12 years ago today 7-31-2000, Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to convicted batterer and Criminal HAL RICHARDSON, Topeka, KS Case No. 96-D-217

 

Topeka, Kansas Case No. 96-D-217 Third Judicial District, Shawnee County, Kansas

 

MAHNATTAN FREE PRESS: COURTS CONTINUE TO ABUSE BATTERED MOTHER 

MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table. Continue Reading >

 

Claudine & Rikki Dombrowski-- before Family Court Mafia gave custody to the Abuser--moon shadow

HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR ALL ABUSERS and ENABLERS (aka child traffickers) that have and are continuing the  abuse by Hal Richardson. With the help of the local Court Whores, M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Judge David Debenham, Don and Jason Hoffman

Twelve years ago today Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to a convicted batterer on a ‘snail mail’  from crooked Judge Richard Anderson. He made a ‘deal’ and without motion from either party, without hearing he simply on his own ‘switched custody’ from Mother to ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON.

Mother Claudine Dombrowski has had little to no contact with her daughter since this illegal ‘action’ and ruling was made. The Judges following after this decision could have at anytime corrected a very wrong very unethical very damaging ruling.

Instead, they continued ‘litigation abuse’ of a battered mother and forced her only child- HER daughter to live with out her mother and in constant fear.

View this document on Scribd

 

2000 July 31– Custody Switch-Judge Richard Anderson Gives FULL custody to CRIMINAL HAL RICHARDSON

 

HAL RICHARDSON – COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BAR FIGHTS ETC…

WHAT KIND A EVIL BASTARD WOULD HURT HIS CHILD SO BADLY BY TAKING HER MOTHER AWAY FROM HER? RIKKI DOMBROWSKI THE WORLD IS APPALLED, KANSAS IS SICK. THIS MAN WILL KNOW JUSTICE ONE DAY—GOD WILL JUDGE ALL WHO HELPED TO KEEP YOU SEPERATED FROM YOUR LOVING MOTHER.

GOD’S JUDGEMENT DAY—AND TOPEKA KANSAS WILL BURN

95LA014502-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)2OE
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1OR
97LA009121-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
98LA006122-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
92CV000432-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96CV000937-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
92LA000089-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
96LA012692-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97LA017898-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97U 000055-RICHARDSON,HAL,,D/B/A/ TOPEKA VINYL TOP,1D
90LA007629-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA GATEWAY FUNDRAISING,1D
97LA018158-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
96LA003402-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
98U 000141-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
04SC000200-RICHARDSON,HAL,,III,1D
03C 000086-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR TRACT 84,184D
95U 000500-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
03L 010117-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
05L 001833-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95SC000448-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95LN000161-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1OP
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
94SC000355-RICHARDSON,HAL,,OWNER OF MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
89CR 01537-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)1D
90CR 01308-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)1D
96LA019246-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
96LA000348-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97CV000960-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97LA011585-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,2D
08SC000096-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1P
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)2OE
97CV000778-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR,

2 p.

95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

7 p.

12-1-1997 Joan Hamilton DA Refuses to Prosecute Admitted CrowBar Assault

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

2 p.

1999_2nd ABP Heartland Consult an Tans Hal Richardson

3 p.

1996 Alternatives to Battering Per Domestic Violence Conviction against Claudine Dombroeski and Order of Probation Hal Richardson…

1 p.

1995 PSI Mary Kelly Recommends Prison for Hal Richardson as Conviction History of Violence past 15 years

5 p.

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

2 p.

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

2 p.

1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR…

3 p.

1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

KS: Child Custody Case Managers, ONE of the Most Scrutinized in the Judiciary - Appointed to "high-conflict" divorces - KS Legislature and KS Court of Appeals, taking steps to ‘Rein In’ the “Quasi-Judicial” RENEGADE appointees

http://cjonline.com/news/2012-07-09/courts-working-guidelines-case-managers#comment-596328

Excellent article by Andy Marso and the Topeka capital Journal. You have to go to the article and read the comments.

Courts working on guidelines for case managers

Excerpts:

“mediation and other alternative dispute resolution in the Kansas court system says it will seek public comment soon on new guidelines for child custody case managers, who are fast becoming one of the most scrutinized aspects of the judiciary.”

“public comments on case management could be solicited as soon as this summer and the comment period should last months”

“followed by appellate court decisions in back-to-back weeks that slapped the Douglas County district court for abdicating too much of its authority in custody cases to the case manager.”

“Two weeks ago, the appellate court found that Karen Williams was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on the district court's decision to reverse custody of her daughter — a decision that was made solely on the recommendation of case manager Cheryl Powers.”

“The latest appellate decision, released Friday, established that father Matthew Merrill had the right to object to all recommendations of his case manager, Patrick Nichols, and that the judge should review those objections before implementing the recommendations.”

“Bud Dale, a Topeka-based lawyer and case manager, agreed, and said he also thought the appellate judges went too far in limiting case management fees.”

“Dale objected to the judges' ruling that Nichols shouldn’t have been able to bill Merrill for the time Nichols spent defending himself against motions to remove him as case manager. Instead, the court wrote that case managers are only authorized to asses fees to the parties for work related to "custody, residency or visitation or parenting time issues."

"(The court) muddied some waters here," Dale said. "I'm not in indentured service to the court. I'm not working for nothing."

