In the course of our careers there have been numerous forms of pushback against reporting and clearly placing on notice authorities that they will be held accountable for the safety and welfare of the child victims and protective parents about which we are reporting.
Recently, a formidable famous psychiatrist reported terrible crimes against children. She was then called upon by the head of the licensing board in the state where the crime had been committed, to provide a written evaluation and statement of her findings that indicated immediate life threatening circumstances and trauma damages that would extend through the life of the child and the family seeking to protect him.
The head of the licensing board noted that there was an “internal referral” which resulted after a “screening panel” reviewed a complaint against a professional. The professional was labeled as a fraud, as a danger to the public interest as well as to the child and family for whom this individual submitted a report. The report submitted supplanted all medical and scientific knowledge of child development and responses to physical, sexual, and emotional assault deemed to have life threatening consequences to the child victim.
The reporter provided a thorough and detailed account, not only of the circumstances and documentation of the circumstances, but also of the narrative that supported her conclusions that were based on training, experience as well as medical and scientific research.
The statement of the expert was concluded with stating that this child should never have further exposure to this parent again and that criminal prosecution was required, given the dangerousness of the individual being precluded from contact but also for the potential for this individual to be a danger to other children in society at large. The state licensed untrained reporter had no expertise to exonerate the abuser, much less to deny the presence of acute abuse that was documented and substantiated by medical and psychological providers
Also noted was that reports to criminal authorities were being pursued independent of the court. The observation was made that the court’s interference was jeopardizing this child’s life and well being.
In the current case, the division of legal services and compliance for the state was directed by the court to issue a complaint against an independent highly qualified professional in order to attempt to threaten and intimidate the professional who was seeking to inform the court of the venal abuse taking place to a young child.
In response to her complaint, the division of legal services and compliance was notified that an out-of-state provider had offered an unwanted opinion on a case in which the court was inadvisably planning on moving rapidly towards sequestering a child in the custody of a documented abuser. The was credibly being reported to all authorities dealing with physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of children for criminal prosecution. The reports were accepted by the FBI and documentation to that agency has been ongoing.
The court’s response to the unwelcome advice and direction of the expert was to refer this expert to the division of legal services and compliance, the providers of information services to credentialing boards. The suggestion was that there would be a complaint of misconduct to her licensing board.
The complaint stated, “The department has requested that you provide a response to the complaint against you. Please provide a response to the allegation that . . . you performed an assessment and examination of a patient in [a state other than the one in which you are licensed].”
The provider of the unwelcome unauthoritative statement provided by the expert in response to the admonition and complaint of the internal investigation by the licensing board was responded to as follows:
Dear [Division of Legal Service and Compliance, Advisor to Credential Boards],
I am very pleased to hear that my complaint is being investigated! I urge you to investigate the case in detail and not only superficially.
My own involvement is simple: I was not treating any patients but was brought in as a forensic consultant, as I have been all around the country for the last 25 years. In this particular case, I was brought in as part of the Forensic Team for the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts, because of my expertise on violence and on dangerous personality disorders. Heading the Forensic Team is Dr. Michael H. Stone of Columbia University, who is perhaps one of the top experts of the world in this area. In this particular situation, there was a child rape victim acutely endangered, whose victimization was being actively covered up.
In addition to my being a national forensic expert consultant for the courts, in which case licensing in only one state is required (“equivalent”), there was an emergency clause that is built into the Declaration of Geneva, the AMA code, and [state] law itself:
Med 24.01 Authority and scope. The rules in this chapter are adopted by the medical examining board pursuant to the authority delegated by ss. 15.08 (5), 227.11, and 448.40, Stats., and govern the standards of the practice of medicine using telemedicine. The rules in this chapter may not be construed to prohibit any of the following:
(4) Treating a patient with an emergency medical condition. In this subsection, “emergency medical condition” means a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity that the absence of immediate medical attention will result in serious jeopardy to patient health, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of a body organ or part. s. Med 8.07.
History: CR 15?087: cr. Register May 2017 No. 737, eff. 6?1?17.
The endangerment of children in the context of family court practices of granting child abusers custody of their victims is a now well-known global crisis, on which I am personally working with [person in position of note at the United Nations]. [Article linked here.]
I recently gave a testimony to the [state] Senate on the risk of child deaths. [Government website linked here.]
My testimony as an expert has been repeated in [state], and soon to be with [state] and [state]. [Evidence of expert witness given here.]
I attach a copy of my recent testimony as well as my curriculum vitae and Dr. Michael Stone’s curriculum vitae, for your reference. I would be happy to provide any additional material, a phone discussion, or any of the evidence that has alerted me to the dangers in this case. I greatly look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you for your kind concern, attention, and time.
[name, articles with identifying information, and state names removed]
The licensing board stated the request for information was followed with the notice that they encouraged submission of all materials electronically. They encouraged cooperation in a timely manner, along with the threat that adverse consequences could proceed which includes discipline using statutes and/or administrative provisions.
The state licensing board also noted that they could make a decision based on negative information currently in their possession and that would include complaint files noted against the complainant. They advised that the complaint issued would be reviewed by a screening panel composed of members of the board and an attorney and that they would determine whether it would be formally opened for investigation.
This complaint initiated by the court to the department of safety and provincial services and legal compliance was notified that any adverse action taken against this individual’s license would be responded to by a complaint and all necessary action would be taken to hold them accountable to the detriment they caused to the child’s welfare.
Referral to the FBI has been made against the perpetrator who has been known to engage in creating pornography to be disseminated using photographs of the child’s genitalia. The FBI has an active ongoing investigation in multiple states both into the nature of the complaints against the abuser as well as to the judge and all associates empowered by the judge under an order of immunity.
Federal complaints in cases such as this undertaken by the FCVFC on behalf of child victims and protective parents are routinely litigated and sent for appropriate criminal prosecution by the FCVFC. Judges and the pretenders to competence and professionalism and pretenders to professional practice are in the process of being sued in federal court for acting outside of their professional engagement as court actors and are being sued in their personal capacity for child endangerment and interference with the duty of a mandated reporter to report child endangerment as well as threats and intimidation initiated by these individuals under federal criminal complaint 18 USC1512.
In years past, Dr. Michael Stone, MD, flew to Chicago to personally examine under armed guard an “alleged” perpetrator of heinous physical and sexual abuse of an infant/toddler. The father/abuser was enabled by the courts and criminal authorities to continue to physically and sexually abuse his child because the district attorney in Chicago stated on the record that beating an infant with a paddle was covered under the precept that a parent was entitled to impose discipline on his child. The child in question was held upside down by her legs, her diaper pulled off, and the videotape disclosed the father beating the child with a wooden paddle. This evidence was shown to the judge, who attempted to continue to enforce contact between the child and her paternal abuser and brutal domestic abuser of her mother.
When Dr. Stone appeared in court to testify on behalf of the child and family, the judge demanded case management that was entirely unacceptable to any expert of conscience. The exchange that took place between the judge and Dr. Stone, an internationally celebrated forensic expert, included Dr. Stone’s statement to the judge that he would not participate in any court proceeding as unethical as prescribed by this individual. The reply of the judge was that Dr. Stone clearly did not know how to behave in court.
As litigation continued and as this judge was then recused from the case, justice did prevail and the child was protected from any further contact with the abuser father. Abuse began as an infant and was facilitated by one unethical, cruel, psychopathic jurist and predator panel of appointed criminals after another. From birth through age five this baby/toddler suffered at the hands of a brutal, cruel diagnosed sadistic psychopath. Years of intense agonizing litigation that imposed limits that were constantly protested by the legal team somehow afforded by the father whose employment was as a truck driver for Amazon.
The child and family, clients of the FCVFC were entirely dedicated and worked tirelessly with the legal, forensic and therapeutic teams that constitute the FCVFC. The child herself was an integral part of the work and sustained strength from her understanding of our work together and her family’s endless, tireless commitment and support. The idea that children are empty vessels ignorant and directed by those around them is an ignorant, arrogant piece of sophistry, fully disproved by each child client with whom we work and whose life and suffering are mitigated by their contributions to the work that rescues them.
The legal process is a conversation over time, a debate with many rounds, resulting in the presentation of settled law and unique interpretations of that law which then results in the knockout punch. The quest for justice is neither quick nor easy. It ultimately requires the capacity to sustain focus, discipline, and intellectual acuity that delivers the abundance of evidence leading to a just adjudication.
The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts and its uniquely talented, dedicated collaborators are dedicated to the long game as to the pursuit of justice and protection of children and all who love them.
