Protective Parents Intimidated in the Course of Family Court Litigation: Blinded to Available Defenses in the Course of Litigation

The experts of the FCVFC are advocating, litigating, and seeking prosecution for the due process rights of protective parents seeking to safeguard their children from multiple forms of harm that may be part of the motivations for seeking divorce.

Family courts across the US are afforded the liberty of judicial discretion, originally viewed as a mechanism to assist judges in affording the greatest degree of sensitivity to confidential  matters that occur in the unique area of family law.

With the introduction of the Richard Gardner, MD, concept of parental alienation in the early 1970s, the integration of a legal maneuver that allowed criminal acts of incest and child sexual abuse to be disputed under denial of deniability has changed the landscape of family law by providing judges with the ability to disregard, discredit, and abuse the necessary engagement of the examination of evidence that would have been demanded in a criminal court.  Because of the flexibility permitted in family court with the use of discretion the entire process of evaluating critical elements of parental competence has been compromised, manipulated, and maneuvered into gateways to child trafficking, criminal racketeering, and exploitation of children for financial exploitation. (See the article “Richard Gardner in His Own Words.”  See also the article “Parents & Progeny As Payloads For The Unholy Alliance Of Adoption Services and Federal Funding Under Title IV and Betrayal of Best Interest of Children.”)

These issues which redefine  the roles of protective parent and abuser parent have entirely altered the landscape of custody litigation.

Cases involving the actions of family court judges acting against the best interest of children under color of law implemented by abuse of judicial discretion have in fact used the power and authority of the bench to implement charges of contempt, imprisonment, and awarding legal fees and unconscionable amounts of child support to benefit abusers of children ,

The power of the threats of contempt, custody transfer, and levying of unconscionable fees has had a chilling effect on the public.

Attorneys who warn their clients not to raise the specter of abuse charges and not to anger the judge act as if the right to present claims, to present evidence, and to have that evidence fairly adjudicated is not part of the normal legal process and right of litigants to present evidence to advance claims. The bias imposed by such attorneys thoroughly creates a chilling effect on  implementation of the due process of client’s rights.

As a result of our experience with the inadequacy and ineptitude of attorney representation in family courts, litigants are placed in a position of having to attempt to negotiate their rights with their attorneys and agree to the violation of due process and abandonment of the protection of their children. The only alternative left to many parents who are willing and able to confront the challenges facing a judiciary system that is emboldened by their ability to misuse the process is the ability to confront the system, confront the inequity of the system via taking their own cases as pro se litigants. The process of being a pro se litigant must be taken on with great care and with the assistance of proper legal authority.

*Bar associations promote practices that undermine the protection of children, such as “reunification therapy,” (insert article on Bar Asc, promoting Reunification Therapy ). So called “reunification therapy”  is a spawn of the unscientific predatory practice promoted by the Gardner theories of parental alienation that  has created a cottage industry that promotes a theory that however deranged, disturbed, and criminally dangerous a biological parent may be, the child must be forced into a relationship with that parent and it is deemed that it is necessary for their development to come to terms with that parent.

In spite of the effect of this damaging, irrational, anti-scientific, counter to psychiatric understanding of child development and irreparable harm to children, these practices are being forced upon the public despite wide ranging criticism by the medical and psychiatric communities.

The perverse, perverted, and irrational concepts of Richard Gardner have been promoted to undermine family and criminal law by introducing deniability which would in fact be undermined by proper medical and psychiatric and analytic intervention of testimony that accurately portrayed the developmental consequences and harm done to children by the abuse inflicted upon children by exposure to an abusive parent and especially an abusive parent who is sanctioned by and canonized by the court through court order. Court orders have empowered state licensing boards to discredit the reports of Mandated Reporters by seeking to attack independent reporters of abuse on frivolous terms which distract from the issues of heinous abuse reported.. The FCVFC is reporting on incidents in which Mandated reporters have filed complaints with all relevant agencies related to child rape and then experienced attacks on their licenses. Attacks on the critical reporting by Mandated Reporters is being responded to by the FCVFC with all necessary legal intervention and reporting to political and criminal authorities on the attempt to silence independent  whistleblowers .

The many tenets of the illegal and unconstitutional premises of this practice that has gained traction in the family court over the past more than 50 years is now being taken up through cases being presented to the supreme court of the US under a writ of certiorari.

The cases being presented related to court orders forcing children to be placed in a form of intervention that has ben been identified as forms of torture of children and coercion against parental protection of children by the United Nations.

The experts of the FCVFC will not even begin to countenance any suggestion that a parent should place a child into so-called reunification therapy.