“In the Merrill case, the appellate court also found Nichols was inappropriately influenced by the parties' unwillingness to pay him and the district judge erred in accepting Nichols' request that his recommendations be immediately implemented as court orders”

Read rest of article here: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-07-09/courts-working-guidelines-case-managers#comment-596328

My comment:

Blood for Profit - Just US, no one else. After 18 years of hell in Shawnee County Courts, Case management, GAL’s, parent coordinators and other 3rd party 'access to justice interferer’s’, have shown their true agenda - theirs -

and the commenter' s here are 'on to them' and the whole 'therapeutic jurisprudence' – b.s. w 2 degrees. Dr. Bud Dale, JD. Your ‘gravy train’ (and all the others) is finally at stake.

Awesome job to cj and Andy Marso, more than awesome job that after all these years I finally see the people – we the people – outraged! I have waited almost two decades for the truth to finally burst out. Thank you Topeka.

LAW is LAW - psych is theory, ideas, opinion. Not fact. There is absolutely no place in a Court of Law for any ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ – Self (financially) ‘made-up' positions that amount to ‘crystal ball’ reading’s. Take it on the road w the carnival. Entertainment [bad entertainment] is better than the damage caused by your so called JUDGE/GOD idea, opinions and your beliefs. People divorce for a reason - stupidity, danger and insanity in forcing them into polar situations for financial gain is inhumane.

Dr. Bud Dale states …

…."(The court) muddied some waters here," Dale said. "I'm not in indentured service to the court. I'm not working for nothing."

Indentured slave? Case managers and other www.WhoresOfTheCourt.comhave no problem ‘enslaving’ families for personal profit... get out Bud.

Reevaluating the Evaluators: Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Bud Dale Does Case Management:

“Teaching Battered Mother to NOT complain about abuse, if she ever wanted to see her child again.'’ Mother never did see her child, she was never allowed to mother her daughter and a little girl denied her mother - 15 years later-- still no more than strangers, thanks KS Case Mangers, Courts and Bud Dale. $$ -
You murdered innocence, you rewarded violence -- An entire generation sent to slaughter for your personal $$ gain.

See Kansas case leads Petition To Inter American Commission On Human Rights http://bit.ly/b0EgEQ
Yes, that’s me, just another ‘high conflict’ case that case managers made careers out of.

--Dr. Dale Case Manager Report to Court in the Claudine Dombrowski Case;

“…..forcing a battered mother to not complain about sexual and physical abuse - it’s confrontational, and if mommy wants to see child again……then mommy will do as told.” http://bit.ly/JT

Karma baby. The ultimate justice. And they all came tumbling down....

KS Appeals Court: ‘Mother entitled to full custody hearing’ – After Case Manager reverses Child Custody from Mother to Father…..Ya think? Really? In a Court of Law? Damn this just gets more and more interesting all the time……

“The bottom line is, that case managers and others have NO BUSINESS at all – in the family courts, it is an oxymoron to have the Court of Appeals rule that a ‘law’ should be followed, when the most basic of all law is due process.”

Related: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-06-22/case-manager-oversight-still-murky

I cried when I heard the news below, for many reasons.

 

1. I always think of my daughter Rikki, had this been law would it have changed what happened to her and I? For 6 years we fought for a hearing after a now JUDGE, LLOYD C. SWARTZ (had been case manager) severed all contact between this mother and her child. It was not until 2010 that there was finally a hearing on it – SIX years later, although for 6 years this mother wrote motion after motion for hearing….. judge after judge it went through, never to be heard, never any of the basic fundamental rights of ‘due process’…..

And; when that hearing did finally come, the GAL (M. Jill Dykes) with the court appointed ‘psychs’ (David C. Rodeheffer) had taken over where the case manager (Lloyd C. Swartz) had left off….

Justice still remained denied, mother and daughter remained without contact as the abuser father (Hal Richardson) maintained complete control.

2. Even though, there will now be ‘hearings’ on the perversion of    justice - (where again - none should be) - the ‘house of gold’ has become brighter by other profiteers such as BUD DALE – GAL’s and other third party access to justice interferers.

I cry. Nothing has changed except for the Increase in profits from the other child traffickers.

There will only be Justice – when Justice is allowed. There can never be justice, when Therapeutic Jurisprudence is allowed.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Trial Within a Trial http://bit.ly/a2yslz

 

The bottom line is, that case managers and others have NO BUSINESS at all – in the family courts, it is an oxymoron to have the Court of Appeals rule that a ‘law’ should be followed, when the most basic of all law is due process.

##

KS Appeals Court: Mother entitled to full custody hearing. Lower court had reversed custody on case manager's recommendation

http://cjonline.com/news/2012-06-29/appeals-court-mother-entitled-full-custody-hearing

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a mother who lost residential custody of her child based on a case manager's recommendation is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing.

Karen Williams, formerly Karen Wray, became an outspoken proponent of the need to reform the state's child custody case management system after the lower court limited her to once-a-week visits with her daughter without giving Williams an opportunity to hear and respond to the case manager's recommendation.

In a decision written by Judge Karen Arnold-Burger, the three appeals judges noted that the laws establishing case management do not explicitly require a hearing on case manager recommendations, but parents have a right to due process under the 14th Amendment when a fundamental liberty like the custody of their children is at stake.

"Although this holding may result in courts having busier dockets," the decision states, "the information received at such a hearing will aid the courts in deciding whether the case manager's recommendations are in the best interests of the child and insure that due process, one of the most sacred and essential constitutional guarantees, is provided to the parties."

The three appeals court judges found that case manager recommendations that change legal custody or residential custody, or significantly change parenting time warrant a full hearing if they are contested.

