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

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

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.

Sharia Law In Kansas Courts: Ronald W Nelson ‏ @KansasDivorce An Overland Park Fathers Rights Attorney PRO Sharia Law In Kansas Courts - OPPRE$$ion of Women for Profit – *** KER - CHING$  Domestic Violence, Judicial Jujitsu, Power and Control, Corruption, Human Trafficking, Child trafficking,

  Ronald W Nelson ‏ @KansasDivorce #KSLegislature: Rep. Mast Makes Pitch for Anti-Sharia Law, Wading  Into Pending Divorce Trying To Make Her Point http://bit.ly/Jfz5rR

   From Kansas to Gaza—this is NOT His first ride on Sharia – From Overland Park to the  Middle East

10 American Families and Shariah Law American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.

This post is a shout out to the following Court Whores (Money Making Profiteers) and Senate Paid Bribed Co-Conspirators who dare to even think that Sharia law should eve be considered an option in US courts and in Kansas Courts.

Naming Names

• Ron Nelson
• Guardian ad litem aka (Court Appointed Child Abuser) Leah Gagne
• Kansas Fatherhood Initiatives aka “DADDY WELFARE” (and the above sucking the gov teet)
• The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals
• Human Rights Violations
• KS Senators Jean Schodorf, Jeff King, David Haley, Tim Owen http://t.co/IKO0SoTC

Its monetary - it’s ALL about the Money. Always….

Mast makes last pitch for Kansas Sharia Law Bill

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Photo Topeka Capital Journal

In a last-ditch effort to get a Senate vote on a bill to keep foreign laws out of Kansas courts, Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, staged a news conference this week to draw attention to a Wichita divorce in which she said the husband is requesting the court apply Islamic law, or sharia.

Mast planned to have a representative for the wife in the case at the event, but the representative decided against appearing at the last minute on the advice of the wife's attorney, because the case is still pending.

Mast plowed ahead with the event, telling a crowd of about 30 people who gathered Wednesday in the Statehouse's Old Supreme Courtroom that "there's been a lot of people feeling like we need to protect our Constitution and protect the freedoms we have."

The Wichita case involves Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor. According to a brief filed by his wife's attorney, Hamdeh had two previous marriages in which he brought women from the Middle East to the United States and subsequently divorced them and was awarded "what appears to be substantially all of the property and custody of the minor children."

Hamdeh's attorney, John Lehecka, said he couldn't comment on the pending case except to say that Mast appeared to have only heard one side. "The court has heard both sides and the court’s going to make an appropriate decision based on the evidence and testimony the court has heard," he added.

The brief states Hamdeh met and married his current wife, Hala Hamdeh, in Lebanon in 2003 when he was 50 and she was 31. He brought her to the United States the same year and since then she has been a homemaker and mother to their daughter, Tala, and her step-son, Ahmad. Hala Hamdeh, the brief states, has no post-secondary education and is not fluent in English.

Hussein Hamdeh filed for divorce in November 2010. A point of contention in the case appears to be whether his promise of a $5,000 marriage gift, or Sadaq, is sufficient to settle his wife's side of the divorce financially, per his understanding of Lebanese religious laws and a "prenuptial" agreement, in English, that he had her sign in Wichita after their marriage. In the brief Hala Hamdeh's attorney argues that applying Islamic law to interpret whether there is a valid prenuptial agreement would violate her constitutional rights.

The brief states that in similar cases in New York and California, courts ruled that state divorce laws apply.

Ron Nelson, a family law attorney in Lenexa, said even under Islamic law the Sadaq, or dower, does not fulfill a husband's financial obligations to his wife in a divorce. He surmised that it may have entered the Hamdeh proceedings more as a negotiating tactic than a religious argument. (of course it did you likely suggested it—From Kansas to gaza)

"The husband's claims that dower should satisfy his marital obligation are simply his positioning — much the same as nearly every other person who is going through a divorce and makes a goodly sum of money tries to do," Nelson said. "But that's not a sharia question. (oh but it is which is why you so want sharia to increase your own finances- this way you can fuck EVERY mother in family court after all daddy is the Big financial pay off—protecting your own Job Security as the scum of the lawyers ) And it's certainly not a position limited to men with Islamic beliefs or a Middle East background. What it comes down to is that in any divorce pending in Kansas, the courts apply Kansas divorce and property division law and Kansas law on the support of spouses and children."