Clients who seek our services are told of our position that any practitioners promoting this form of child abuse and endangerment are reported to licensing boards, sued for malpractice and referred for criminal investigation as practitioners engaging in child trafficking.

History

The original cohorts involved psychological professionals such as Richard Warshak, author of Divorce Poison, professionals who studied children and families and who shaped their interventions to coalesce their understanding of the most feared motivational tactics, feared actions which would thoroughly threaten and immobilize vulnerable children and loving parents faced with being forced to submit to such tactics as parental separation, the separation of a beloved parent from a child who is rejecting of a parent abuser.

The deprivation of the loved parent meant a process of behavioral modification which was to force the child and the protective parent into accepting abuse in exchange for allowing contact with the abuser parent.

This unacceptable, unconscionable deal with the devil produces no winners and no positive outcome.

The abuser exacts painstaking control in the face of punishment for opposition that should be considered a healthy and appropriate act of self-preservation.

The coercion by medical and psychiatric authorities to act in ways that are acutely detrimental to the health and welfare of children has been embraced by the legal community and that portion of the community of soft sciences that are willing to trade ethical standards of practice for their positions as hired guns in receipt of huge amounts of financial remuneration for knowingly false testimony that transfers children into the custody of abusers whose credible diagnoses include such serious medical and psychiatric designations as pseudo psycho schizophrenia and personality disorders along with other serious disorders.

The capacity of courts to entice experts to violate their fiduciary responsibilities and ethical standards of practice to protect their children and adult patients not only under color of law but also under color of confidentiality as seen in the capacity of the courts to seal records and enact gag orders.

The capacity of the court to exclude subjects of reports that, if exposed to the light of critical review, would be shown to be fictional representations of false narratives meant to impugn the character and psychiatric health of a parent bringing charges of abuse of a child.

If that accuser had not been a parent but a neighbor or acquaintance or a stranger and was accused of the crimes brought into court the accused subject would have been immediately charged, jailed, and only potentially released on a significant bond.

The capacity of lawyers in family court to pervert and suppress evidence in courts that tend to veer away from a discovery process allows for the multiple forms of abuse via the course of due process.

A case in point is that of a case litigated in a CT family court in which a parent was accused of brutal heinous crimes against two young children over an extended period of time.

The mother of the children was falsely accused of Munchausen by Proxy, and the father who was physically and sexually acutely abusive to the children was awarded full custody with the children being awarded to the exclusive control of the father as soon as the diagnosis was produced, without that diagnosis being countered by proper authority. After years of isolation and separation from the children’s protective parent, the two young girls, early in their adolescence, having experienced years of physical abuse and sexual humiliation, exploded with threats that if they were not rescued from this situation that they would commit suicide.

When the case was brought to court with the support of the local police department, the attorney for the children submitted by sleight of hand a protective order originally created as a signed handwritten document by each child relating in great detail the experiences to which they had suffered over the years of threats, intimidation, humiliation, being fed rotten food, being poorly clothed in a wealthy community, starvation, deprivation of medical care and products necessary for hygiene and personal grooming. The protective order signed by the children in the presence of their lawyer was not the protective order that was submitted to the court. The attorney altered the order that was written by the two girls and instead substituted a typed document that he had a family member sign just prior to submitting the form to the judge for testimony that was scheduled for that morning. The elderly family member who had not seen the children in 8 years was not aware that he had just signed a form attesting to abuse that he could never substantiate. The children were not allowed to testify by the judge, though they were fully capable of doing so. They were over the age of 13, highly intelligent, and highly motivated to testify on their own behalf, having taken brave steps to disengage from their father in order  to get themselves to court.

The judge’s statement in the beginning of the case was that she would not allow any children to testify in her court. Because neither the children nor any other witness was allowed to testify to verify that it was the children who had written and detailed the abuse the relative who unwittingly signed the protective order under the direction of the attorney retained and hired by the family to represent the children in this case was completely unaware of what he had signed and under cross examination freely admitted to the fact that had no knowledge of the crimes that he’d just attested to via the forms he had never read. He never read the form because it was submitted to him just before the proceeding and he was told to sign it so he did. The elderly individual who signed the form was severely hearing and visually disabled because of military injuries from World War II. The attorney was fully conscious of his criminal actions undermining the substantial medical and psychiatric evidence that would have and could have been submitted on behalf of the protective parent and the children, but because the protective order was discredited because of his actions, the complaint was dismissed and the children were immediately returned to the custody of the father. The emotional upheaval on the part of the children as they learned of this decree of the court caused them to have to be psychiatrically hospitalized for a time before they were forced back into the custody of the father. The actions of the judge not allowing the children to testify on their own behalf was a critical factor undermining the protection of the children. (It is important to note that the intervention of the FCVFC did not end with this finding and the case continued to a positive result following the immediate catastrophe related to the denial of custody transfer).