"The court of appeals nailed it," said Bud Dale a Topeka lawyer and case manager who submitted an amicus brief in the case. "In terms of the clarifications needed in the law to function as a case manager, the court of appeals decision was perfect."

The judges sent Williams' case back to the Douglas County court where it originated for a full hearing.

Williams called the decision "such a relief," though she said she was disappointed the appeals court did not grant her request to remove the case manager and district court judge who appointed her. Williams may face the same judge when she has her hearing in Douglas County, but she said she's confident she can regain residential custody of her daughter.

"I know that once we're allowed to present evidence, there's no way you can look at this and say that what has happened is righteous and fair," Williams said. "That's what I wanted is to be given the opportunity to present it and they're giving us that opportunity."

The Legislature authorized the judicial branch to appoint case managers to negotiate visitation in "high-conflict" divorces a little more than a decade ago. Since then, parents and lawyers have expressed concern that case managers have broad authority and little accountability.

Ron Nelson, a Lenexa family law attorney who represented one of the parties in a similar case that went to the appeals court in 2000, called Friday's ruling "a very good decision." Nelson said it goes farther than any previous ruling in establishing that the court is the final authority on child custody changes, not the court-appointed case manager.

"This decision certainly pulls back from what seemed to be the way that case management approvals were going," Nelson said. "Which was that they were rubber-stamped, either in a hearing or out of a hearing."

Williams says that's what happened in her case.

Williams' daughter was born in 2001, and she filed for divorce from the girl's father a year later. The two retained joint legal custody, but Williams had residential custody and her ex-husband had weekly visits. That arrangement held until February 2011, when Williams told the case manager, Cheryl Powers, that she was remarrying and moving to Marion.

In response, Powers recommended that the court reverse the custody arrangement. According to the court decision, Powers believed Williams had a history of alienating her daughter from the child's father and "this alienation would only increase if she were allowed to move away with the child."

Within a month, the court adopted Powers' recommendation and denied Williams' request for a full hearing. The court also ignored Williams' request that it remove Powers as case manager and appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.

That led Williams to appeal to the higher court, which was unusually caustic in its evaluation of Powers' response to Williams' request for her removal.

"The tone and content of Powers' subsequent response to Wray's objection can hardly be described as a professional report from a neutral factfinder or facilitator," the judges wrote.

"You don't see that kind of language very often," Nelson said. "Saying it's essentially an unprofessional recommendation and reaction is kind of strong language."

The Legislature moved to address some of the concerns about case managers last session by requiring they hold a professional license. But legislators decided to wait and see how the court would rule in Williams' case before taking further action.

Dale said he will propose a minor procedural fix next session, but the court addressed most of his concerns. Nelson said there's still work for legislators to do.

"This (decision) certainly helps and provides some solace that case management is not quite the railroading it's been perceived to be," Nelson said. "But there still needs to be more standards and more direction from the Legislature than this opinion really gives."

REINSTATE The Entire DELETED Section of VAWA - Title 2 - Identifying The Use of ‘PAS Legal Strategies’ as Violence Against Women Which Endangers Children

Everyone -- Please send it to your legislators along with a copy of Resolution 2466, asking them to help reinsert this back into the VAWA. If we can get that done, use of PAS to harm women and children will be a federal crime, and we will be able to work on cutting off the funding once and for all. And once there's no money flowing to the court whores, they're not going to keep doing what they're doing.

Copy of Resolution 2466 : http://www.nafcj.net/fairfax.htm

Deleted VAWA - Title Two: http://j.mp/L8U12g

It's NOT just the Republicans who have stalled and reformed language in the VAWA (2012). But an entire section was DELETED (VAWA 1997).  http://j.mp/L8U12g

 

The current Administrations original creator of the Bill of (VAWA 1994). Now, VP Joe Biden and President Obama have completely ignored, are denying and hiding what is obvious to any one who has any sense, any brain cells at all?

Seriously WTF?

VAWA - Title 2 - The entire MISSING section of the VAWA identifying use of PAS legal strategies as violence against women which endangers children. Parental Alienation Syndrome, PA, PAS, PACA, PAD

This is the 1997 ENTIRE SECTION that was REMOVED from VAWA on behalf of the FATHER RIGHTS/Abuser Rights Lobby.

Question:

What happened to the entire section of the VAWA addressing PAS (essentially identifying use of PAS legal strategies as violence against women which endangers children).

Answer:

THAT is the question that NOBODY is willing to answer, not even the Administration which includes the main person who originally introduced VAWA.
If you read the resolution I posted, that is what prompted me to get Fairfax, CA to enact Resolution 2466. http://www.nafcj.net/fairfax.htm

The crazy thing is that *I*, yes little old ME from a dinky little town, not a legislator, not a lawyer, and doing this entirely with my own time at my own expense, seem to have been the first person in the country (!!!), that is other than the legislators who introduced VAWA, American Psychological Association Task Force members (Yes, the APA ORIGINALLY did condemn PAS) and FRsters (Why do you think they are so against the VAWA -- it would have sent all of these psychos and f**kers to prison), to have identified this. But, all of the so-called advocates were so busy furthering their own agendas -- and lining their own pockets.

Special Thanks to Cindy Ross
http://www.nafcj.net/f...
and NOW
http://www.now.org/iss...=%22VAWA%20section%20201% 20parental%20alienation%2 2

Fairfax praised for efforts

On Dec. 6, the Fairfax Town Council passed a resolution calling for revision of California family code and the federal Violence Against Women Act, and resolving that the Town Council joins the National Organization for Women in denouncing the use of the "parental alienation syndrome" legal strategy.

