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

Dumbing Down Of Expertise To Expedite Cruelty And Irresponsible Child Custody Transfer

The team of renowned legal and Psychiatric Forensic experts who are engaged by the mother of the murdered father have expressed dismay that she has been fraudulently excluded from a position of custody of the child  subject of the custody/ guardianship litigation in the case before us.

The Forensic team of the FCVFC is placing the court in this case and all associated parties on notice that the report submitted by the so-called experts assigned by this court presents a challenge to the consciousness and fiduciary responsibility, much less basic reality testing of all parties responsible for having appointed and approved entirely unqualified, incompetent, characterologically challenged individuals to offer opinions as experts.

The report submitted by Jan Falk and Tim Brannan will be the subject of complaint to all oversight licensing review bodies governing all officers of the court associated with the choice of this agency as well as those approving the report provided to the court as a significant influence in the choice of the guardian for a child whose father was brutally murdered while the child was in proximity to the utterly heinous crime. The guardian for the seven year old boy as affirmed is the maternal grandmother who is an individual who is credibly alleged to have conspired in the murder of the child’s father and the abuse of the child now in her custody. Further, the appointed guardian is married to and lives with an individual who was convicted of vehicular homicide and is documented as having multiple DUI criminal convictions among other issues of documented critical concern.

The contents of the report submitted by Jan Falk and Tim Brannan will be the subject of a detailed line by line critique dealing with such critical diagnostic issues not addressed by the writers such as the suspected Munchausen by Proxy diagnosis of the mother/murderer. The threat of exposure of the medical abuse of the child by the mother has been raised within the context of custody litigation and is suspected of having been the predicate cause of the murder as she expected and feared that she was about to lose custody of the child to her husband.

Family Resolution Of The Cascades office appears to be the name of the practice shared by social workers Falk and Brannan. The organization appears to be the sham office front for practitioners who have no formal expert practice but as per their advertising appear to engage in virtual consultations or some form of mediation. The court appointment by Judge Vitolins excessively dumbed down the requirements/credentials normally minimally ordered for court providers to a level that is inexplicable.

The report submitted by Jan Falk and Tim Brannan BCSW, MPA obfuscated facts, made statements that involved unsupported, unsubstantiated value judgments and frankly lied about broad swaths of history and personal information of the parties not favored. The report actively defamed the paternal grandmother and deleted or colored material related to the favored maternal grandmother, thus, in fact clearly the report sought to direct the verdict related to guardianship assignment. The report  submitted violates all standards of professional rigor, much less HIPAA privacy directives.

HIPAA violations are Federal violations and will be filed as Federal complaints with the agency who will receive copies of the detailed, line by line complaint/critique of this outrageously ignorant, biased, fraudulent report. The report submitted as an “expert” document is absent the Vita credentials of the writers or any form of substantiation of their expertise or qualification to submit a report of this magnitude and consequence. The report was submitted with unconscionable arrogance and disregard for the privacy, dignity and fundamental rights of all parties whose lives and futures are the subjects of civil and criminal litigation about to be pursued by the FCVFC on behalf of the maternal grandmother and Advocacy for the subject child victim, who exists in what we suspect to be a Stockholm Syndrome existence in the custody of the family members suspected of being complicit with and facilitating the savage murder of the child’s father.

This report must be stricken from the record, and investigations reevaluating custody/guardianship must be addressed immediately. In this regard we refer the court and all parties to the relevant Motions submitted and to the list of complaints and planned legal actions in process holding those accountable for fraud, malfeasance, malpractice and damages to all defamed, vulnerable parties.

We will be forwarding the credentials of those Experts / Professionals who will be involved in reviewing this case and who will want to be appointed to provide testimony to this court as soon as possible.

We are immediately requesting that the evaluation performed by Jan Falk , LCSW, be dismissed on the grounds that the evaluation is appallingly biased on its face, superficial in its content, and fails to take into consideration facts that are directly related to the immediate causes of the murder of the child’s father.

