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.

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."

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.

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.

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

• BY:CAROLINE OVERINGTON 
• From:The Australian 
• November 29, 2011 12:00AM

• Increase Text Size
• Decrease Text Size
• Print

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.

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"

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.

Stemom Kills Her Kids? Yup, you still have to see her.

In yet another brilliant move by the family courts, children are being sent to live with a father who is married to a woman who killed her own 4 and 8 year old daughters. That's right, it's okay to kill your children because you can just marry a man who has his own children. These kids are teenagers, and yet not one word about how they feel in this tragedy. No thoughts on what it will be like being disciplined by a woman psycho enough to extrerminate her family.
 I'm sorry kids, we have failed you. Please stay safe. Keep a phone with you at all times. If you are ever scared, call 911, from a land line hang up and don't pick it up when they call back, this way they have to respond. Know that school officials and hospital workers are mandated reporters. If you so much as get scary feeling with that woman, get out and get help.

Mom Loses Custody Battle with Ex, Who Is Married to a Child Killer

Posted Aug 1, 2011 9:14 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

•  
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• 

An Oregon woman is appealing a child custody decision that allows a child killer to help raise her two sons.

Trisha Conlon of Silverton, Ore., fought to keep the boys out of her ex-husband’s home after a private investigator confirmed he was living with Kristine Cushing on Vashon Island near Seattle, the Associated Press reports.

Kristine Cushing was married twice to John Cushing Jr., both before and after he married Trisha Conlon. During Kristine and John’s first marriage, she killed their two daughters, ages 4 and 8, and blamed her actions on temporary insanity caused by Prozac, the story says. She was hospitalized nearly four years in a mental institution and underwent nearly a decade of psychiatric monitoring before receiving an unconditional release in 2005, when she remarried John Cushing.
A parenting plan gives Conlon custody of her 14-year-old son during the school year, while John Cushing has custody of their 13-year-old boy during that time, the AP story says. The teens split holidays and vacations between the two parents.
Conlon learned in 2007 that her one-time husband was living with Kristine, but he said they were getting divorced and she was no longer living there. Conlon's suspicions that John and Kristine had reconciled were confirmed when she hired a private investigator early this year.
Conlon then sought a permanent modification of the parenting plan with John Cushing, but Commissioner Leonid Ponomarchuk of King County, Wash., refused the change, the story says. Ponomarchuk reasoned that the boys had been spending time with Kristine Cushing since 2008, although Conlon wasn’t aware of it, and there had been no problems.

What is visitation refusal?

Visitation refusal is simply refusing to abide by the current custody plan that is in place. This is sometimes differentiated in court as to who is doing the refusal: the custodial parent or the child. It is important that any visitation refusal is done by the child and not by the parent for several reasons. First, the child is actually not a litigant in the ongoing custody battle and as such, the judge has limited discretion to punish the child. Don't get me wrong, several children have been sent to jail by rouge family court judges. However, first the judge has to get you in custody which is often easier said then done.
The most important reason that visitation refual must be done by you, rather than your custodial parent, is because the judge will try to crucify your custodial parent given the choice. The judge does not care aboout you or your family. They are likely handling 10-15 custody cases per day, and they couldn't pick you out of a line up. However, they think they known everything and have a lot of disdain for any litigant that appears to be violating their orders. They will send custodial parents to jail if they think they are not abiding by the rules. It's called contempt of court, and judges throw it around like a spoiled toddler who is not getting their way. The idea that they could be wrong has never once crossed their minds. But it might, if you make that big of a stink out of it.
The ideal visitation refusal occurs at a school. Your non custodial parent is supposed to pick you up when school is out, but you decide not to be there. Your custodial parent is generally in the clear here, they delivered you to school. They "facilitated" visitation. You just decided not to show at the appropriate time and place. Go do what you want. If called on the carpet about the matter, feign ignorance. Tell your non custodial parent, you forgot. Look, if they want to treat you like a kid, then act that way. The other option is to lie. Tell your custodial parent that the other parent didn't show up. Tell them you waited there and no one ever came. Bonus points if you  post it on Facebook or tweet that your non custodial parent didn't show. You need to create as much evidence as possible that the current custody visitation is not working. So do what you have to do.
If you don't go with the parent understand that there may be consequences. Especially for your custodial parent. She may be more concerned about not pissing off the judge than about caring for you. Don't be too hard on her though. She would love to do what is best for you, she just has been beaten down by the system. If you think your custodial parent may send you back with your non-custodial parent when you come back home, try to stay out as long as possible. No one wants to be dealing with all this stuff late at night. If you can, sneak back in your room and make everyone deal with it in the morning. Also know, in some cases judges have ordered the other parent to discipline you if you refuse to go to visitation. So your custodial parent mey do that, even if they agree with your decision. Again, your job in this struggle is to pretend like your custodial parent is angry with you. Write an email to your non custodial parent explaining that your mother has grounded you. Update your status that she took away your PS3. Remember in court, it's not what any one knows, it's what they can prove. Make it easier to prove that your custodial parent tried to make you go to visitation. Make it easy to prove that you are punished wen you don't go. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not. Family courts don't care about the truth. And they don''t care about you. Then again, if your reading this blog, you already know that.