Parental alienation syndrome, originally crafted as a legal defense of child molesters, is routinely used in family court to mishandle domestic and child abuse cases as custody disputes and to punish mothers and children reporting abuse.

Use of parental alienation syndrome underlies not only egregious child custody rulings - especially custody switches to batterers and child molesters - and family court related misconduct, but the misuse of government programs and funding. In 2003, the American Prosecutors Research Institute identified parental alienation syndrome as the means to obstruct prosecution of abuse cases.

On behalf of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice, I would like to thank Councilman Lew Tremaine for sponsoring and the entire Fairfax Town Council for voting to adopt Resolution 2466. Our group, joined by supporters from California NOW, California Protective Parents Association and court reform activists and concerned citizens from Marin and across the country, commends the effort toward ensuring that domestic and child abuse cases are adjudicated properly and applauds the historic step taken by the Fairfax Town Council toward eliminating the systematic abuse of women and children.

To view the text of Resolution 2466, click on the Town Manager's Blog

Cindy Ross, California director, National Alliance for Family Court Justice, Fairfax

VAWA - Title 2 - The Entire MISSING Section of the VAWA Identifying Use of PAS Legal Strategies as Violence...

KANSAS CASE MANAGERS; CHILD CUSTODY COURT APPOINTED 3RD PARTIES, PSYCHOLOGY; CUSTODY EVALUATIONS; THERAPY, GAURDIAN AD LITEMS, COPARENTING, SUPERVISED VISITATION, ACCESS VISTITATION and ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’.

Therapeutic jurisprudence in the family courts, i.e. a "mental health approach to the law" substitutes the opinions of mental health practitioners for traditional evidence and decision-making procedures. Because these persons actually do not have any kind of "expertise" to opine this way, what originally was thought to be a helpful idea (in this medicalized and psychologized world) has become merely economic opportunism, harming not only the litigants and children in the system as well as the court system itself, but also perverting substantive and procedural law. It is not science, but compensated yenta-ism that has permeated the courts under the pretexts that engineering family affectional relationships is within the ability of mental health "science" practitioners to accomplish, and that this is an appropriate goal of the government, court system, and state police power because children "need" something it has to offer.

This completely denies the Constitutional Right to a Court of Law governed by FACT.

Mother Speaks On Case Management Bill

Source: Topeka Capitol Journal

Excerpt;

“Karen Williams previously had full custody of her daughter before a case manager appointed by the court to work with her and her ex-husband decided to limit her to one or two hours a week of supervised visitation at a Lawrence facility called The Farm.”

“Williams says her rights to due process were violated when the judge allowed the new custody arrangement without giving Williams a full hearing to respond to any evidence for the case manager's decision.

"I still have parental rights, supposedly, but effectively I've been stripped of them," Williams said.

Williams stopped by the Statehouse on Tuesday after her case was heard by the Kansas Court of Appeals. Continue Reading

 

 

 Caesars Ghost A Commenter sums it up well:

In any other area of law

In any other area of law "confidential conversations between judges and case managers" would constitute ex parte communications that would subject the parties-- including the Judges-- to disciplinary procedures and possible sanctions. This is a joke to provide such exceptions to the due process rights of either parent, as well as the rights of the children whose custody and visitation is being determined by the court.

If the Judges don't want to do their job and wish to abdicate their role to "case managers" then perhaps the Judges need to step down and be replaced by Judges who do want to do their job of hearing all of the facts in a case in full light, view and scrutiny of the opposing parties.

The 6th amendment grants criminals the right to confront their accusers and to be presented with the claims and evidence against them and the right to contest those claims and evidence.

Why does our legislature grant fewer rights to parents than they do to criminals, pedophiles, murders, etc.? And why are children denied access to parents based on what a case manager says.

I don't care if the case manager has specialized training in psychology, family therapy, domestic issues or anything else. That specialty gives the case manager nothing more than "expert witness" status constitutionally speaking. It does NOT make that case manager the default judge.

The best way to fix this is not to revise the statute and required qualifications to serve as a case manager. The best way to fix it would be to repeal the statute that created case managers in the first place and go back to how Kansas handled these cases for nearly a century and a half prior to 2002.

The whole case manager position never existed in Kansas before 2002, and so it isn't like this is just something that HAS to exist for Courts to function. Instead it is part of the reason courts are NOT functioning for families or for those who believe in due process principles of the Constitution or for those of us who abhor seeing more tax dollars going to create quasi authority figures by turning expert witnesses into defacto unlicensed judges while we continue to pay the salaries of both the abdicating judges and the defacto unlicensed judges.

---

PSYCHOLOGY; CUSTODY EVALUATIONS; THERAPY, CASE MANAGERS, GAURDIAN AD LITEMS, COPARENTING, SUPERVISED VISITATION, ACCESS VISTITATION

Case Managers; Forensic Psychology; Guardians ad Litem; Therapeutic Jurisprudence
The sociological and psychological research on families and child well-being impacts public policy and the issues of child custody in family law. The research frequently is misrepresented, and mis-cited by mental health professionals, lawyers, forensic psychologists and others, as well as interest groups lobbying for laws. Also review the sections pertaining to the issues impacted by the "therapeutic jurisprudence", such as child custody, parental alienation theory, research pertaining to child development, the subsection for research Myths and Facts in FAMILY LAW, and other family law issues. Also see the subsection on Child Custody in FAMILY LAW. The Therapeutic Jurisprudence index page contains links to recommended off-site locations as well as the on-site articles http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Index: Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence? A Need for Reform by Lees-Haley and Courtney SCHOLAR