This court has been maintained in a state of ignorance. The facts of this case that are intimately related to the motivation of the murder and what I am asserting to be life threatening pathology indicate an understanding of the dynamics of the behavior of the mother that must be viewed in the context of the murder of the father.

She made the child a subject of medical intellectual curiosity by confabulating symptoms and medical disorders that the child never exhibited and never existed. The medical symptoms were so esoteric and anomalous that they presented a medical curiosity that piqued the interest of medical teams. Had they been allowed to continue, they would have subjected the child to extensive and invasive medical interventions. The mother’s unproven allegations and fabricated assertions around the child’s supposed symptoms were alleged to stem from undiagnosed medical conditions and from an alleged uninvestigated and baseless sexual attack by the father.

The most difficult form of horrendous harm to children is sexual assault, and yet this parent was able to suggest to multiple people within the court system that the father has sexually abused the child and had the court take action against him without any of the normal demands for evidence that are generally ignored by the courts. Not only do we have these assertions by the mother, but we have no validation as per the normal vagaries of the court that usually convince the court.

What we normally see is that when a parent makes a statement of sexual abuse, the parent is branded a liar and the child is transferred to the parent who was accused, and parental alienation is asserted. It is of great interest that the normal rules of the game that the Foundation asserts all the time, worked to the benefit of the mother in this case. The very serious allegations that this mother was claiming have no basis to the function of the child.

The mother makes multiple claims that have no foundation and do not exist, just to the physical activity of the child, as well as making assertions of sexual abuse where there are not behavioral or psychological manifestations of such, other than described by the mother. The mother is the only source of the information and lives in total isolation with her mother and family with months of no contact.

We are also asserting that the statements of the child have been coached to an extent that suggests a level of abuse that this suggestion of the mother’s narrative on multiple fronts is in fact the product of extreme punishment, deprivation, as well as reward for cooperation with her that are seen in the pattern of behaviors of children who must accommodate to the extreme pathology of the parent.

This superficial description of a pattern of behavior and the dynamic that exists between mother and child is symptomatic of Munchausen by Proxy, which is a diagnosis that is understood to be the most diabolical pathology of a parent who seeks attention by sympathy by medical authorities because of the dire complex medical condition of the child. The child is the playground for the mother’s exploration of means to gain attention, sympathy, and support, and the child must model the behaviors of whatever medical and psychological pathology the mother dictates. The medical and psychological files substantiate our position and will be the subject of intense analysis. In the meantime this child’s custody must be evaluated and an alternate plan must be submitted.

We have no doubt this child is being primed and groomed in the custody of the grandmother to justify and exonerate the mother for murder. Further I assert that there is extensive evidence in this file that the maternal grandmother was an instigating force of the murder by her daughter of the child’s father.

The acute pathology of the mother that we understand, articulate, and describe to this court in great detail presented life threatening consequences to the child himself. Her absence from his life because of her incarceration for the murder of his father is in fact a new lease on life for the child, and in effect the father gave his life to protect his child. His death must not be in vain, and this court cannot be allowed to live with the shame of their involvement in precipitating the death of this father by their ignorance, irresponsibly, and failure to properly take action to investigate and properly adjudicate this case.

The Foundation will be taking charge of the forensic and psychological assessment of this case based on the full and complete documentation in our custody, and we will be pursuing every legal intervention available to address the egregious acts of fraud, incompetence, and depraved indifference to the welfare of the child, and to the defamation and cruelty evidenced by the maternal grandmother.

The immediate commentary on the report submitted by Jan Falk , LCSW, and Tim Brannan, BCSW, MPA, will be addressed in the following paragraphs with the understanding that this is just the first blush of a critical commentary on the hubris exhibited by individuals who do not begin to possess the competence, training, and credentials required to touch this case.

