Children Fight Back Against Unfair Family Court Decisions

Thursday, January 12, 2012

What is Everyone Trying to Hide

Of course I am a huge advocate of having a cell phone in order to protect you and to document any concern. Time and time again we have children who have clearly stated that they were being abused or threatened and it was never believed until video evidence came to light. If the father and the judge is this concerned about the child's use of a cell phone, then there must be something they are both trying desperately to hide.
I can not understand why judges continue to prevent children from protecting themselves from abusive parents. With video evidence there is no question about what was said and the manner in which it was said. Cameras have shown judges asleep, lawyers lying, cops roughing up children, and fathers beating their daughters. Why all the fear Judge? What are you trying to hide?

A Brooklyn judge says a 10-year-old boy at the center of a heated custody battle should get rid of his iPhone because it has become a spy tool for his TV commentator mom.

Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine says the high-tech phone is a nuissance because the boy takes pictures and recordings of his dad, John Hannigan, and sends them to his mom, Annemarie McAvoy.

"Get this iPhone out. It's too much of an intrusion," Sunshine said during an emergency trial to assess the risk of the boy, who recently threatened suicide if he has to stay with his dad.

The boy lives with his father, but the judge said McAvoy instructs his son to get any dirt on her ex-husband.

"The mother entered the father's home and took residency with the iPhone," the judge said, recommending the boy downgrade to a flip phone.

Sunshine ruled there's no imminent danger to the boy and upheld a temporary 2007 order of a Queens judge that switched custody from McAvoy to Hannigan.

The father's lawyer, Audrey Sager, called the iPhone "an intrusive weapon utilized by the mother" to document her former husband.

McAvoy, who acted as her own attorney, blasted the decision, saying her son uses the phone to video-chat and do homework with her.

"It just shows how out of touch this judge is," she said of the ruling. "This is ridiculous."

Sunshine told McAvoy to dial down her "exaggerations" about the boy's condition. He implored the warring parents to think different.

"Life is not a cross-examination," he said. "Nor is parenthood."

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Gee..why doesn't the judge understand my case

Sometimes it seems like the judge just doesn't understand your case. It seems like no matter what happens he doesn't listen and he doesn't care. And you can't understand why. Well here's one reason why. He's asleep.
That's right. Even though you and your mom live and die but what happens in that courtroom, your judge can't even be bothered to stay awake. Sure, you would get detention if you did this during math class, but this guy won't suffer any consequences. But you will.
So remember, when your dad tells you about how the judge "knows best" and how the case was decided "in your best interest", that justice was asleep at the wheel.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

When children have had enough.

This child can finally get his life back. It would have turned up so much differently if tyne police and the courts had protected him when he said he was abusing. They refused to believe him and gave this child no way out.

Nearing Finale for Son Convicted in Dad's Shooting Death

HOUSTON - August 2004: It was a crime scene that changed a 10-year-old boy's life.
Harris County deputies swarmed a brick home in an affluent Katy subdivision, responding to a call of shots fired.
They arrived to find Dr. Rick Lohstroh, a UTMB Galveston physician going through a messy divorce, slumped in his car.
Lohstroh had been shot multiple times by his then 10-year-old son. We’re not naming the boy due to his age and the nature of the crime.
Defense attorney Chris Tritico, also a FOX 26 legal analyst, served as the boy's attorney.
"One of the sad facts of this case is that a very troubled young man could get a gun," Tritico said Monday.
The Lohstroh boy received a 10-year sentence, spending four years in custody before an appeals court overturned his conviction.
He was released to live with his grandmother, but the case was still pending.
Over the years, the boy caught up on his studies at a private school, but there was always a possibility a judge would send him to an adult prison.
That possibility is about to end.
== End of a Long Road ==
Tritico says the district attorney's office dropped the determinate sentencing phase of the case.
"When they did that, we then went in and we plead no contest to juvenile murder case," Tritico said. "The judge gave him probation until is 18th birthday."
The Lohstroh boy is now 17 years old. If he doesn't get in trouble over the next year, the boy who shot and killed his dad back in 2004 will be off probation.
Tritico says he will be able to seal his criminal record at age 19, basically clearing his juvenile criminal record.
It could be the end to a story that captured national attention. When the case hit the courts, so did the details of his parents' nasty divorce, the boy's antidepressant use and abuse allegations.
== Tritico Proud of Young Defendant ==
Tracy Kleinhans was part of the jury pool. She talked to FOX 26 about her thoughts on the case in 2006 after she was dismissed from duty.
"He was in a blue plaid shirt and a pair of tan Dockers, and he just looked dwarfed by the attorneys," she said back then. "He was obviously very nervous, and we all looked at him and said, 'He killed his father’?"
Kleinhans went on to say she would've had a hard time sitting on the jury.
"It's still difficult, I think, for a 10-year-old child to understand true right from wrong," she said. "I wish him well. He's going to have a hard, hard life ahead of him regardless of what happens to him."
Tritico would not say where the boy was living.
He did confirm he was staying with family members, but no longer in his grandmother's custody.
Deborah Geisler, Lohstroh's mother, did not return our phone calls.
Tritico says the boy is already in college.
"I'm very proud of this young man for all that he's been through," he said. "(After) spending 4 1/2 years in custody, to be doing as well as he is. He graduated from high school early. He's a remarkable young man. I don't think any of us can really appreciate the pressure that you're under when you spend seven years of your life starting at 10, ending at 17, with this cloud hanging over your head. The older he got, the more he appreciated the fact he could go back to prison for a very, very long time."