Child Custody Evaluations and Measuring Attachment (limited science) by Jean Mercer 2009 PDF SCHOLAR

Child sex abuse, the limits of Loftus, and overblowing the memory research LIZNOTES, CITES

Children's Associational Rights: Why less is more by Emily Buss PDF SCHOLAR

Collaborative Law: What's Wrong with Multidisciplinary Practice? by liz

Court-appointed Parenting Evaluators: The Case for Abolition by Margaret Dore PDF SCHOLAR

Custody Evaluations: Ten Signs of Questionable Practices by Joel V. Klass, M.D. SCHOLAR

Custody evaluators' arguments about test records -- and why they're wrong by liz

Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations, U.S. Dept Justice October 31, 2011 PDF SCHOLAR

Caveat: recommendations in the above paper are NOT endorsed by thelizlibrary.org

Disciplining Divorcing Parents: Social Construction of Parental Alienation by F. Besset PDF SCHOLAR

Family Court is Not a Family-Friendly Place by Lisa Marie Macci, Esq.

Guardians ad Litem in Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition by Richard Ducote PDF SCHOLAR

Parental Alienation Syndrome -- getting it wrong in child custody cases by Carol S. Bruch PDF SCHOLAR

Parenting Coordination Issues by liz

Psychiatric experts assess parental alienation by David Crary

Psychology in Court: A Trial Within a Trial by liz

Psychology in Court: The Detectives by liz

Psychology in Court:The Diagnosticians by liz

Psychology in Court: Discovery of Test Data by liz

Psychology in Court: How to Respond to the MMPI-2 by liz

Reevaluating the Evaluators (overview of the problem) by liz CITATIONS TO RESEARCH

Custody Evaluator Quotes by liz (companion to above article)

Signs of a Bad Custody Evaluation by Joel V. Klass, M.D. SCHOLAR

Socialization, Personality Development, and the Child's Environments by Judith Rich Harris SCHOLAR

Sound Research or Wishful Thinking in Custody Cases? by Carol S. Bruch PDF SCHOLAR

Stupidity Inherent in Promoting Supervised Visitation Centers by liz

Troubling Admission of Supervised Visitation Records in Court by Stern/Oehme PDF SCHOLAR

What Does the Guardian ad Litem do in Family Court? by liz

Warren Farrell Does a Custody Evaluation by liz

What's Wrong with Parenting Coordination by liz

Why "Therapeutic Jurisprudence" Must Be Eliminated From Our Family Courts by liz

Why "Therapeutic Jurisprudence" Must Be Eliminated From Our Courts by liz (pub. version)

Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations by Emery, Otto, Donohue off-site PDF SCHOLAR

Kansas Mother Karen Williams Fight for Daughter Could Change Case Managers and other ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ Laws in Kansas

Therapeutic Jurisprudence - 3rd party ‘Access to Justice’ deniers - Fathers Rights, SHARIA style to take his property.

Another Great Exposure Report on the Injustices of Mothers via Court Appointed Case Managers, parenting coordinators, Custody Evaluators et el.

"Supervised visitation also is used as a first step toward a custody switch away from protective mothers to abusive fathers.''

Fight for Daughter Could Change Law in Kansas

Topeka, Kan. — A mother said her daughter was taken away from her and she’s never been allowed her day in court to fight for her child. The woman’s story has now inspired lawmakers to look into what they can do to change the system.

Karen Williams  went to the Kansas Appellate Court arguing that her constitutional rights were violated when a Douglas County judge removed her daughter from her custody all based on the word of a court appointed case manager. The case manager suggested to the judge that there was “probable abuse.” Continue Reading

“Kansas Representative Joe Patton (R-Topeka) wants to change the law to require educational standards for case managers…..”

Joe Patton, “Shame on you”. You are an attorney for goodness sake. LAW, FACT, COURT – What part is not clear about this? FACTs only NOT ideas or the ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’s’ - OPINION, Theory, Personal Belief System, Societal Culture, ‘Philosophy’ - an ‘Idea’ -a-could-be-might-be 16^th century witch DoktoR – voo-doo-thinking ‘get a stick and beat it to death’ mentality, who have created for their selves, HIGH Paying Jobs Where NONE should exist to begin with. None.

The "Trial Within a Trial" Court-Appointed, Case Managers, Custody Evaluators et el. Waste Judicial Resources and Parents' Funds

The primary reason psychologists and other mental health professionals should be banned from the family court systems, except to answer limited and narrowly-defined questions actually within their expertise, is that their presence does not add value, but rather, wastes court, lawyer, and litigant time, money and resources. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Parenting Evaluation, Parenting Plans...
Reevaluating the Evaluators: “Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts”http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

A call for a revolt altogether against the notion of "therapeutic jurisprudence" -- which has been proved to do little to benefit children, much to benefit the divorce industry, much to complicate and pervert our family laws, much to erode fundamental rights and liberties, and much to harm the families who become trapped in the system. There are many problems, of course. But they are symptoms. Step one is to get the agent of most of them out of our family courts. The Emperor has no clothes.

Lawyer Conflict: MHP’s and “therapeutic jurisprudence” ultimately must be – and will be – taken out of the family courts.

