Among those judges who have been identified as family annihilators are Jane Grossman of CT and Jane Gallina Mecca of NJ, as well as Judge Tadia D. Whitner of GA, where a study of their cases and their ascendancy in the court arena to positions of presiding judges is extraordinarily alarming because of the chilling effect that their heinous rulings have had, not only on the community of lawyers and court administrations but on the larger community of litigants who are a captive audience to their jurisdictions for which they were appointed.
With each of these judges we see a pattern of transferring the charges against an abuser parent to charges against the protective parent.
In each of the cases that we have been intimately involved with as a result of access to full legal, medical, educational, and personal documentation on these cases, there is a clear and conscious pattern in which the judges have transposed accusations against the abuser and transported those accusations of abuse and neglect to the protective parent who is bringing evidence to the court seeking protection of vulnerable children who have experienced medical and psychiatric harm as a result of the actions of the parent who has been allowed joint custody of the child even though credible documented claims of abuse have been fully documented with the court.
The pattern of denial of clear and convincing evidence in these cases is subject to a routine pattern of suppression, dismissal, and punitive action towards the protective parent who is seeking redress of crimes against the child and often themselves as well.
Each of these judges insulate themselves with cohorts, court-appointed so-called experts.
These so called experts are appointed to gather facts and evidence to report to the court in the form of reports that are then offered as indefatigable evidence that is often not shared with parties who are the subject of investigation and reporting.
The court appointed toadies become the purveyors of information that supports the well-known opinion and assessment of the judge and act to seal the fate of children via the direction of final orders and custody judgements that has been made clear from the onset of the case.
Court appointed officers of the court, subject to immunity, allow the funneling of evidence into the record that provides a basis for custody judgements that are entirely illegal and harmful to children.
Complicit in this process are privately retained attorneys who encourage clients to cooperate with the court and work with the process of regaining contact and custody with the children after the court has removed those children into the custody of the individual accused of abuse.
A pattern of recrimination against the parent who is binging complaints to the court results in that complainant being isolated from the child and punished by the court both in terms of being treated as an individual who is in fact harming the child and interfering with a relationship that that court has deemed necessary and important to the child even when there are admitted major issues of documented harm.
The court’s choice to justify, excuse, or ignore that abuse has become a common pattern of behavior over the past 50 years of this developing trend.
Jane Grossman
Jane Grossman is well known for her transfer of the Riordan children to the obsessed pursuit by their sexually, physically, and emotionally abusive father, and her engagement in court litigation that extended for an extraordinarily long period of time that resulted in the punitive action towards everyone who attempted to protect the children. The children’s mother was left homeless and penniless.
The attorney who aggressively attempted to litigate and defend the family experienced license revocation as a result of the extreme complaints to the bar association by Jane Grossman.
Attempts for the children to run from their well-documented abuser father were met with the children being kept from their mother by Grossman’s implementation of a protective order against the mother.
Grossman implemented a protective order that stated that the children had to remain x distance away from their mother or she would be arrested and they would be arrested as well.
Their dramatic attempts to have their story heard through the press and to reach out to various levels of politicians is a pyrrhic effort because of the separation of powers. The political units do not have the authority to alter judgments of courts.
The litigation process has within itself the capacity to correct legal errors. However, the chilling effect of Grossman’s threats to all attempts at legal intervention thwarted the proper implementation of litigation interventions.
Erroneous judgements on the parts of family members and advisors to family members further interfered with the ability of the children to receive freedom from their abuser.
Extensive writing in the public arena provides tremendous documentation and detail of the suffering and thwarted attempts of the children to gain freedom from their criminally psychopathic abuser father.
The travesty of events surrounding this case have never been properly reported and the mystery that should not be a mystery remains.
Beyond the Riordan case there are many other children who have been subject to custody transfers and isolation in the hands of abusers in which the abuser parent was a well known professional in the community that was also known to have had their licenses restricted to practice because of their engagement in consorting with drug traffickers in the community and have been involved with drug trafficking in the community.
In one particular case an individual who was a dentist refused to allow proper dental care of the child who was suffering and in great pain as a result of inadequate dental care.
Grossman refused to allow the mother to engage proper medical care and left the decision to the father even though full documentation by an independent pediatric dentist laid out diagnostically the immediate and long term consequences of failing to provide proper dental care and also detailed the pain and suffering of the child.
The father, who was known to be sexually abusing the child and falsely accused the child’s mother of being mentally ill, was fully exonerated from any accusations against him even though the basis of false accusations of his ex-wife’s mental illness were shown to be as a result of his drugging her and creating both emotional and physical reactions that were related to drug induced states.