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Resistance is not futile, but it must be taught

I'm not going to pretend that I now the whole story about what is being posted here. I don't and chances are good I don't want to know. This video is reposted so that we can learn from it.

It is really hard to teach children how to resist adults. We have spent there entire lives teaching them that police are always good and that adults are always right. Some of the hardest things that adults in the family court system have to endure is the damage that this process does to our internal sense of right and wrong, and the pain that injustice causes. It is very unfair to have to burden our children with the reality that police, judges, and even parents can be wrong. But if you or your child is stuck in family court then they must learn that hard truth.

For efficacy, I am going to assume that the police had a warrant to remove the children. I can see no other reason why he would have allowed them into his house otherwise. He briefly prepares the children for what is to happen next, but I think that the preparation could have been much better. He is hampered by the fact that he must appear at all times to not be interfering with the police action, and this limits his abilities to assist the children in fighting back. It would have been much better if he had taught them a non-descipt signal word that would indicate to them when they should resist an adult. They children would have known what to do when they heard that word and the father could not be arrested for inciting violence.

The children themselves are very small in this video. Older children and kids over one hundred pounds would be best taught some of the techniques used by adult non-violent protesters, namely how to go limp. But here the police officer is clearly able to carry that child without difficulty so that technique won't work. But just because they are small does not mean that they can not cause damage. Their small size means that they may be quicker and they can certainly fit places adults can't go. Hiding within the house will not do them any good, they'll be found. However, if they get away on the street it might be a valuable lesson to teach them.

So what are the children's best weapons to fight with. The fact that they can inflict injury on the officers with out suffering any consequences. Let me repeat, these children do not have to hold back. They fight with the knowledge that the will not be held accountable for any injuries or damage they cause. They're children. They won't get arrested. The police officers aren't going to taser them, or pepper spray them, or beat them with a billy club. Do not underestimate how powerful that is. Consequences for poor behavior are the only things that keep most of us in line. And these children have none. Make sure they know that.

The next best weapons the children have or can acquire is an audience. Once they are out on the street, then the children need to be as loud as possible to get the attention of as many people as possible. Teach the children how to scream "Help I'm being abducted" This is especially effective for females. Scream it at the top of their lungs. When strangers stop the children should be taught to ask them directly for help. In this case, passerby's will realize it is the police who are taking the children so the children need to be taught to then cry or scream about how the police are hurting them. Don't teach them to say "Police Brutality", that is an adult turn. A child screaming that "he's breaking my arm" or "I can't breathe" while the child is being dragged or pushed into a police car will get much more attention then one screaming police brutality. Teach your children techniques that play to their strengths. They aren't adults, they can garner sympathy in a way that adults can't. Use that to their advantage.

The physical weapons that these children have are their teeth and their feet. The children here need to know to bite any body part that gets near them. They should go to ground, and use their lower legs and feet to keep the officer's away. When the officer gets close, and he will use his superior body weight to push his way in, the child should then begin to bite. Any body part will do, but the most damage can be inflicted on the fingers, ears, lips, and genitals. This would have been an entirely different video if the child would have bit off the officers pinky. No officer is going to risk their safety trying to fight an opponent who can not be injured, but can hurt him with impunity while a crowd of people are watching. Their not going to do it. They don't get paid enough.

