Family Court Corruption Evaluation, Continued
Children Treated As Chattel And Spoils of War In Family Court Custody Litigation
A young teenage girl, hospitalized as a result of a nearly fatal suicide attempt due to her injection of poison into her veins, is brought back to life only after suffering what will be lifelong catastrophic physical damage after ten months of hospitalization. In the hospital, she revealed to medical staff that her father had been raping her for years, abusing and silencing her under threats that she will be removed from her mother. The hospital, subsequently, revealed the abuse and claims of abuse which were substantiated by medical experts but then
undermined by the so called investigation of unqualified child protection services workers. Further substantiation of the unqualified CPS factotum findings that claims of sexual abuse/rape by the father were “unsubstantiated” and in fact, were caused by the mother’s “coaching,” of the child.
David Finn, Psy.D. was appointed by the family court to evaluate the case, and to assess the child’s claims and custody assignment. A detailed technical critique of Dr. Finn’s report conducted by a qualified PhD psychologist was included in a separate report that discredited Dr. Finn’s work product as an act of fraud and malpractice. The Finn report to the court on behalf of the father’s bid for full and complete custody, included demands for child support. These outcomes from his report were confirmed and affirmed by David Finn, Psy.D. whose credentials and training would not begin to be able to qualify him to make any such assessment as per peer reviewed critique of Finn’s work
product/Finn’s assertion and presentation of the debunked, severely criticized, and rejected assertion of the Richard Gardner, M.D. concept of parental alienation was unanimously embraced by the court that then established the basis for custody transfer.
The concept of parental alienation as espoused by Richard Gardner, M.D. (as detailed in my previous essays on this topic) has been discredited, not the understanding/agreement that toxic parenting of a characterological and or psychiatrically/clinically pathological dynamic does not exist. Such cruel tactics in which one parent seeks to turn children against another parent is a dynamic that is understood in multiple theories of family therapy treatment. The pathological dynamics range from schizophrenogenic process to psychopathic criminal character pathology. Such treatment diagnosis is accompanied by an elaborate description of the terms of diagnosis and the interpersonal dynamic that accompanies such severe/dangerous pathology.
Dr. Finn was repeatedly reported to have fabricated interpersonal interactions and communications in his report. The corrections could not be confronted in real time court process because the “Finn Report” was sequestered and kept secret from the actual subjects of the report. The only members who were able to view the report directly were those who benefited from the “Finn Report.” Having to battle the scurrilous statements and accusations of fabrication via additional expert reports, appeals and further, endless litigation caused the subjects of Dr.
Finn’s fabrications to be confined and suffering under unconscionable conditions of isolation and suffering. Complete isolation of the subject victim in the custody of her father was asserted on the basis that the child was coached, “brainwashed” and “alienated” from her father by her mother. The mother was named as an “abuser,” thus, isolating the child from her father based on a false narrative asserted by the mother in order to gain a false advantage for financial benefit from the father.
The “Finn Report” kept secret from the accused alienator, the mother, provided statements that once the report was wrested from the unconstitutional acts of secrecy, were not only refuted but substantiated by actual qualified experts and medical practitioners, but also were declared as unfounded. The legal process that then had to be pursued to unwind the motions and orders in place governing the custody transfer began a legal process of appeals and litigation that are unconscionable in prolonging the day-to-day agony of a child’s life with their abuser.
Dr. Finn’s presence in the case was not by accident, but was an act of coordinated collusion between the Beerman law firm and court actors whose undisclosed collaboration in public presentations as marketing productions to bar associations promoted the well-orchestrated work of custody to the highest bidder.
Dr. Finn was not randomly chosen from a list of court appointed experts who were vetted for credentials and character. Dr. Finn was chosen through the “insider trading” process related to the connected network processing litigants as part of what the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) has identified and documented in a series of cases related to the Finn fraud of processing children via the manipulation of the debunked theory of parental alienation. The appointment of court experts is the product of the machinations of inside
trading and backbench deals. The understanding of funding benefits that stem from the transfer of children by switching titles/redefining terms from protective parents to abusers, and reclassifying and documenting the categories, opens the network of cash flow from the federal government to state coffers (cf., articles on Title IV(d) and TitleIV(e) – “Hiding In Plain Sight….)