Lawyers' unacknowledged conflicts are destroying the quality of family law representation. One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems into the courts is the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the multiple ways this happens in the family courts is through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referral.http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations
CHILD CASE MANAGERS, CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html

DOJ Study: Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations- Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final Technical Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

Parenting Coordination, a bad idea

• Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
• Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
• Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
• Parenting coordination violates privacy
• The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
• Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
• Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
• No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
• No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families' lives or child wellbeing.
• Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
• Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
• Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
• Nothing qualifies any third party to "fill in the gaps" in someone else's contract
• There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
• Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
• It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
• Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
• Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
• Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other's funds
• Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
• Parenting coordination is not confidential
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
• Parenting coordination can never be "voluntary" because it implements unwanted court orders
• Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign "consents" that give up constitutional rights
• Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
• They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
• They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
• Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
• Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
• Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state's police power
• Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
• They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of "focus on the children"
• They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
• They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
• Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
• Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
• Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
• They alone decide if a parent is "cooperating" with them
• They are given unwarranted authority to impose or recommend sanctions against parents
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with extended family, friends, and collaterals
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with children, teachers, and school officials
• They are given authority to demand private medical and therapy records
• They are able continuously to undermine the credibility and competence of parents to third parties
• They are able continuously to divulge private family issues to third parties
• They are given authority to demand meetings, and meeting times and places
• There are no studies of parenting coordination methods or techniques
• There is no research into parenting coordinators' efficacy, and there cannot be
• Decisions are based on the parenting coordinator's private agendas, values, and beliefs
• Most parenting coordinators lack psychological insight
• Parenting coordination is not "co-parenting therapy" which rarely works anyway
• Mental health professionals are ignorant of the repercussions in law of their ideas
• There is no valid "training" because there is no body of knowledge to base training on
• Decisions are made without actual knowledge of people's households and daily lives
• Parenting coordination provides a forum for the arguing of minutiae, not just major decisions
• Parenting coordinators frequently make bad decisions
• The parenting coordinator has absolutely no incentive to work himself or herself out of a job
• Parenting coordinators tend to be individuals who can't make a go of practicing their profession
• Many have axes to grind; others need to re-live and normalize their own family-of-origin issues
• Parenting coordination is unregulated and practicably unable to be regulated
• There is no effective oversight, and there cannot be
• There is no recourse against the parenting coordinator for malfeasance or malpractice
• Parenting coordinators have control to self-generate their work and churn fees
• The claim of parenting coordinators that they sought this role in order to "help" people is specious
• Parenting coordination proceedings are informal, outside court, and not subject to effective oversight
• Parenting coordinators can report conversations and events differently from how they really happened
• Parenting coordinators can cover themselves by blaming parents for the failure of the venture
• Parenting coordinators can and do give parents make-work at whim
• Parenting coordinators may not have any personal parenting experience
• Parenting coordinators may not have experience being primary caregivers, or as single parents
• Many of those drawn to the field are by nature meddlers, incompetents, or petty tyrants
• Parenting coordination is dangerous, founded on erroneous beliefs about "high conflict"
• Parenting coordination is a tool to force fit parents and children to invest in abusers' rehabilitation
• "High conflict" means "abusive relationship", not "difficult learning situation"
• "High conflict" means "threats to security and well-being", not "lack of communication skills"
• Fears and concerns are real, not irrational, vindictive, or merely personality disordered
• "High conflict" means that the "parenting plan" is inappropriate, unjust, unhealthy, or unsafe, and
• there is no "adjustment period" to get through or equal "co-parenting relationship" to regain
• Parenting coordinators have missed domestic violence
• Parenting coordinators have inflamed emotions and exacerbated legal issues
• Parenting coordinators have assumed facts that are not true
• · Parenting coordinators have perceived emergencies or situations incorrectly
• Parenting coordinators have mischaracterized events
• Parenting coordinators have made egregious judgmental mistakes
• Parenting coordinators have lied outright
• There is no basis to presume their "good faith" or their "neutrality"
• There are no ethical guidelines that practicably can be enforced
• There are, and can be, no enforceable practice parameters, only vague aspirational generalities
• Parenting coordinators will be biased because of the nature of human relationships and the role
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has more credibility than either parent
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has the ear of the judge, and
• because the parenting coordinator has relationships with supportive guardians ad litem, and
• because the parenting coordinator has other courthouse referral relationships who will back him or her
• Court oversight is illusory because it's easy to claim a parent is uncooperative or lying
• Court oversight is illusory because it's expensive
• or there is not enough time to get a hearing
• or the party doesn't have a lawyer post-decree, and
• because the judge who appointed the parenting coordinator did so because he didn't want to hear it
• Most of all, parenting coordination is proof that joint custody does not work

Therapeutic Jurisprudence – Child Trafficking via family Courts. It’s monetary. It's all about their money and the "gravy train" ride. THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED FROM ALL FAMILY COURTS!!

You cannot ‘PREDICT’ or see in any “Crystal Ball”. It is not FACT and these Case Managers, Guardian Ad Litem’s, Parenting Coordinators, Co-parenting, Shared Parenting, SUPERVISED VISITATION and ACCESS VISITATION Centers should have NEVER been allowed into the Kansas Courts to begin with! It is all Therapeutic Jurisprudence that denies ‘Access to Justice’. It does not matter, in fact will only ‘entrench’ these NON Fact – Pseudo Science, self serving Profiteers with ‘god’ like authority if you Give them a simple pedigree in B.S. crystal ball reading experts forced, CAPTIVE litigants to hire by the Court of Law and Fact. You still have the same thing as you do with a non licensed A$$hole. Oxymoron. Allow the Judge to ‘Judge’ not anyone else. If these people want to ‘judge’ rule and play god in an already EGO ruled Entitlement Family Court then let them become ‘Judges’.