The judge has not made a ruling in the case, but Mast still said she's concerned about the use of "foreign law entered as evidence in the Kansas court system." (even when not stated as such women have fallen to the Courts Heavy hand of misogyny, cronyism and money making by oppressing women and TAKING her children from her.)

Nelson said whatever Mast's intentions, it's unwise for a legislator to wade into divorce proceedings that are two years in the making and still undecided. (That’s because this fuck is a mega money player in the Kansas fathers Rights to ABUSE OPPRESS MAIME TORTURE and KILL. The KS Legislature creates laws not to deny them – Have ever heard of the Constitution? or did you miss that in lawyer 101 school? apparently… anything to See your name huh? well google your name now)

"This case has over 43 pages of docket," he said. "It's obviously a complex and rancorous case." (hmmmm must be some shit serious abuse going on as is ALWAYS the case in ALL so called “High Conflict Case” *ker* ching-

In a media release, Mast suggested that Hala Hamdeh's rights to custody of her daughter are also under threat because of sharia, but the guardian ad litem (better know nas Court Appointed Child Abusers—also very much a part of the of Color of law to deny Civil Rights –several in collusion- *Ker ching$ appointed by the court to look after Tala's best interests, Leah Gagne, said religion has not been a factor. (religion? come the fuck on religion? ha Just another easy word for your bias and cover so you can keep making the mula)

“All cases that involve extensive and heavy litigation take their toll on kids," Gagne said. (get rid of Therapeutic Jurisprudence bitches like you that MAKE IT HEAVY LITIGATION – oh wait then you'd have to work for a living- loose that easy blood money)

"This is no different than two Protestants fighting over a child, two Catholics fighting over a child, two atheists fighting over a child.” (You Dumb fucking Bitch its not religion but hey what ever it takes to make your $$$)

Mast told the crowd that gathered for her media event that she's most concerned about the rights of women and children in Kansas being abridged or violated by Islamic law. She said she's been working on the foreign law bill for two years, bringing in speakers like an ex-terrorist and a former Delta Force special operations soldier.

"If the bill does not pass this year, it's going to be hard to gin up enough energy for the next two years," she said, referring to the next election cycle.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/FRtactic.html

STALKING THROUGH THE COURTS
by Janet Normalvanbreucher

Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• Historical Background of the Father's Rights Movement
• The Quest for Dominance and Control
• Mom, Country, and Apple Pie -- Why People Help Them
• Differentiating Legitimate Fatherhood Groups from Illegitimate "Father's Rights" Groups
  -- Ten Tips for Single Dads
• IS There Bias in the Courts?
• The "Father's Manifesto" - A Political Platform to Repeal the 19th Amendment
  -- Father's Manifesto Signatories
• Practicing Law Without A License -- A Pro-Se Army
• Use of the Internet to Disseminate Information
• The Seduction of the Media
• Father's Right's Advocates in High Places
• How the Father's Right's Movement Hurts Men with Legitimate Disputes
• Mein Kampf -- Indoctrination Tactics of The Father's Rights Movement
• Brief History of VAWA and the Restraining Order
• Are Restraining Orders Widely Abused by Women as a Tactical Maneuver in a Divorce?
• Attacking Her Credibility
• DOJ -- Profile of an Obsessive Stalker
• "She Deserved It" -- How the Criminal Process Fails Victims
• Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process in the Courts
  -- Victoria D.'s story
• Vindictive Custody/Visitation Suits
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Parental Alienation Syndrome
  -- if Psychologists Discredit this Theory, Why Is it So Widely Accepted by the Courts?
• Harassment of Judges, the Legislature, and Potential Jurors
• Lawyers Who Knowingly Help Men Harass their Victims
• Possible Solutions:
  -- Screening of Pro-Se Lawsuits, Criminal Charges, Motions for Reconsideration
  -- Criminal Sanctions for Filing Frivolous Charges with State Administrative Agencies
  -- Tighter Enforcement of Stalking Laws
  -- Rule 11-type Pro-Se Sanctions for Abuse of Process
  -- Prosecuting Groups who are Practicing Law Without A License
  -- Law School Programs - Helping the Victims Fight Back
  -- Lawsuits against FR Groups under the VAWA as Unincorporated Associations.
  -- Legislative Action

“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. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Case Managers, Guardians ad Litem; Parenting Coordinators; Custody Evaluators, etc. the various forms of so-called ADR (alternate dispute resolution) practitioners, such as GALs, parenting coordinators, parenting evaluators, forensic psychologists, recommending mediators, special masters, court-ordered therapists, other court-appointed mental health professionals, supervised visitation centers, and other profiteers of "therapeutic jurisprudence", whose methods involve -- intrusion and coercion under the threat of court sanctions, and actual or de facto extra-judicial decision-making, which have multiple things wrong with them, not the least of which is denigration of due process, and the diminution of a publicly observable, regulated, and appealable "rule by law" by substituting the caprice of men and women.

These practices have been promoted as "cures" for ailings of the court system and the litigants in it by self-serving persons who apparently are ignorant, or else just do not care about the harms they cause to children and their parents because they make money from the ideas they promote, churning profit in proceedings that fly in the face of the foundations of our justice system. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Also; the majority of 'high conflict' divorce case's are Domestic Violence and or Abusive. Good parents 90% of them never have to go through the above, it is the 10 % the abusive ones or aka "High Conflict" that the above make their living on. Return the Judge back to the Court room, get rid of the non factual 'opinion and belief' of third party $ hand outs who block access to Justice/ e.g. the Judge.”

Kansas Court to Consider Case Manager Custody Case Appeal

TOPEKA — The Kansas Court of Appeals is set to hear a child custody case next month that addresses the role of case managers in custody matters in the state.

The case, which is scheduled for a May 15 hearing before the appeals court, involves Karen Williams, who lost full custody of her child in March 2011 after a case manager recommended to the judge that custody go to the child's father. Williams said the decision to separate her from her daughter was made based on confidential conversations between the judge and the case manager.

Williams and her attorney argue that she has a constitutional right to a hearing in which the case manager must present the evidence to back up her custody recommendation and allow Williams to respond to it, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported Monday.

"I've not been allowed due process, and I want a day in court," Williams said.

In Kansas, case managers, who work with parents in "high-conflict" relationships on their visitation schedules and custody, are appointed by judges and aren't required to have a professional license.

"The only qualification currently is that a judge appoints them," said Ron Nelson, a Lenexa lawyer who specializes in family law.

Nelson said the use of case managers has been authorized for about 10 years, and concerns about them overstepping their bounds have mounted due to a lack of clear guidelines about their responsibilities and authority. He said the case management concerns are about non-judicial officers making custody decisions that should be the purview of the courts. .

The Legislature is also considering a bill requiring specific qualifications for case managers. It would restrict judges to appointing only licensed psychologists, psychotherapists, counselors, therapists, social workers or lawyers.

Rep. Joe Patton, R-Topeka, a lawyer who serves on the judiciary conference committee, said he has "mixed feelings" about the bill.

"It's certainly very important to have someone qualified," he said. "It's very possible someone can be qualified without a particular license, but as a general rule we want someone qualified."

Cheryl Powers, the case manager on Williams' case, declined to comment on the Williams brief with the hearing pending. But she said she believes the backlash against case managers is coming from a group of disgruntled lawyers.

"There are certain attorneys that are less than happy with the fact that some of us have quasi-judicial powers without a license," she said. "They're attorneys and don't have that much power. They are not happy with that."

Entire article follows below the excerpts or read here

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

High rates of domestic violence exist in families referred for child custody evaluations. These evaluations can produce potentially harmful outcomes, including the custody of children being awarded to a violent parent, unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation between violent parents and their children, and mediation sessions that increase danger to domestic violence victims. Past research shows that domestic violence is frequently undetected in custody cases or ignored as a significant factor in custody-visitation determinations. Previous research also indicates that violence—and its harmful effects on victims and children—often continues or increases after separation.

Today the family law arena is increasingly identified as needing reform to protect battered women and their children (Goodmark, 2011). Research has documented the ongoing and sometimes escalating dangers faced by victims and their children after they leave violent relationships. Homicidal threats, stalking, and harassment affect as many as 25 to 35 percent of survivors who have left a violent relationship (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Hardesty & Chung, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes,2000a). In addition, as many as one fourth of battered women report their ex-partners threatened to hurt or kidnap their children (e.g., Liss & Stahly, 1993). Many abusers also use the legal system to maintain contact with and harass their ex-partners (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).

Domestic abuse survivors and their children may experience serious harm as a result of family court decisions. Offenders may be able to continue their abuse of their ex-partners and children due to unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation arrangements (Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Radford & Hester, 2006); sole or joint custody of children may be awarded to a violent or potentially violent parent rather than a non-violent one; and mediation may be recommended or mandated in a way that compromises victims’ rights or places them in more danger. Tragically, in some cases post-separation contacts end in the homicide of a mother and/or her children.(Saunders, 2009; Sheeran & Hampton, 1999). Ironically, battered mothers’ attempts to protect their children may be used against them in custody and visitation decisions.