Accountability will be pursued independently of this court and with this court as necessary, and we hope that bringing light to the darkness of this horrendous tragedy will compel the conscience of this court to take seriously the critique we are advancing and to take remedial action. We are asserting that immediate court proceedings be scheduled to reevaluate every aspect of contact with the child and custody and that proper evaluation of an independent nature be conducted, not provided by this court which has already proven to be biased, unethical, ignorant, and contemptuous, playing fast and loose with the welfare of the child.

A proper detailed report of the evaluation submitted by Jan Falk , LCSW, and that weighed in at the guardianship hearing of this child is so deeply flawed, irresponsible, and unethical that the complaint we are filing with the court will be a part of the extensive complaint and malpractice actions that will be filed against this provider. A summary commentary will be addressed in this brief advisory to the court; however, a fuller analysis will follow.

The disgraceful unethical report submitted to this court constitutes an intimate violation of the paternal grandmother’s character, dignity, and respect for the trials and tribulations of her life that she has powered through and overcome to an extraordinary degree. The paternal grandmother has risen to the occasion of the rescue of a child in extreme danger as a result of the actions of this court and the ill-advised appointments that have been made.

In this initial summary complaint against Family Resolution of the Cascades and Jan Falk, LCSW, and Tim Brannan, BCSW, MPA, with regard to the report written as an order appointing guardianship evaluation pursuant to ORS109.119 section 25 ordered in the circuit court in the county of Jefferson, OR, by Judge Diana Vitolins to conduct a guardianship evaluation regarding mother Paige Van Norstdall, maternal grandmother Melissa Jones, and paternal grandmother.

Both parties signed contracts with FROC acknowledging that the evaluation will not be confidential. Both parties submitted a list of collateral contacts, participated in a personal interview, completed a home visit, and completed a Brooklyn questionnaire. Let me first note that the negligence and abuse of process committed by Judge Vitolins is an egregious act of someplace between incompetence, moral abandonment, and ethical standards of judicial conduct, and absolute violation of the rights of all parties to confidentiality, and secondly to a proper vetting of the critical and profound consequences of this evaluation. It is making recommendations of the permanent custody of the minor child who has been subject to the most tragic and immense trauma that anyone can be subject to  as well as engagement in custody with an individual who has been accused of being a party to the murder committed.

Because of the consequence of actions taken prior to the engagement of the Foundation that has allowed a level of judicial malpractice and civil rights violations that shock the consciousness, I am providing a preliminary report that states the violation of the court and the court actors being named in these processes. The intent of this notice is to place all court actors/officers of the court on notice that their egregious behaviors and abandonment of the code of judicial conduct and respect for Constitutional protections are being pursued and that we have begun the process of complaint and seeking prosecution for violations and damages, which the injured parties will be seeking.

This entire evaluation needs to be stricken and incorporated as an exhibit for damages to be pursued for creating a false and defamatory record as related to the paternal grandmother and omitting critical information with regard to the maternal grandmother and her family that paints a picture that is so biased and so nakedly black and white while omitting critical elements of facts and evidence that would overturn the conclusions submitted by these writers.

The writers Jan Falk and Tim Brannan omit the background and context in which this report is being written so that a report making recommendations for guardianship omits critical facts and fails to reflect the underlying evidence necessary to any form of reasonable guardianship determination, especially in a case as one involving all of the elements of child placement that are relevant to this case. The fact that critical elements of the case necessary to provide a basis for awarding custody/guardianship have been ignored should thoroughly invalidate this report.

The context of the report in question involves the brutal murder of the subject child’s father who had been separated from the child over an extended period of time based on false allegations of sexual abuse. The allegations of sexual abuse that are normally out of hand rejected by courts and action taken is usually in the form of immediate transfer of custody of the subject child into the custody of the person accused of abuse. In this case the accuser was found to be credible by the court without any investigation whatsoever. The complaints of the accuser were deemed adequate to justify the isolation of the child in the custody of the mother whom the father was raising profound concerns about in terms of the medical management of the child.

The medical management of the child involved not only unsubstantiated symptomology which was in fact not present in the child’s functioning and was not substantiated in terms of objective facts, but the elements of the disorder that were being reflected in the nature of the physical disorder suggested an obstruse rarely diagnosed genetic disorder of childhood.