Opinions only - None are based in any FACT—A Court of Law, must be FACT. The difference between non licensed and licensed ‘carnival crystal ball reading – theory, assumption, future predicting based on their own personal beliefs’ is the PRICE they charge.

The Amicus Brief by the one Dr. Milfred 'Bud' Dale Amicus Brief - Karen Williams- Case Managers Kansas – EXPERT of the experts for hire by the experts- forensic PROFESSIONAL expert - in the end is still just ‘one man’s personal opinions’, self interest, extremely profitable and continuing expenses for his ‘captive’ clients. This completely denies the Constitutional Right to a Court of Law governed by FACT.

(I know this first hand) 

(KS) Dr. Dale and Pedophile Dr. Gardner: Similarities Engaged

A Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

Courtesy www.TheLizLibrary.org

Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

by Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale.

then see below same? hmm……

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html

Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions

on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is the creator of the creator and main proponent for Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory. Prior to his suicide, Gardner was an unpaid part-time clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He made his money mainly as a forensic expert.

Get rid of them. The best interest of the child is to remain with their primary attachment figure (usually their mothers) stop ripping the hearts and the lives out of these mothers and her children, by the highly profitable lucrative ‘industry’ of Case managers, Guardian Ad Litems, et other 3^rd party ‘Justice’ interferers.

Kansas Mother Karen Williams Fight for Daughter Could Change Case Managers and other ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ Laws in Kansas

Therapeutic Jurisprudence - 3rd party ‘Access to Justice’ deniers - Fathers Rights, SHARIA style to take his property.

Another Great Exposure Report on the Injustices of Mothers via Court Appointed Case Managers, parenting coordinators, Custody Evaluators et el.

"Supervised visitation also is used as a first step toward a custody switch away from protective mothers to abusive fathers.''

Fight for Daughter Could Change Law in Kansas

Topeka, Kan. — A mother said her daughter was taken away from her and she’s never been allowed her day in court to fight for her child. The woman’s story has now inspired lawmakers to look into what they can do to change the system.

Karen Williams  went to the Kansas Appellate Court arguing that her constitutional rights were violated when a Douglas County judge removed her daughter from her custody all based on the word of a court appointed case manager. The case manager suggested to the judge that there was “probable abuse.” Continue Reading

“Kansas Representative Joe Patton (R-Topeka) wants to change the law to require educational standards for case managers…..”

Joe Patton, “Shame on you”. You are an attorney for goodness sake. LAW, FACT, COURT – What part is not clear about this? FACTs only NOT ideas or the ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’s’ - OPINION, Theory, Personal Belief System, Societal Culture, ‘Philosophy’ - an ‘Idea’ -a-could-be-might-be 16^th century witch DoktoR – voo-doo-thinking ‘get a stick and beat it to death’ mentality, who have created for their selves, HIGH Paying Jobs Where NONE should exist to begin with. None.

The "Trial Within a Trial" Court-Appointed, Case Managers, Custody Evaluators et el. Waste Judicial Resources and Parents' Funds

The primary reason psychologists and other mental health professionals should be banned from the family court systems, except to answer limited and narrowly-defined questions actually within their expertise, is that their presence does not add value, but rather, wastes court, lawyer, and litigant time, money and resources. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Parenting Evaluation, Parenting Plans...
Reevaluating the Evaluators: “Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts”http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

A call for a revolt altogether against the notion of "therapeutic jurisprudence" -- which has been proved to do little to benefit children, much to benefit the divorce industry, much to complicate and pervert our family laws, much to erode fundamental rights and liberties, and much to harm the families who become trapped in the system. There are many problems, of course. But they are symptoms. Step one is to get the agent of most of them out of our family courts. The Emperor has no clothes.

Lawyer Conflict: MHP’s and “therapeutic jurisprudence” ultimately must be – and will be – taken out of the family courts.

Lawyers' unacknowledged conflicts are destroying the quality of family law representation. One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems into the courts is the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the multiple ways this happens in the family courts is through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referral.http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations
CHILD CASE MANAGERS, CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html

DOJ Study: Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations- Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final Technical Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