One widely cited educational booklet from the American Judges Association states that, “studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases” (American Judges Association, n.d., p. 5)

Gender Bias in the Courts

Battered women are at higher risk of negative custody-visitation outcomes due to gender bias by courts, as documented by many federal, state, and local commissions that have studied such bias since the 1980s (e.g., Abrams & Greaney, 1989; Czapanskiy, 1993; Danforth & Welling, 1996; Dragiewicz, 2010; Meier, 2003; Zorza, 1996)4. Negative stereotypes about women seem to encourage judges to disbelieve women’s allegations about child abuse (Danforth & Welling, 1996; Zorza, 1996). A lack of understanding about domestic violence also leads judges to accuse victims of lying, blaming victims for the violence, and trivializing the violence (Abrams & Greaney, 1989;Maryland Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias, 1989).

Gender bias is frequently uncovered in custody disputes (Rosen & Etlin, 1996) and often leads to mistrust of women—in particular to the belief that they make false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence. Dragiewicz (2010) provides a comprehensive summary of gender bias reports pertaining to custody decisions. In addition to the tendency to disbelieve or minimize women’s reports of abuse, or to disregard evidence for it, Dragiewicz also describes other problems uncovered during investigations. These include mothers being punished for reporting abuse.

Half of men who batter also physically abuse their children (Straus, 1983.

Beliefs About False Allegations of Domestic Violence in Relation to Other Beliefs and Recommendations

Among evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence are usually false was part of a constellation of beliefs, including beliefs that false allegations of child abuse and parental alienation by DV survivors are common. DV educators need to provide accurate information on: the rates and nature of false allegations and alienation; the ways in which survivors are reluctant to co-parent out of fear of future harm; the mental health consequences of DV; and the importance of understanding coercive-controlling forms of violence. In addition, the significant relationships between beliefs about custody and broader beliefs about patriarchal norms, justice, and social dominance suggest links to deeper values. Professional educators can use value awareness exercises that may help change beliefs and behavior. These recommendations apply to judges as well, since their beliefs about DV and custody were significantly related to the outcomes recommended in the case vignette.

Friendly Parent Statutes

The friendly-parent standard works against survivors because any concerns they voice about father-child contact or safety for themselves are usually interpreted as a lack of cooperation (Zorza, 1996).

Survivors are therefore placed in a no-win situation: If they do not report abuse, then protections for them and solid grounds for custody are not available; yet reporting the abuse may be viewed as raising false allegations in order to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (Dore, 2004). Research shows that parents who raise concerns about child sexual abuse can be severely sanctioned for doing so (Faller & DeVoe, 1995). The sanctions include loss of custody to the alleged offender, restricted visitation, and court orders not to report further abuse or take the child to a therapist (Faller & DeVoe, 1995; Neustein & Goetting, 1999; Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Voices of Women, 2008). In practice, friendly-parent provisions, together with statutes presuming joint custody, tend to override presumptions against awarding joint legal custody with the abuser (Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005).

Further compounding victims’ experiences are contradictory messages from criminal courts, family courts, child protection investigations, and visitation services (Hester, 2009). For example, criminal courts support victims’ testimony about the abuse, but in family court the same testimony might be interpreted as non-cooperation. To overcome these inconsistencies some states have introduced integrated DV courts (Aldrich & Kluger, 2010).

Labeling Survivors as “Alienating Parents”

Similar to the emphasis on cooperative parenting, use of the label “parent-alienation syndrome” (Gardner, 1998) or, more recently, “parental-alienation disorder” (Bernet, 2008; Bernet, von Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010) can also place battered women in a no-win situation.

Battered mothers are vulnerable to these labels when they make formal child abuse allegations or raise concerns about the possible abuse of the children by an ex-partner. Many child abuse professionals believe that mothers coach their children to make false allegations in contested custody disputes (Faller, 2007).

Practitioners who apply parent-alienation syndrome (PAS) or parent-alienation disorder formulations tend to automatically label a parent as an “alienator” without a thorough investigation of the allegations (Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2000; Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2001; Meier, 2009). As a result, battered mothers may be viewed as both pathological and abusive.