State child support revenue agencies managed and directed by court orders by child support directives create a new order of parenting, court control and management of the family and ultimately, the social order. David Finn Psy.D. and others of his ilk are a part of the deal with the devil that is ground zero for dismantling the social contract based on individual rights, democratic norms, civil rights and the Bill of Rights.
Undermining the socialization process endemic within the family social order is a means to an end of controlling/dismantling/ undermining/crippling an educated, law abiding social order for financial control of the social order undermining a democratic, principled society. The undermining of the family unit, education, civilized acculturation that promotes chaos and violence is a danger to the entire public order.
By allowing the dictates of authoritarian figures driven by a lust for power and greed to undermine the bonds of parenthood and the legacy of family in order to create a master/slave social order via threat and intimidation society becomes unraveled and ungovernable as a consensual negotiated unit.
Parental Alienation As A Scientifically Discredited Theory
The names of well established critics of the Gardner concept of children as sexual predators, liars and initiators of sexual engagement with adults include, but are not limited to, Joan Meir Esq, , Joyanna Silberg Ph.D., Barry Goldstein, Esq., and Toby Kleinman, Esq.
The willingness of established notable intellectuals to act as expert witnesses within the court litigation process provides the illusion of due process, validation of vetting and disposal of a position that now massively profits by the transfer of children from protective parents into the custody of abusers. By altering the positions of abuser and protector parent by the use of “catch words,” such as “alienator, to facilitate cash flow disposition under Title IV(d) and Title IV(e) arguments about theories that have no credibility and should not be raised in the first place become equal arbiters of truth and justice. It is in this regard, the world of science and law are being transformed into a spaghettified universe jettisoned into a black hole of a society that is losing all moral compass because of the systematic, undisclosed flow of federal funds to the states under Title IV(d) and Title IV(e).
Functional consequences unleashed by the adoption and promotion by the legal community of the Gardner concept of parental alienation, include the following:
1. They undermine established findings in medical/scientific disciplines;
2. They introduce the concept of children as willing and able sexual partners;
3. They destroy the credibility of communications by children;
4. They place children at greater risk than ever for sexual exploitation.
Issues of child labor and child sexual trafficking are well known issues of concern, but never before in recorded history has there been documentation of exploitation of young boys being engaged in impregnating adult women. The concept of children as sexual objects have been plausible because of their accessibility and vulnerability to threats and intimidation as well as direct parental access and control.
The injection of children as active, willing, sentient participants in adult sexuality is a component of the dynamic that has inspired a level of overt hostility towards children. The denial of a protective instinct towards children has become overtly prevalent in courts across the U.S.A. where judges have no compunction or reserve in terms of addressing children as liars, manipulators, and active participants in lying about abuse. Worse, there is a palpable disinterest in the harm, suffering and even death visited upon children because of judicial participation/responsibility in custody transfers where children and or their protective parents are murdered. As judges have not been held accountable for decisions that have resulted in acute harm to children or family members (or even death) because of judicial immunity doctrines, the increase in child murders/protective parent murders can clearly be documented as per judicial recalcitrance and beyond.
The equal opportunity environment of fraud and multiple levels of child sexual abuse has brought together a communion of all races, creeds, religion and social classes working together in courts to promote false narratives. In order to wrest vulnerable children from protective parents, to exploit the most favorable financial advantage, child support and division of property has become the vehicle for division of assets, as well as a vehicle for spite and revenge. Accountability for the health, welfare and very existence of children and their
protective parents must be a primary responsibility of all court actors associated with all levels of child protection and custody assignment. For this reason, the documentation of the multiple crimes committed by court appointed psychologist David Finn , Psy.D. must be pursued with all vigor not only to exclude him from all engagement in the current case in which he has already been documented as harming the children and the family unit, but he must be kept from further harm to the vulnerable court community at large.
