirely unqualified individual was imposed by a judge who has no familiarity with the case and has as per his court appearance on July 21, 2022, made it clear that his ignorance would be no barrier to making critical decisions that would clearly guide the outcome of the case. Judge Arce’s hostile presence in the court included his rude and dismissive aggressive commentary toward the child’s attorney and his deference toward all parties who were detractors of defense for the child. These were glaring features of his performance on July 21st as per transcripts in our possession.

The Foundation will be reporting graphically, aggressively, and in great detail on every single case before us that involves the judicial malfeasance and legal incompetence that is clearly orchestrated in the service of undermining the protection of vulnerable protective parents and children, including to the relevant FBI offices.  We are developing our cases for aggressive damages litigation against all parties associated with crimes against children.

Prior cases have included Judge Grossman of Connecticut, who has a history of persecuting and endangering vulnerable children and protective parents, along with Judge Gallina Mecca of New Jersey. In both cases, we have palpable evidence of their engagement in acts of creating child pornography and child trafficking through an organization called the barbershops. Both of these judges we have described as engaging in collusion with police who have been called in to interview children who are subjects of crimes and to escort these children to the appropriate forensic psychological centers. In each of these cases we have documented the obstruction of the children’s ability to reach proper forensic psychological intervention and have seen these judges weaponize court-appointed minions in order to discredit the protective parent and isolate children in the hands of their abusers.

Cases addressed on the website of the FCVFC under the Rogue’s Gallery of judges are not limited to these two judges, whose heinous acts of abuse continue with unbridled destructive force because protective parents have been intimidated and threatened from moving ahead with the action needed against these individuals. In the case of Judge Grossman, her removal of the license of an attorney who advocated for her client before Judge Grossman had a dramatically chilling effect on the willingness of already reticent attorneys to defend their clients in court situations. The brutal attack by Judge Grossman and Judge Axlerod on attorney Nickola Cunha is being litigated in the Connecticut courts with particular interest in denial of due process under the 14th amendment, executed and implemented by Judge Grossman and Judge Axlerod’s cohorts in the well-placed Connecticut judiciary.




Get Help Today

Contact Form Demo

Related Posts

Skip to content