All evidence of this individual’s malevolent and insidious acts to undermine the credibility of his ex-wife, both as a mother and as an individual in her own right, were ignored by the court, and the mother was completely excluded from the child’s life.
In reviewing the transcripts of Jane Grossman, extensive and extemporaneous screeds are revealed as she acts as judge, jury, and executioner against the parent targeted for her character assassination. Her ongoing freewheeling speeches providing her criticisms, interpretations, diagnoses, and malevolent accusations fill pages of transcripts that should have been used to properly appeal and overturn judgements wrongfully executed against protective parents.
Because of Judge Grossman’s punitive financial directives ordering child support and punitive payments of expenses way beyond the capacity of the subject to pay for these charges, the protective parent’s ability to pay for legal action in their own defense was undermined by the extortionist tactics of Judge Grossman.
This is a tactic that was present in each of the cases that we were able to document.
Further, Judge Grossman’s intimate interaction with her Guardian ad Litem and the intimate interaction with the Guardian ad Litem with the police and child protective services was a major factor in providing obstructive reports that failed to accurately provide medical and psychiatric information that detailed the consequences of the types of abuse the children were subject to.
Lies and larceny should have been able to be documented in the courts of appeal reviews However, the exsanguination of funds that should have been able to approve for scholarly legal writing were not available because of the punitive actions taken by Judge Grossman.
Courts consistently act to protect the serial vile abuses of Judge Jane Kupferman Grossman whose acts of brutality began the long suffering of the Riordan children whose helpless, hapless battle for freedom from their sadistic sexually and emotionally abusive father seems to never end because the road to their freedom is never taken by them.
The Riordan case was first subject to the extended court litigation has been the subject of many journalists’ articles where they have described and documented in some detail the suffering and injustices of the Riordan children. The flight into darkness on the Riordan case began with Judge Jane Grossman whose reign of terror in that case included not only the decimation of the family – the financial and career gutting of their protective mother – but also the absolute decimation of the career of the attorney who attempted to aggressively advocate for the protective parent and the children. The vile acts that were committed against the family by Judge Jane K Grossman are documented in great detail.
Tadia Whitner
Tadia D. Whitner of GA is similarly a judge who removed a young child from the protection of a mother based on charging the mother, who is a medical practitioner, stating that medical care required for the child were not being provided by her.
The medical interventions were required because of the physical violence inflicted on the child by the father who in fact then did not provide medical care for her.
The charges levied against the mother should have been applied to the father. Judge Whitner whose vile mismanagement, the profile of her judicial misconduct can be viewed here.
Jane Gallina-Mecca
Gallina-Mecca is known by experts of the FCVFC for transferring children not only into the custody of an abuser, but also for providing custody of children to the abuser, even where multiple family members of origin were accused abusers.
As we are becoming familiar with more and more of Mecca’s cases, we are finding that the particular group of abuser pursuers of custody also hail from families where there are multi-generational actors involved. The abuser in the immediate litigation was themselves involved in intergenerational incest by their families of origin. Parents abused the children and the children abused each other. The abuser and the one time now adult abuser was also engaged in incest relationships with siblings in their own families. Referrals to DCFS and police via detailed forensic expert reports have been rejected for investigation leaving helpless children in the isolation and full custody of abusers.
In the cases of which we are aware before Gallina-Mecca one protective parent desperately attempted to protect children by cooperating with the court and were forced into watching the children display the behaviors of well-trained sexual service providers to adults and to each other. Gallina-Mecca, once secure in her trust of the parent was securely intimidated into ceasing to report abuse, allowed shared custody as a reward to the intimidated parent. Subject children ranged in ages as young as from infancy through toddlers.
In addition to the sexual abuse issues of which we are aware, at this time we are also aware of multiple cases in which Gallina-Mecca has removed long standing Protective Orders filed in states outside of New Jersey. The perpetrator of crimes moved jurisdiction of the family court case from New York to New Jersey where Gallina- Mecca removed the long- standing Protective Order and the subject of that order was then murdered. This circumstance has occurred in at least three cases of which we are aware and yet there is no investigation by authorities into the frequent occurrences of murders committed within the population of litigants in this judge’s court.
These types of cases where there is multi-generational incest protected and passed on is a unique situation that we have not seen in the numbers present in any particular court setting until now.
Within this context, we are also seeing that the protective parent who made some attempt to break the pattern of incest and abuse not only backed down from their reporting but renounced the reporting and as such were then allowed to continue to have access to their children under the strict supervision of the court of Jane Gallina Mecca.