Looking at the physical functioning of the child, the symptomatology suggested would have been automatically precluded, and yet the mother was allowed to take the child to multiple physicians and used the specter of this disorder to withdraw the child from school, from sports, and from relationships with friends and family, other than her own family.

The course of actions leading to the murder of the child’s father suggest that as the child’s mother was becoming closer to having very seriously disturbed psychopathology exposed, it involved exploiting the child for her own emotional gratification in terms of extracting sympathy, attention, and concern by medical professionals.

It is also suggested in the extensive documentation of this case, which includes medical records, that none of this appears to have been credible, which will be to the subject of malpractice complaints against this agency for contributing to the acute endangerment of this child.

Another area of grave concern is to the bias immediately present in this material. The language of the report is objectively biased in the direction of the irresponsible recommendations, grossly inadequately researched background and history of not only the primary parties but the extended family and collaterals. The information provided on key characters is not only superficial; it is fraudulent. There is public information about the maternal grandmother and her family that is extraordinarily alarming and should preclude this child from living in the household with the maternal grandmother and her husband and surrounding family.

When introducing material about the paternal grandmother, the report begins with a litany of bad acts that include bankruptcy, drunken and disorderly behavior, and bad behavior on the part of one of her children. The report begins with an indictment of the character and functioning of the paternal grandmother and then moves forward into a description of what is characterized as a dysfunctional relationship with the paternal grandmother’s partner at that period of time. That which is not noted in this horrendous background, that one is immediately struck by in the reading of this report, is that that paternal grandmother has never murdered anyone, and no member of her family has ever murdered anyone, and she has not been indicated as an instigator of the murder. None of her four children have been accused or imprisoned for murder and are each and every one of them living clean and sober and productive lives in spite of an early history of profound trauma and early deprivation related to their mother’s struggles to emerge from her own early life from birth through adulthood with a struggle against a history of the most soul demolishing physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and deprivation that one could ever begin to imagine.

In a responsible and thorough review of this individual’s life and history, the failure of social institutions to intervene to protect this subject from years and years of venal, brutal physical, sexual, and emotional abuse is a comment on society’s failure to protect children. A detailed history and documentation of this individual’s life and personal emergence in recovery and resurrection of her self and her children is documented both through a proper historical, forensic, and psychological review but also as documented in the book she has authored, which is a testament to the ability of the human spirit for resurrection.

The tragedy of this individual’s life is in real time being compounded by the cruelty, negligence, ignorance and malpractice, and speculated upon in this report by these individuals, who are thoroughly unqualified to make any sort of recommendation. This report proceeds with a quote of the statements made by these evaluators, to provide firsthand evidence of the utter irresponsibility of these reporters to support the immediate need for this report to be stricken from the record for this agency to be excluded from any further ability to jeopardize the critical decision made on behalf of vulnerable subjects.

Following the litany of bad acts presented by Jan Falk and Tim Brannan, the language used throughout the report is reflective of bias positive towards one party and acutely negative towards the other. In addition to making highly charged value statements, the writer makes absurd clinical interview process statements that are patently abusive, such as writing about her one and only visit with the subject child at his aunt’s home. The interviewer did not so much as provide a basis for when the interview started and the fact that this was the first time she had met the child, much less the circumstances as to the background with regard to the context of their meeting. The child is being met with for the first and only time at his aunt’s home, surrounded by maternal relatives with whom he has been residing since the murder of his father. The interview is not recorded by audio or video and is taking place in an environment that lacks any potential for confidentiality, neutrality, or ability for the child to speak freely about what he thinks, feels, or wants. The interviewer describes going into the yard to play football with the child. This is a child who has been described in medical reports as having a rare medical disorder which causes the muscles to not be able to hold joints in place, which would render the person literally unable to walk much less play football.