The teenage girl who reported years of physical, sexual and emotional abuse by her father was placed in the full control and isolation of her father, kept from her mother. The mother has continued to fight for her daughter and her son’s freedom from their accused abuser. The mother’s suffering has been palpable and incalculable as to personal injury imposed by the court as per the “expert” fabricated, improperly designated diagnoses imposed by Finn. What is important is that other thoroughly unqualified, accused as corrupt so called experts such as
Paul Dasher PhD of NJ, associated with the Islam Elkaryoney case, Arizona psychologist Raymond Branton, Ps.Y D, and Connecticut psychologist Eric Frazer (whose credentials do not follow his name ) associated with the Powell case are some of the infamous so-called experts associated with assigning the debunked concept of parental alienation to reports that were used in decision making to remove
vulnerable children from their protectors. Some of these children attempted suicide, threatened to commit suicide – credibly and one of these children threatened and did in fact commit suicide.
Gardner and The Concept of Parental Alienation
(Dr. Finn, et. al. – associated with engagement in and propagation of the Child Trafficking Criminal Enterprise )
Parental Alienation: By definition, parental alienation lacks scientific authentication, and has never been subject to the vetting process that qualifies scientific codification verified by the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition that assesses and defines medical / psychiatric syndromes. The scientific process of defining medical terms is conducted through institutional review boards
associated with psychiatric hospitals and academic institutions. Definitions, symptoms and interventions are a process that involves defining
terms and vetting through a system of interviews to refine and define terms. The process of interviews developed by academic teams that vet internal validity of questionnaires are administered by trained interviewers. Trained interviewers of human subjects involved in structured interviews with documented subjects seeking to validate terms (language accuracy) in order to scientifically describe and define a category of behaviors encompassed into a diagnostic phenomenon that through shared language/terms are pinpointed so that all involved have a common understanding on what is being discussed. Further, the use of vetted instruments managed by protocols approved by
medical and academic institutional committees of medical/psychiatric/ psychological experts involve material collected and evaluated based on thousands of subjects approved by committees that study and monitor all work taking place on human subjects. The defining of terms help to create medical/psychiatric/legal interventions for defined goals The definition of these terms have evolved over years of study, monitoring and refinement by licensed entities. These studies have cost millions of dollars and created research and protocols that have and continue to save millions of lives, pave the groundwork for ongoing study, research, clinical training and medical support/intervention.
“Parental alienation” is understood as a colloquial expression…….”I know it when I see it” – an observable subjective event, fact that requires categorizing and defining. Yet the available content defies clearly defined parameters as it is subject to investigation. The concept of “parental alienation,” a verb, not a noun, is subject to content and investigation not to individual circumscribed prejudice and arbitrary interpretation.
The phrase generated by Gardner “parental alienation” as a description of a dynamic that Gardner shaped to introduce “plausible deniability” that an event ever occurred has become the center of complex controversy. By injecting malevolent motives to the complainant, a shift of the dynamic from concerns about the crime/the victim/the consequences to the victim. The focus on motivation has served to effectively distract participants in the conflict central to most critical motivations for family conflict – physical/sexual violence and abuse – child sexual abuse/neglect and divorce partner interpersonal violence. The motivations for the punitive backlash against accusers of crimes associated with monumental consequences to family legacy, child development and social equity have become kidnapped by interests associated with greed, power distribution/wealth redistribution that seeks to categorize an “observable” phenomenon/dynamic though the
process is inferred, lacks defined parameters and is a dynamic weaponized to create an outcome that is an element of a legal process.
“Parental Alienation” is a marketing campaign slogan created by Richard Gardner, MD’s marketing company “creative analytics’ retained to promote his forensic psychiatric practice dealing with the defense of men accused of crimes related to incest. (Gardner in His Own Words) Gardner’s personal theories of child sexuality derived from the intent to promote his beliefs in white nationalism and the implementation of increasing the birth rate of the white race.