The considerable extensive experience of the experts of the FCVFC has led to our understanding of the practices that undermine the presentation of evidence that in fact frees children from their persecutors and abusers. Our extensive study of the litigation processes that are involved in litigating and prosecuting our family court cases has allowed us to become exceptionally and uniquely qualified in the development of protocols that in fact allow us to persevere in the litigation and prosecution of these cases in order to seek justice for our clients.

In accord with our work, we not only seek a path to litigation and prosecution, but we also seek a path to recovering damages for our clients to punish and make clear that the offenses of professionals who consciously and wantonly take advantage of a naive captive audience is unacceptable. These practices must be removed from existence in family court practice.

We cannot emphasize enough how polluted the atmosphere of family court litigation has become as a result of the presence of not only thoroughly incompetent and unqualified but also character disordered licensed professionals who populate the register of court appointed approved professionals. As one lies and the other swears to it, the lies are supported and propagated by the licensing boards who are the hatcheries for an incestuous breeding ground  for those group of professionals who collude with officers of the court to consummate  wrongful custody orders that implement immense trauma and lasting harm to children and all who love them.

Licensing boards across the country have formed an unholy alliance promulgating the practices of entirely uneducated, incompetent, ill trained licensed mental health counselors who are foisted onto an unsuspecting public. These so called licensed professionals are afforded credibility by court authorities whose only interest is in the rubber stamping of custody transfer motivated by the flow of federal funds to the states via back bench ex parte communications between judges and lawyers undermining the best interests of children and the rights of protective parents to care for their children from the incursions of vial abuse. The evidence of these statements are documented in the Discovery process that is the support for moving ahead with damages cases that illuminate the breadth, depth and scope of the corruption associated with every single case the FCVFC seeks to prosecute and expose to the cleansing illumination of sunlight.

The threat no only to the children and the immediate family is only a modicum of the danger posed to the larger society by undermining the competence of children who grow into adults who are dismantled emotionally, physically, and psychologically and who may carry out the legacy not of the people they were meant to be but the duplicates of the deranged abusers who stamped their indelible imprint on their character and personality.

Numerous articles have been published through the website detailing the bad acts of licensing boards such as MD, AZ, NJ, and CT, whose states have infamous judges characterized as family annihilators and are known to have ruined the lives of countless children. In lock step with chosen popularized so called experts who are willing to carry out the prefixe assessment where the abuser is ordained as the protective parent and the protective parent undergoes the character assassination impugned by the false allegations of parental alienation and abuse bad actors come together to advance personal, short term interests that over time destroy Democratic society,. Many of these stories are published in the annals of the articles written at fcvfc.org.

The cottage industry developed over more than 50 years now solidly in place has become an assembly line process both for transfer of children from the protective parent to the abuser but also a minting ground for money in the labyrinth of the federal transfer of funds to the states via the department of revenue, the transfer of children from the subject of protection to subjects of legal tender in the form of funds transferred.

The powers of the court to enforce punitive court orders implementing financial punishment and jailing have created a chilling environment which has not adequately experienced the antidote reversing these illegal detrimental acts via the appeal process and the ability to file federal complaints and federal civil rights actions.

Among the issues that militate against the ability of parents to protect themselves is the extraordinary cost of legal services and, even given the cost of legal services, the public is not familiar with the skills required by those who write legal defenses that require scholarly expertise. Therefore the inability to judge who is qualified  and who isn’t is a tremendous impediment of the success of such a necessary outcome.

It is critical for well-meaning parents seeking justice and protection for themselves and their children to know that the expectation of engaging in a democratic constitutionally protected legal process as would be expected in an American family court under rationally understood to be governed by the Constitution of the United States that this logical and reasonable expectation has not existed in fact for the past 50 years

. A fair and reasonable court process no longer exists. While this may be a process that is difficult to conceptualize, the incapacity to come to terms with the current day disturbing reality presents a danger to one’s ability to function and protect themselves in the arena that one must currently engage in. The Foundation for Child Victims is experienced in assisting families to understand the new rules of the road and to navigate the highway of insecurity, ongoing discomfort, and dangerousness that one must negotiate to achieve ultimate fair resolution of custody and protection of children. The goal of the FCVFC is to make the litigation process under unimaginably difficult, painful, stressful circumstances not only manageable, but successful!

 

 

Share This: