Family Court Story of Custody Evaluator Who Hid Notes of Sex Abuse by Father
Here is another story about the criminal racketeering enterprise called Family Court. Without a jury for a check and balance, the judge solely controls the fates of children throughout America.
For-profit court professionals, like the custody evaluators, who decide the fate of children they met once or twice, based on satisfying the GALs and attorneys who refer him or her.
Here is an example of a custody evaluator who buried credible allegations of a parent’s sex abuse of his daughter to recommend he get custody, because it made more money for the attorneys, the GAL, and the therapists involved.
A young girl of divorcing parents disclosed to the custody evaluator that her father sexually abused her on many occasions.
Somehow the custody evaluator chose not to mention her disclosures in his custody evaluation report to the court.
In fact, he recommended the father get custody, as the parent with superior [funds] parenting skills.
Fighting this monstrous injustice, with her daughter begging for rescue, the mother subpoenaed the custody evaluator’s notes.
The Shining
Reading Crazy Circus: Family Court Custody Evaluator Ruined Daughter’s Life made me think of a story I personally know of.
I read the deposition of a corrupt evaluator who mishandled a child’s sexual abuse in family court.
Under oath, in court, the evaluator could not explain why he did not include his own notes from his evaluation of the then-young girl who her father sexually abused.
I read the whole transcript of the hearing. I read the evaluator’s ‘forgotten’ notes where the girl described explicit details of sexual abuse, where the sexual abuse occurred, and what times.
In the custody evaluator’s notes, the girl explained the physical discomfort, pain, and confusion she experienced. She described what she wore, what he wore, and the surroundings in such detail.
I remember feeling like throwing up when I read it. Imagine how devastating it was for the mother to realize this happened.
‘I wanted to throw up when I read it…’
The notes revealed that the girl described to the custody evaluator numerous incidents of her father’s apparently diverse forms of sexual abuse.
The notes of the girl’s words were compelling, describing thoughtful, matter-of-fact, understandable details of her father’s sexual abuse.
When questioned, the evaluator had no explanation for why he didn’t include his notes in his custody evaluation report to the courts.
The custody evaluator could not recall why he left out the notes of the child telling him her father abused her in his custody evaluation report.
He said, “I do not recall.”
After the hearing, the judge concluded the girl’s description of her sexual abuse was “inconsistent.”
The judge determined there was no sexual abuse. The girl was lying for her description of what her father did to her was not the same every time.
The father’s sexual abuse didn’t happen one time. It was going on for a long time. So, of course, it was “inconsistent.”
It cost the mother her life savings to dispose of that (very well-known) custody evaluator.
The mother was frustrated when the judge refused to consider the notes of her daughter’s sexual abuse.
And then appeal.
The custody evaluator’s notes, which he could not recall why he did not put on the record in his custody evaluation, were admitted by the judge as evidence, and they were never entered the court record.
The evaluator and the judge just changed the subject.
The mother’s lawyer refused to object. I repeat: her own lawyer never objected. The mother fired him. She was then called a “difficult client.”
She couldn’t find another lawyer who would take her case. She then represented herself.
The abused girl’s father placed her in a psychiatric institution. The girl fell apart when she had no more contact with her mother.
The father claimed that all the stress the mother put on them caused his daughter to have mental health problems. And, of course, he paid a lot of money to get her into that mental health institution. He paid it out of pocket. No insurance.
Eventually, the girl turned 18. The father then became her legal conservator.
The mother tried to ask her daughter to fight with her for her freedom from her father. At that point, the girl gave up.
Then the mother appealed again. But she made the tragic mistake of telling the courts she was outraged that her daughter made that choice. She explained in detail all the years her daughter pleaded with her to save her from his abuse.
The mother was alienated with her daughter.
This time, the court decided to make these statements part of the record.
Her statements can be easily googled by typing in her name. All of that is part of the legal record.
The people the father associated with did not let “the little woman” dominate one of their own. If it could happen to him, it could happen to them, which was not an option.
Eventually, because the mother reacted against her daughter’s choice to shut out all the pain, she lost contact, just like they wanted.
The daughter experienced long-term mental health issues.
The daughter has significant mental health issues, which force her to remain under control.
Justice, Family Court style.
That “criminal racketeering enterprise called Family Court” was officially installed.
Starting in the1970s and 80s, good FBI agents and their colleagues around the world who have noticed the blatant racketeering have had to ignore that blatant racketeering. The obvious problem with that is: as long as authorities don’t investigate and prosecute racketeering, that racketeering will continue.
What will happen if racketeering in Connecticut family courts continues simply because of what looks like embarrassing, yet understandable collateral? Nxivm used collateral to keep “DOS” slaves and masters quiet, then came the branding.
In Whitney Webb’s new book, “One Nation Under Blackmail” plenty of examples of blackmail running politics all over the world show what disasters all of that collateral produced.
The collateral set-up in family courts probably looked like this: A few people in the 1970s and 80s convinced a few state and federal employees to help set up a few public-private partnerships in “family courts” to control and process children and families through purposely adversarial for-profit family court cases.
Who can blame those living in the 1970s and 80s? Some kinds of seduction can sound like good ideas at the time (see: “Adam and Eve”) and the 1970s and 80s were still dazed and confused after what was done to America in the 1960s.