Further Issues That Discredit Gardner Theories of Parental Alienation:
Among the issues that are rarely if ever discussed are those related to Gardner’s own personal physical and emotional pathology that must be considered in conjunction with a seriously deranged, pathological precept. First, it must be noted that Gardner’s own personal anatomical deformity hypospadias – a penile/urethral deformity must be considered in terms of his own relationship to peers as a child, as well as to his own psychosexual / interpersonal development that contributed to his own psychological/character development. Gardener is best known for the concept that created the apology for parental alienation dynamic. Gardner’s articulation of the position that children were born as sexual objects, not only prepared for sexual arousal but seeking to engage adults into sexual contact. The biological baseline motivation posited by Gardner was the instinctual drive to increase the human race . . . for Gardner this meant the white race.
The theories generated by Gardner were not only medically and scientifically incompatible with biological function but also with child psychological/ anatomical development. The reformation of medical and psychological/ psychiatric science language, interpretation of behaviors psychologically permitted the development and evolution of alternative perception and language - designated as "psycho babble". An example of the dynamic of the psychotic language or projected scenarios and interpretative process that has evolved into the nomenclature of technical language is captured in this clinical example of the fantasied thought process of an individual driven by his own narcissism and sexual projections: A man is driving to a destination. He is stopped at a red light. He sees a woman to whom he feels an attraction instantly. He decides that she is flirting with him. He decides to make contact with her.... He follows her in his car......She evades him....He interprets her driving pattern as a seduction... a "cat and mouse maneuver where She is playing "cat and mouse" with him...playing "hard to get." The man's delusional fantasy was interrupted when the woman drove to the police station where a squad of police were waiting at the entrance of the station.
This scenario in a clinical evaluation could be diagnosed in a number of different ways given varying conceptual frameworks that evolve with information into a clinical / medical diagnosis. In the family court world that has become captured by the Gardner concept of children as sexual predators and any and all who raise the specter of abuse as automatically viewed as the same.
Gardner’s predilection to theories of racial prejudice in the form of white nationalism must be taken into account as an influence that is counter to medical/scientific and even humanitarian/ethical interpersonal relationships. His predilection for the rearrangement of historical/scientific/medical facts could have and should have assigned his musings to other discarded meritless concepts that have presented themselves in the course of time; however the concatenation of events, The seeming usefulness of certain depraved, venal, predatory views – that approved the accessibility of children as sexual objects, that originally pitted men against women – though that division melded into the adversarial position of abusers versus protectors. The unearthing of the most depraved, violent, lawless predilections of humanity has been unearthed, propagated and normalized in a society that has become inured to the expected socializing emotions of empathy and guilt.
Though ignored for the usefulness of the process-oriented maneuvers occasioned by the positioning of the theory of parental alienation, this aspect of the Gardner theory must be viewed as a driving force within legal procedural maneuvering adopted by bar association marketing programs on custody litigation. The cut and paste superficial process that rules family law is governed more by judicial discretion than respect for due process and equal access to courts. By all litigating parties this process has propagated direction focusing on personality hearsay while Ignoring fact, evidence, and constitutional law. Gardner was aware that his rank hatred of children (though he wrote many books studying children) and his fundamental disregard and generation of theories would destroy their lives, and we surmise finally caught up with is consciousness of guilt that we suggest ended his life in a brutal suicide. Further, the mantra that children are little sexual predators, advanced by Gardner, along with the view of children as empty vessels/self-serving predatory liars, influenced by the prevailing parental personality, along with parents as competing partners for financial spoils, suggest a dim view of family life as a socializing force, the cradle of democratic society.