Parenting Coordination, a bad idea

• Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
• Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
• Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
• Parenting coordination violates privacy
• The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
• Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
• Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
• No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
• No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families' lives or child wellbeing.
• Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
• Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
• Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
• Nothing qualifies any third party to "fill in the gaps" in someone else's contract
• There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
• Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
• It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
• Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
• Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
• Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other's funds
• Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
• Parenting coordination is not confidential
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
• Parenting coordination can never be "voluntary" because it implements unwanted court orders
• Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign "consents" that give up constitutional rights
• Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
• They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
• They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
• Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
• Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
• Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state's police power
• Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
• They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of "focus on the children"
• They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
• They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
• Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
• Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
• Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
• They alone decide if a parent is "cooperating" with them
• They are given unwarranted authority to impose or recommend sanctions against parents
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with extended family, friends, and collaterals
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with children, teachers, and school officials
• They are given authority to demand private medical and therapy records
• They are able continuously to undermine the credibility and competence of parents to third parties
• They are able continuously to divulge private family issues to third parties
• They are given authority to demand meetings, and meeting times and places
• There are no studies of parenting coordination methods or techniques
• There is no research into parenting coordinators' efficacy, and there cannot be
• Decisions are based on the parenting coordinator's private agendas, values, and beliefs
• Most parenting coordinators lack psychological insight
• Parenting coordination is not "co-parenting therapy" which rarely works anyway
• Mental health professionals are ignorant of the repercussions in law of their ideas
• There is no valid "training" because there is no body of knowledge to base training on
• Decisions are made without actual knowledge of people's households and daily lives
• Parenting coordination provides a forum for the arguing of minutiae, not just major decisions
• Parenting coordinators frequently make bad decisions
• The parenting coordinator has absolutely no incentive to work himself or herself out of a job
• Parenting coordinators tend to be individuals who can't make a go of practicing their profession
• Many have axes to grind; others need to re-live and normalize their own family-of-origin issues
• Parenting coordination is unregulated and practicably unable to be regulated
• There is no effective oversight, and there cannot be
• There is no recourse against the parenting coordinator for malfeasance or malpractice
• Parenting coordinators have control to self-generate their work and churn fees
• The claim of parenting coordinators that they sought this role in order to "help" people is specious
• Parenting coordination proceedings are informal, outside court, and not subject to effective oversight
• Parenting coordinators can report conversations and events differently from how they really happened
• Parenting coordinators can cover themselves by blaming parents for the failure of the venture
• Parenting coordinators can and do give parents make-work at whim
• Parenting coordinators may not have any personal parenting experience
• Parenting coordinators may not have experience being primary caregivers, or as single parents
• Many of those drawn to the field are by nature meddlers, incompetents, or petty tyrants
• Parenting coordination is dangerous, founded on erroneous beliefs about "high conflict"
• Parenting coordination is a tool to force fit parents and children to invest in abusers' rehabilitation
• "High conflict" means "abusive relationship", not "difficult learning situation"
• "High conflict" means "threats to security and well-being", not "lack of communication skills"
• Fears and concerns are real, not irrational, vindictive, or merely personality disordered
• "High conflict" means that the "parenting plan" is inappropriate, unjust, unhealthy, or unsafe, and
• there is no "adjustment period" to get through or equal "co-parenting relationship" to regain
• Parenting coordinators have missed domestic violence
• Parenting coordinators have inflamed emotions and exacerbated legal issues
• Parenting coordinators have assumed facts that are not true
• · Parenting coordinators have perceived emergencies or situations incorrectly
• Parenting coordinators have mischaracterized events
• Parenting coordinators have made egregious judgmental mistakes
• Parenting coordinators have lied outright
• There is no basis to presume their "good faith" or their "neutrality"
• There are no ethical guidelines that practicably can be enforced
• There are, and can be, no enforceable practice parameters, only vague aspirational generalities
• Parenting coordinators will be biased because of the nature of human relationships and the role
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has more credibility than either parent
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has the ear of the judge, and
• because the parenting coordinator has relationships with supportive guardians ad litem, and
• because the parenting coordinator has other courthouse referral relationships who will back him or her
• Court oversight is illusory because it's easy to claim a parent is uncooperative or lying
• Court oversight is illusory because it's expensive
• or there is not enough time to get a hearing
• or the party doesn't have a lawyer post-decree, and
• because the judge who appointed the parenting coordinator did so because he didn't want to hear it
• Most of all, parenting coordination is proof that joint custody does not work

Therapeutic Jurisprudence – Child Trafficking via family Courts. It’s monetary. It's all about their money and the "gravy train" ride. THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED FROM ALL FAMILY COURTS!!

You cannot ‘PREDICT’ or see in any “Crystal Ball”. It is not FACT and these Case Managers, Guardian Ad Litem’s, Parenting Coordinators, Co-parenting, Shared Parenting, SUPERVISED VISITATION and ACCESS VISITATION Centers should have NEVER been allowed into the Kansas Courts to begin with! It is all Therapeutic Jurisprudence that denies ‘Access to Justice’. It does not matter, in fact will only ‘entrench’ these NON Fact – Pseudo Science, self serving Profiteers with ‘god’ like authority if you Give them a simple pedigree in B.S. crystal ball reading experts forced, CAPTIVE litigants to hire by the Court of Law and Fact. You still have the same thing as you do with a non licensed A$$hole. Oxymoron. Allow the Judge to ‘Judge’ not anyone else. If these people want to ‘judge’ rule and play god in an already EGO ruled Entitlement Family Court then let them become ‘Judges’.

Opinions only - None are based in any FACT—A Court of Law, must be FACT. The difference between non licensed and licensed ‘carnival crystal ball reading – theory, assumption, future predicting based on their own personal beliefs’ is the PRICE they charge.

The Amicus Brief by the one Dr. Milfred 'Bud' Dale Amicus Brief - Karen Williams- Case Managers Kansas – EXPERT of the experts for hire by the experts- forensic PROFESSIONAL expert - in the end is still just ‘one man’s personal opinions’, self interest, extremely profitable and continuing expenses for his ‘captive’ clients. This completely denies the Constitutional Right to a Court of Law governed by FACT.

(I know this first hand) 

(KS) Dr. Dale and Pedophile Dr. Gardner: Similarities Engaged

A Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

Courtesy www.TheLizLibrary.org

Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

by Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale.

then see below same? hmm……

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html

Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions

on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is the creator of the creator and main proponent for Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory. Prior to his suicide, Gardner was an unpaid part-time clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He made his money mainly as a forensic expert.

Get rid of them. The best interest of the child is to remain with their primary attachment figure (usually their mothers) stop ripping the hearts and the lives out of these mothers and her children, by the highly profitable lucrative ‘industry’ of Case managers, Guardian Ad Litems, et other 3^rd party ‘Justice’ interferers.