Fathers’ Rights Groups

The influence of fathers’ rights groups on evaluators and judges is unclear outside of anecdotal accounts (Kurth, 2010). Some types of groups lobby for the presumption of joint custody and co-parenting and doubt the validity of most domestic violence allegations(Dragiewicz, 2008;Williams, Boggess, & Carter, 2004). For example, the National Fathers’ Resource Center (NFRC), along with Fathers for Equal Rights, “demands that society acknowledge that false claims of Domestic Violence are used to gain unfair advantages in custody and divorce cases” (NFRC, 2006). They further state:

Fathers’ organizations now estimate that up to 80% of domestic violence allegations against men are false allegations. Since society offers women so many perks for claiming that they are victims of DV (we call these perks “warm milk and cookies”), false or staged DV allegations now appear to be even more frequent in family court cases than false sex abuse allegations. . . . Simply stated, women know, and are often advised by their attorneys, that if they want to get custody of the children, they had better try to nail dad with some sort of domestic violence accusation (NFRC, 2006).

Underlying the patriarchal beliefs and victim blaming are likely to be deeper, “core” beliefs (i.e. general, value-laden beliefs) about justice and equality. For example, the belief that the world is basically a just place has been related to various forms of victim blaming or denigration. It asserts that good things can happen only to good people and bad things can happen only to bad people (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). Likewise, holding a basic belief that hierarchies are an inherent part of society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and having inequality as a core value (Ball-Rokeach, 1976) are related to beliefs supporting gender inequality. 

In 2007, ten mothers and a victimized child (now an adult) and national and state organizations filed suit against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They claimed that the human rights of abused mothers and children were not protected because custody was awarded to abusers and child molesters (Klein, 2007).

Parenting Evaluation, Parenting Plans...
Reevaluating the Evaluators: Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts

THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING CUSTODY EVALUATORS  By Margaret Dore.

Reevaluating the Evaluators: Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts

There is an evolving and worsening mess in the systems and procedures currently in place to determine child custody and perform child custody evaluations when parents disagree.

This article discusses the minimum disclosures every child custody evaluator (also known as "parenting evaluator" or "best interests" guardian ad litem or GAL) [1], or parenting coordinator (herein called a "mental health professional" or "MHP") [2a] should be required to make, responding satisfactorily and in full, before being appointed in any family law case to do a child custody evaluation -- in fact before doing anything beyond answering a list of limited, detailed, specific, and narrowly-crafted questions the answers to which are directly within the MHP's field of proved expertise. This format is being used to help illustrate a problem, and with another purpose in mind. That purpose is to 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.

There have been many calls for reform [2b], but for the most part, while they are admirable and well-documented intentions, they miss the boat; while they identify various problems and propose fixes in the system, they fail to identify and address the core reason the system is sick. Thus the proposals seek to treat only symptoms while failing to apply a cure to eliminate the disease.

Contrary to the public perception, and the perception that those seeking lucrative appointments in the court system wish to convey, a degree in some field of mental health does not qualify the individual to perform work that consists of open-ended investigating, evaluating, recommending, or decision-making about other persons' families and children. [3] What originally commenced, and was thought to be a good idea as a judge's assigment of fairly narrow tasks designed to streamline fact-finding and protect individuals' therapy records [4] (e.g. asking a social worker to do a home study, e.g. asking a psychologist to opine on the possible effects on functioning of a party's known or suspected personality disorder or state of depression when mental health already is at issue) has burgeoned into a free-for-all in which a panoply of MHPs make work and involve themselves in the family court system at enormous cost and detriment to the parties with expensive litigation-exacerbating processes, trials-within-trials, experts and counter-experts, and inevitable referrals to additional MHPs (often cronies) for all manner of alternate dispute resolutions and sometimes endless (and often utterly unproven) therapies. [5]

(1) Do you have a law degree or previous extensive experience as a law enforcement officer doing investigations, and if not, what qualifies you to do this work?

The milieu in which the MHP will be working is the justice system, in which litigants have certain rights of due process [6] and in which decisions made in connection with one issue can materially affect a litigant's position as to seemingly unrelated issues in the same case, and in which milieu, inter alia, centuries of jurisprudence have honed certain concepts involving what constitutes reliable evidence, burdens of proof, and other legal aspects bearing on the ultimate resolution of a case. [7] Sociologists, psychologists, and even real scientists by reason of their formal training tend to have little understanding of or appreciation for these legal concepts. [8]

Read more here: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html