Gardner’s dark view of life was far more driven by instinctual satisfaction, a dog eat dog , self-serving, self-justifying, cannibalistic, survival of the fittest, brute force alignment of the like-minded. This evolutionary model provides a representation of the family court system as it exists across the U.S.A. in it’s current iteration. Further, those who have been forced to deal with a system that operates with indifference to family values of a democratic society as well as care and protection of children will immediately recognize the elements of the fraud and corruption to which they have been subject.
Accountability for illegal, illegitimate acts must begin with each case, each court actor involved in undermining the rule of law and the suffering of litigants transformed into victims of the family court. Each miscreant who has played a role in accomplishing family separations must be held accountable and so for the purposes of informing the public naming each bad actor and illuminating their method of operation takes place on a case by case basis.
David Finn, Psy.D. is accused of acting with conscious knowledge of his acts of depraved indifference to life. He was provided a “confidential” platform to deprive citizens of due process and equal access to courts. His pattern of operation in multiple cases, fortified not by competence but by duplicity, collusion and depraved indifference to the consequences of reports where omission and commission of material undermines, distorts places in grave jeopardy the lives of children subject to court oversight of custody decisions.
I Know It When I See It: Not A Part of Scientific Methodology
I know it when I see it should not apply” to legal, medical, psychiatric, psychological, scientific knowledge that is subject to consequential life altering decisions that control child custody dictated by black letter law. Scientific methodology, factual content must be vigilantly protected with each production. Further, threshold standards that apply to production and vetting of evidence is not and should not be subject to peripatetic, subjective, personal discretion. No shorthand standard that relies upon expert testimony not vetted by Daubert motions, Frye motion in limine pre-trial motions to vet and exclude testimony should be relied upon to determine the fate of subject litigants. The extraordinary expense involved in trial practice precludes the types of protections that should be afforded to litigants in vulnerable positions dealing with life altering events under scrutiny in family court proceedings.
The compromises associated with judicial discretion in appointment of experts may, in fact, place litigants in grave danger and therefore the oversight of judicial discretion and vetting/appointment, scrutiny of expert testimony is critical. The ability of the great majority of family court litigants cannot begin to support the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in fees that can be associated with custody litigation nor can any amount of money potentially impact the improper incursions of judicial discretion.
It is for this reason that independent scrutiny and oversight must protect the open court system, the production of recorded court testimony in all court proceedings and conferences; including back bench judicial conferences be implemented. In this regard, the lack of scrutiny and oversight of appointed experts must be countered by the activism of litigants subject to evaluation as well as all participants subject to the court process must be provided input and due process in countering decisions. To this end the factual, verifiable complaints associated with the functioning of court appointed experts such as David Finn, Psy.D are imperative for review.
Part One: The Road To Illegitimate Custody Transfer
The work product of David Finn, Psy.D and professionals retained as “hired guns” must represent the hallmarks of the scientific method dedicated to analytical outcomes that involve a balanced/ unbiased assessment of material that does not involve a black and white/good/bad as well as guilty/not guilty divide that provides one party with full rights and the other party with blame, punishment, and zero assets.
Dr. Finn’s assessments that are the focus of critique involve subject families where severely disrupted parent/child relationships are the object of analysis. Such assessments are not aligned with the precepts of the scientific method. Finn’s engagement of concepts endemic to the Gardner parental alienation model disqualifies an ability to arrive at any objective assessment because a core principle of Gardner’s parental alienation concept automatically denies any assertion of abuse or mistreatment. The assertion of crimes committed regarding abuse and neglect are regarded as illegitimate, manipulative and all parties associated with such assertions are considered liars seeking an unfair advantage. The alignment of automatic oppositional positions with associated arguments are artificial barriers to proper flexible analysis.