The interviewer’s lack of familiarity with the medical history, which was a point of considerable contention between the parents, is a significant factor that is completely overlooked, which adds to the quality of irrationality and dysfunction of this report and the ignorance of the reporter: a lack of familiarity with the background of the child’s medical and psychological background, which would give them the credibility to offer any sort of relevant recommendations.

Throughout the report the interviewer used terms like clearly and obviously, yet nothing is clear or obvious, and she and they do not have the requisite knowledge and experience to even being to make statements about what is clear or obvious. They assert statements of fact with regard to the character of the individual who brutally murdered her husband/father of the child or the circumstances of the murder itself, having shot this individual nine times in the head obliterating an upper portion of his body to the point that the only portion of his body that could be exposed to the victim’s mother was one hand.

We are referring this court to the autopsy documents and police reports related to this murder, which is without predicate for any allegations or any responsible or reliable complaints of abuse, domestic violence, or abuse of the child.

Complaints of sexual abuse of the child have been asserted by the mother and the maternal grandmother, yet there was never any investigation of any such claims nor as per reports of numerous friends, family, and school officials ever any suggestion that the relationship between father and son was anything but loving and close.

The interviewer omits the fact that the child is in the sole custody of the maternal grandmother and has been for more than two months and that allegations of abuse via corporal punishment and deprivation have been asserted by the maternal grandmother and mother as a means of forcing the child to make false statements, and the presence of assertions of abuse in the service of coaching the child to make statements against the father have in fact been asserted by other professionals who have seen the child in the course of seeking to lift contact restrictions placed by the court against the father. Those reports by reliable experts are referred to in this document. The presence of these reports specifically omitted by Jan Falk and Tim Brannan further reflect the bias and incompetence of these writers.

The interviewers included defamatory statements against the deceased father as quoted by the maternal grandmother stating that as part of the child’s mother’s complaint to keep the father from his son and his attempts to keep the son safe from the medical intrusion that his mother was inflicting, accusations against the father included that he was rude and controlling, and there was a suggestion that he sexually assaulted his child, all of which was provided with no investigation or evaluation.

The child’s father is characterized as justifiably having been restricted from any contact with the child, along with his mother and his other siblings. The child’s mother, who murdered the father in the presence of the child, subjected the child to returning to and continuing to live in the home environment in which his father was murdered. The immediate impact of such an incontrovertibly depraved insensitive decision to return back to reside in an environment of a brutal murder in itself shocks the senses of any trained or untrained audience.

The fact that the critical elements of the ongoing dynamic to the life history of this child and relevant actors and moving parts are simply omitted is again a testament to the intractable bias and manipulation of material and the manipulation of information imparted to support a transfer of the child to a situation that is most fundamentally counterintuitive and irrational.

The interviewers move from this grossly inappropriate interview with the child and the grandmother to an interview with the mother, who is incarcerated: the murderess, who is in prison at the Jefferson County Detention Center. The interview focuses exclusively on her wish to maintain custody, which in itself seems bizarre that she is from prison able to control the destiny of the child whose father she murdered while he was attempting to rescue his son from the situation that was medically and emotionally of critical danger to him.

The interview is not recorded, so there is no substantiation of the context of the discussion, but simply an expression of the wishes of the custodial parent who just murdered her 28 year old husband.

Just as the interviewers describe the maternal grandmother in glowingly positive terms as to her home, her presence in the interview, her interaction with her grandson, a similar positive evaluation is given to her husband, and once again critical factual material is left out of the report  about the maternal grandmother’s husband described as “an extremely nice guy,” when facts to the contrary indicate severe criminal pathology and character disorder.

The above argument is to be followed up with a report in much greater detail, with supporting documents, to follow an emergency review of this case with the intention of custody reevaluation and transfer needs to be acted upon immediately, as well as restricting a move to Montana, as is the intent of the maternal grandmother.

We are hoping that this court will find this advisory motivation enough reopen this case for reconsideration.

Get Help Today

Contact Form Demo

Related Posts

Skip to content