For most state and federal employees working in family courts in the 1980s, Jessica Pearson, HHS and the beginnings of AFCC Inc. must have looked like a few savvy professionals with super skills setting up impressive experiments in California, Minnesota and Connecticut for “research purposes”.
In one 2013 article about family court racketeering in Connecticut, one rightfully angry mother wrote about everything the FBI looked like they were totally ignoring almost ten years ago:
“…Established 1975, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is now a Wisconsin based international trade organization for family court industry professionals founded by judges, court administrators, and the family court professionals who may appear before them.
Documents obtained from the State and the AFCC show that the AFCC has been a vendor for the Connecticut Judicial Branch for over 30 years, and at one point even had a corporate office within the Hartford Superior Court.
The articles of incorporation list Judicial Branch Manager Anthony Salius as a founding director. In addition to Salius, the list of former AFCC presidents also includes Judicial Branch managers Robert Tompkins and Stephen Grant. AFCC newsletters also show that for over a decade, Court support services managers Debra Kulak and Marilous Giovannucci have teamed up with AFCC affiliated Judicial Branch vendors like Dr. Phil Stahl and Dr. Marsha Kline Pruitt to assist with AFCC fundraising and policy initiatives.
According to William Silk, a staff attorney for the Connecticut Secretary of State’s office explained that in most cases, the Connecticut Nonstock Corporations Act requires all nonprofit businesses to file registration documents with his office, the IRS, and the Attorney General’s Office before conducting business in the state. Documents obtained from Silk’s office show that Jessica Pearson, Ann Milne, and Frank Orlando (a Florida judge) first registered the AFCC with the Connecticut Secretary of State in 1982 while Pearson was under contract to set up the court’s mediation services.
However, the AFCC has not been registered to do business in Connecticut because in 1985, its application was withdrawn by then AFCC president and Judicial Branch manager Anthony Salius. The IRS’s website does not list the Connecticut AFCC as an approved charity. …”
On April 19, 2013, The Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics discussed the public-private stakeholder collaboration described in that 2013 article.
At the time: Gerard Adelman was CT AFCC Inc. Director. Bruce Freedman was CT AFCC, Inc. Treasurer and Robert Horwitz was CT AFCC, Inc. Secretary. The state attorney general’s office still allows Mr. Adelman, Mr. Freedman and Mr. Horwitz to work for profit in family court cases.
Judicial Ethics Committee members present via teleconference on April 19, 2013 were: “Justice Barry R. Schaller, Chair, Judge Edward R. Karazin, Jr., Vice Chair, Judge Maureen D. Dennis, Judge Christine E. Keller, and Professor Jeffrey A. Meyer. Staff present: Attorney Martin R. Libbin, Secretary.”
Some of the minutes recorded that day:
“MINUTES
I. With the above noted Committee members present, Justice Schaller called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.
II. Although publicly noticed, no members of the public were in attendance.
III. The Committee approved the Minutes of the March 22, 2013 meeting. (Professor Meyer abstained.)
IV. The Committee ratified Emergency Staff Opinions JE 2013-13.
V. The Committee discussed Informal JE 2013-15 concerning whether a Judicial Official may serve on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization that provides services to court-involved clients and receives the majority of its funding from contracts with the Judicial Branch.
The nonprofit organization has multiple contracts with the Judicial Branch to provide various assessments and services to, inter alia, litigants in family, juvenile and criminal court matters (hereinafter “clients”). Clients may be referred directly by the court, as well as by probation and family services personnel. Various contracts require the nonprofit organization to provide reports to the court and to have personnel appear in court to testify regarding a client’s success or failure to complete the services and programs provided by the nonprofit organization.
Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the … impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.”
Rule 1.3 of the Code states that a “judge shall not use or attempt to use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others or allow others to do so.”
Rule 3.1 of the Code states that a Judicial Official may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law; however, a judge may not participate in extrajudicial activities that will (1) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, (2) lead to frequent disqualification, (3) appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality, or (4) appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.
Rule 3.7(a) provides that a judge “may participate in activities sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice… including,…(6) serving as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of such an organization or entity, unless it is likely that the organization or entity: (A) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge; or (B) will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.” The rule’s commentary states that “[e]ven for law related organizations, a judge should consider whether the membership and purposes of the organization, or the nature of the judge’s participation in or association with the organization, would conflict with the judge’s obligation to refrain from activities that reflect adversely on a judge’s independence, integrity, and impartiality.” Rule 3.7, cmt. (2).
In discussing Rule 3.7(a)(6)(B), the Committee (with one member recused) determined that the prohibition on serving as an officer, director, trustee or nonlegal advisor of an organization concerned with the law, the legal system or the administration of justice if the organization “will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member” applies, not only when the organization is a party to adversary proceedings, but also when the organization supplies witnesses and reports for use in adversary proceedings. Based upon the foregoing, an appearance of impropriety would arise if a Judicial Official serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization or member of the Judicial Official’s staff were to refer clients to the nonprofit organization. Further, the nonprofit organization may use or attempt to use the prestige of the Judicial Official’s office when seeking additional contracts with the Judicial Branch or others. Accordingly, the Committee, with one member recused, unanimously determined that service on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors would violate Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7(a)(6)(B).
… IX. The meeting adjourned at 1:54 p.m.”