The surgical divide that provides a sanitized exoneration of one parent and indicts the other is consistent with the manufactured assembly line production evaluation process provided by the debunked, discredited theories of Richard Gardner. Included in these discredited theories are the cottage industry practices of those who adapt the unscientific practices related to the dynamic associated with the Gardner concept of parental alienation. The instant violation of due process, interference in first amendment rights of speech, thought, association, choice opens up the entire analysis to criticism on the basis of control and limitations that preclude freedom of analysis and communication. The intent of the Gardner process as per mission directed ideology is to eliminate complaints of abuse and, thus, to subjugate the abused victim, to suppress reports of abuse, and to maintain custody of children with the abuser they wish to escape. Further intent of this manipulated dynamic concept is to maintain partners subject to domestic violence captive in the relationship or under extreme punishment for seeking to escape. Further incentive for invoking allegations of estrangement of children under false pretenses from a parent who has been separated, not in contact with a parent for an extended period of time, or if a parent is being threatened with being estranged from a child, involves funding for “reunification programs” via Title IV(d) to aid needy and dependent children through the activation of state agencies. Bills submitted under Titles IV(d) and IV(e) can be reimbursed at a rate of sixty-six percent of cost of the entire bill.
Psychological evaluation relies heavily on the administration of psychological testing objectively scored and interpreted within guidelines of validated interpretation. Such structures leave no room for manipulation of interpretations where the scoring parameters regulate interpretation. Manipulation of scores, erroneous direction provided to test takers can allow for the manipulation of
scores and therefore interpretation of data. Parental alienation concepts are not and have never been scientifically evaluated much less validated. What is scientifically, functionally, analytically, developmentally documented based on the behavioral, functional symptomatology of validated child development and human behavior are the symptoms of abuse that are discredited because of the incentives to adopt the
precepts of parental alienation theory. The empirical, subjective and much repeated statements on the record of judges on the bench supported by statements and reports of so called experts affiliated with promoting the Gardner concept of parental alienation – I do not believe you, I do not care what you have to say and you will have a relationship with your ( father / mother / accused abuser ).
The concepts of coercive control/torture, physical and psychological abuse adopted as part of the cottage industry program of the Gardner precept are created and adopted to incentivize the cash flow of government agencies under Titles IV(d) and IV(e). The programs are generated not on behalf of children and families, not as part of a legal process but part of a grift conceived in back room negotiations between lawyers and program. These programs then generate the factory farming government institutionalization of a child trafficking criminal
enterprise. The so called experts that comprise the division of labor, are no more than a part of the conveyor belt processing servicing that ends with funds transferred on multiple levels.
Grifter Graft: The Nature Of The Work Product That Characterizes Fraudulent Evaluations
David Finn, Psy.D and others of his ilk are part of the factory farming grift. As further demonstration of the illegitimacy of their practices, their lack of technical expertise, professional fiduciary responsibility, a few of the complaints that have described their interaction with clients and the nature of their complaints are presented below.
1. Suppression of Evidence from Complainants Relating Crimes of Child Sexual Abuse Via Confabulation of Diagnoses That Have No Relationship to Evidence of the Diagnoses Posed.
In this first case, a father was accused of sexually abusing his daughter, by his daughter as per the child’s testimony as a sixteen year old teenager. The child’s accusations were made to medical staff following an acutely serious suicide attempt that nearly took her life.
Dr. Finn was court appointed by the father’s attorney to complete a custody evaluation of the family. The psychiatrically incomprehensible, factually-unfounded, confabulated elaborate diagnosis of Munchausen by proxy consisted of a word salad of nonsensical, incomprehensible, medically non-existent statements. There was allegedly evidence that inferred Dr. Finn falsified and suppressed psychological testing scores and engaged in misinformation in providing testing instructions for psychological testing.
Further malpractice complaints included a variety of HIPAA violations involving the disclosure of confidential information about subjects without their consent, withholding review of reports from the subjects, as well as reports and sharing confidential information with unauthorized subjects. Further ethical complaints included failure to disclose business relationships/conflicting with the unbiased functioning evaluation and representation of the couple being evaluated.
Added to the list of extremely serious violations, omissions, errors, violations of ethical codes of practice, Dr. Finn misrepresented facts, failed to introduce critical evidence present in documented videos that would have elucidated critical diagnostic dynamics that would have supported the mother’s testimony related to child sexual abuse and interpersonal violence within the family.
Other areas of complaint included providing false testimony, statements that are unsupported by fact or by evidence as well as the interfering with evidence production to be provided by alternate experts. Dr. Finn provided statements that fully undermined the protective parent’s fitness, stating unjustified diagnoses of “dangerousness” that moved the court to deny the protective parent access to her children thus isolating them with their abuser. As a result of Dr. Finn’s statements, the anguish and suffering experienced by the children and their mother is ongoing, unconscionable and unresolved.
2. A Second Case is Provided to Document Factual Violations of Ethical Practice, Incompetence and Reliance on Discredited, Dangerous Theories That in Fact Promoted Violence Against Children and Women, Exonerated Crimes of Incest and Sexual Abuse and Fully Undermined the Legal Custody Process. This Case Combined with the Previously Presented Case Makes it Clear That David Finn, Psy.D is a Danger to the Public at Large.
In line with a consciousness of guilt to commit crimes against the subjects Dr. Finn is empowered by a family court to evaluate, and to opine over and influence their lives. In a recent case Dr. Finn demanded that a subject sign a document stating that nothing that he says or does can be held against him. The absurdity of the act is illustrative of the unfolding of ethical violations, abuse of his self-granted authority. The acts of egregious, absurd impropriety meant to threaten, intimidate and manipulate the subject client are about to be outlined and will be documented as exhibits in the board complaints and damages filings being initiated against Dr. Finn.
Further acts of malpractice include personally making phone contact with very young children, ages four and seven years old, to engage in discussions with them without gaining permission from the children’s parents or related legal counsel. The discussions with the young children are documented and the recordings are in the possession of authorities being reviewed for not only professional impropriety but for concerns about the intimate impropriety of the communications not only with the children but with the material shared with the children’s mother.
As to an additional case where serious complaints against Finn were lodged Dr. Finn’s shared inappropriate information and direction to the children’s mother as to the discussion of intimate adult material with reference to the children’s father was disclosed in a manner clearly meant to frighten the children as well as to demean the father’s stature in the eyes of the children.
Finn’s communications with the court and attempts at insinuating therapeutic directives in areas in which Dr. Finn has no professional training or qualifications have been as alarming as his displays of bias and unequal processes of evaluation and diagnostic investigation. In one case in point Finn astonishingly targeted the father for serious pathology while eliminating and exonerating the children’s mother from extremely serious addiction illness/pathology that was fully documented in multiple venues but omitted in discussion in Finn’s communications and demands of the court as per the father’s treatment directives by Finn who was and is completely unqualified to opine on areas of intervention for which he is not trained or experienced clinically.
Tax payer Federal funds namely Title IV(d) and Title IV(e) that seek to support endangered children and single parent households artificially created by renaming Protective Parents as abusers and Abusers as rescuers begins the flow of Federal funds to the states through the Family Court Criminal Racketeering Enterprise, coordinating the service of lawyers and a variety of so called experts.
This form of financial fraud initiated on the basis of documented manipulation of fact and suppression of evidence constitutes not only child abuse, and child endangerment, but criminal Federal Tax Fraud. In regard to financial evaluation of client records through the Financial Investigation Division of the FCVFC, the FCVFC will be referring this pattern of fraud and malfeasance to the tax fraud division of the IRS in addition to being reported to each and every agency involved with oversight related to malpractice and criminal child trafficking
To be absolutely clear, the practices of suppressing and manipulating evidence, failing to investigate child abuse, endangerment, serious neglect, falsifying and manipulating diagnostic assessments--on which custody decisions are made and adversely affect both the child and related adults, slander, and personal life threats in exchange for monetary benefit must be classified as child trafficking!
Finn and all participants in the family court process that begins with a debunked, discredited lawless concept and ends with the unconscionable, painful destruction of lives must be identified and held accountable for their acts.
JILL JONES SODERMAN
Executive Director, FCVFC