If you have a child who is stuck in the family court system, watch this with them. Role play with them what they would do in this instance. Teach them to defend themselves. Resistance is not futile. But neither is it entirely innate. It must be taught.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Child actively refusing visitation

So in this video we have a child who is actively refusing to go with her father. There are several things that are being done correct her. First, the visitation is occurring at a public place, in this case a police station. This ensures that there will be an audience and that father can not say that the child was not present at visitation. Next, notice that the mother does not interact initially with the father. She tries to remain a neutral party and is only videotaping for her own protection. Unfortunately at the end she does begin to engage with the other party. Also note that the child herself is refusing the visitation. She refuses to let the father touch her and is clear that she will not be leaving with the father. She clearly articulates why she will not go with the father.
For all those who are wondering whether the police will assist the father, note that the police intervened to prevent the child from yelling. They did not arrest the child. They did not assist the father. They did not force her to go. In fact their intervention actually made the father back off his harassment of her. The police have no interest in getting involved in a bitter custody battle, even if it is occurring on their doorstep.
There are however things that could be done differently, and will make the case stronger if the father persists in forcing the issue. The child should try to remain positive but firm. Choose one statement to say over and over again. In her case, she should say " I will not leave with you because you have a history of abusing me and I am afraid". That is it and say no more. By engaging with him she is furthering his pursuit of her. In addition, anything she says regarding the incident could be used against her in a future custody evaluation. By remaining polite but firm, the father can not paint her as being immature or disrespectful.
The mother can also help the situation but not engaging whatsoever with whomever is with the father. She does not defend, she does not engage. The mother and the child should consider whether it would be beneficial for the mother to wait in the car. The can discuss it before hand. This may be helpful because then the father can not accuse the mother of assisting the child in visitation refusal. Remember, in cases such as these the litigants are likely to be in front of a judge again. The judge is the audience here, it is not about getting back at the dad. His only power is to go back to court and the judge needs to see an independent polite child who clearly has a reason to refuse visitation and who is firm in her resolve.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Well, at least he apologized

Here we have a case where a judge decides that if the kids won't happily visit their father, then by golly he's going to make them. He orders two 14 year olds and a 12 year old into the father's custody and then seems shocked when everything doesn't end up with rainbows and unicorns. Silly judge, kids aren't possessions to be lorded over and traded about as you see fit.

Kudos to the children who refused to leave the courthouse for eight hours. If not for them, this custody arrangement may have succeeded. Again, this got to show that the more children refuse to participate in Family Court's nonsense, the sooner they will get their lives back

Mother gets apology from court for removal of children

A SYDNEY mother has received a written apology from the chief of the Federal Magistrates Court after her three children were removed from her care for refusing to visit their father.
In a letter of a type rarely seen in Australia, Chief Federal Magistrate John H. Pascoe said he was "very deeply concerned" at the distress the mother suffered after her children were taken from her.
He said the treatment the mother received in court was "quite inconsistent with the aims of the court in dealing with family matters" and added: "I have a great deal of sympathy for you."
The woman, who cannot be named, was accused in court of "poisoning" the children against their father by involving them in the custody dispute. The children were twin boys aged 14 and their 12-year-old sister.
The magistrate in the case, Joseph Harman, told the woman he believed she was doing irreparable psychological harm to the children by not encouraging them to see their father.
Free trial
In a hearing at the Parramatta branch of the Federal Magistrates Court, Mr Harman said the children would have no relationship with their father if they were allowed to stay with their mother. He based his ruling on the findings of a court psychologist.
Under the laws on shared parenting brought in by the Howard government in 2006, couples were encouraged to "co-parent" their children after divorce.
The Senate passed amendments to those laws last week. Men's rights groups have complained the Labor government is winding back shared care, but women's groups say the amendments are necessary to protect children from harm.
When Mr Harman told the Sydney mother he had decided to send the children to live full-time with their father, her lawyer immediately objected, saying the "extraordinary" move "would remove the children from the mother, instantly, with no communication whatsoever".
Mr Harman replied: "That's a bit like what happened in June-July last year, when the children were removed from any time with their father, and haven't communicated with him since."
Counsel for the mother told the court the children had become hysterical when told of the order, and were refusing to leave the court with their father.
The magistrate said this was typical of children who had been taught to fear their father.
The mother left the court "distressed and about to vomit" and an ambulance was called. Two NSW police officers attended the court after the children began damaging court property in the foyer.
The mother's lawyer then told the court that if the children were forced to go with their father they would run away.
"That's why I've invited the Department (of Community Services) to intervene," Mr Harman said. "If they don't comply, they will be in a refuge. They won't be going home with mum."
Two senior child welfare officers from the NSW Department of Community Services were called to the court. Mr Harman told them: "We have two children, sorry, three children, two of whom are twin boys who have just turned 14, so young, strong and full of testosterone, and a 12-year-old girl.
"They are now expressing very strong entrenched views that they are not going anywhere with their father. I have just made an order that they are to go home with him.
"I have also made an order, subject to the power of arrest if anyone breaches it, that neither mum nor any member of her family are to go and talk to them.
"If these children refuse to go anywhere with their father, I would like you to exercise your emergency powers and take them into care.
"Those are the three options: they go home with dad or they go home with the director. They are not leaving this building with mum."
He added: "If you need the assistance of police or security, downstairs will help with that."
However, neither police nor the social workers were willing to physically force the children, who were described as "verging on hysterical", into a refuge or into their father's care.
One of the police officers told Mr Harman the children were in "a highly aggressive, agitated and hysterical state" and one social worker tried to explain it would be impossible to force the children to go with the father, since it may "see them break away, or run away, and be vulnerable on the streets".
Mr Harman conceded defeat, saying: "These children have now been present in this court since 11.30am, and accordingly have been here for the best part of eight hours and have maintained a steadfast refusal to leave (the court) with the father."
He said the children's mother had helped whip "them into a frenzy" about being sent to a refuge, and so he agreed to let the children leave with a maternal aunt. Their mother was banned from any contact with them for a month, including by mobile telephone and email. She was also banned from going within 500m of their school.
The mother has told The Australian the order removing the children was overturned after a month, with no explanation.
"They came back to me, and they are still with me, and I never heard another word from the court until I suddenly got that apology (on November 9)," the mother said. "He did so much damage to my children, I believe he should be sacked."
Mr Harman was asked to stand down from the court last month while he received counselling for a series of judgments that had to be overturned on appeal.
In one case, he revealed he had a sexual relationship with the lawyer who was acting for the wife, and then refused to disqualify himself from the hearing.
Mr Pascoe said he had been made aware of "some complaints" against Mr Harman, who had "agreed to be restricted to non-sitting duties".
Mr Harman has since resumed hearing cases at Parramatta "on a limited basis" and is subject to continuing review of his performance.
He did not respond to a request for an interview.
Mr Harman was appointed by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland in July last year. In a statement, Mr McClelland said he was "aware of concerns raised in relation to Federal Magistrate Harman in the performance of his judicial duties".
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, magistrates "must not be removed from office, except by the Governor-General, on an address from both Houses of Parliament . . . praying for his or her removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity"

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet

Family Court Judge Beats Child

The news has been all over the case of Judge William Adams caught on tape beating his disabled child, but is anyone involved in the family courts really surprised. You have a man who has routinely discredited and ignored children's claims of abuse and neglect. He has a ex-wife who divorced him because he was abusing her. And yet he has been called a good man by his colleagues and neighbors, and was widely considered a model parent.
No one gets it. No one understands that these men are violent controlling animals who get off on hurting people who are unable to fight back. They wrap themselves in a coat of armor supplied by the courts and law enforcement and hold children hostage in an 18 year torture chamber until the kids fight back, he kills them or they kill him. Its a modern day gladiator battle where the participants are begging CPS and police to get them out , but they keep getting pushed back into the ring.
The only reason this child is being believed now is because she has incontrovertible proof. Otherwise she would have been thrown under the "parental alienation" bus, that is maiming children and families throughout the US.

But we can learn from this. That which does not kill us makes us stronger. This child followed all the rules and now gets to sit back as her father gets his just rewards. This child was very smart. She caught the actions on tape so that no one could deny that the event ever happened. Remember that when you have to go to visitation. Memory is good, written summaries are better, but video or audio tapes are kryptonite. This child also waited until she got out from his abusive control before she posted the tape. She knew that a man that was capable of that kind of violence was capable of killing her. She waited until she was no longer stuck in family court but waited until she was of the age where she could get a restraining order against him and stop him from ever coming in contact with he again. Watch this tape, and learn from it.