Can You Trust the Police to Help You?

The issue regarding whether to trust law enforcement is a difficult one for me personally. I have family members who are police officers and I trust them and the way they conduct themselves at work. However, I have also had encounters in which police have been less than helpful and times they have been down right cruel. It is difficult as a child stuck in a bitter custody fight to figure out whether the police are friends or foes.

First off the police are PISSED that they have been called into your situation. Likely they have been called because you are refusing to go along with the visitation schedule. In their minds, you are the problem and if you would just get with the program, they can get back to doing "real police work" But if they think that your the asshole, then embrace your role. Be the asshole. The longer you dig in your heels and refuse to go, the more likely they will give up.

However, it is important that you treat the cops with respect, even when you are refusing to go along with what they want from you. Don't give them an excuse to escalate the situation. Because they are looking for any excuse to paint you as the bad guy, and them as the conquering hero. They will lie to you, attempt to intimidate you, and they may even arrest you and tell you they won't let you go until you agree togo with the non custodial parent. Let them blow all the hot air they want, let them get mad. Be polite but firm. Tell them that you are not going.

Realize that the more you refuse to do what the police officer says, the more angry and threatening they may get. For this reason, all encounters with the police should be videotaped. Something that the police are trying to prevent by making it illegal to videotape them at all in certain states. This is a worrisome issue. However, it is well worth the possibility of facing an illegal wiretaping charge then do be stuck defenseless when an encounter with the police goes bad.
Observe:





So here is an officer threatening, intimidating and assaulting a teenager; just because he can. Witout tis videotape, no one would have ever believed him. This tape reinforces several key points. One, don't disrespect the officer. Apparently they really hate being called "Dude". Two, they can and will do what they want with you. Three, without videoape evidence, you will be in no position to defend yourself against a rouge police officer such as this.

When you decide you ave had enough of the family courts and current custody situation, things will likely escalate. If you ever need help because your non-custodial parent is threatening you or even abusing you: imagine that it will be Officer Rivieri that will show up and not Officer Friendly. If your father is a jerk, an encounter with an officer like this will only make him more likely to continue his behavior because he realizes that the police won't do anything to him. That is yet another reason why you have to fight for yourself. When you were a kid your parents taught you all about right and wrong, the good guys and the bad guys, black and white. The truth is,  it is all a grey area and life isn't fair. Take care of yourself and don't expect anyone to do it for you. You can ask the police for help, but don't expect it.

Can I Get Thrown in Jail for Refusing Visitation? Yes you Can.

Teenager incarcerated for refusing to visit his father

Published: Saturday, November 21, 2009

 

By Jameson Cook, Macomb Daily Staff Writer

Click to enlarge

Macomb Daily photo by David Dalton Dawn Platevoet and her son, Jacob Mastrogiovanni, leave the Macomb County Juvenile Justice Center in Mount Clemens on Friday.

A 14-year-old boy was thrown into the county youth home overnight and handcuffed for about four hours after refusing to follow a judge's order to visit his father, as part of an ongoing custody case.

The boy, Jacob Mastrogiovanni of Warren, was ordered Thursday to spend three days in the youth home by family court Judge John Foster, who lifted the sentenced Friday following protests by his mother and a night of incarceration for her son.

The uncommon occurrence of a contempt of

court sentence for a child in a child custody dispute angered his mother, Dawn Platevoet, and several of her relatives, including the boy's grandmother. They picketed in front of the county courthouse in downtown Mount Clemens on Thursday and Friday, garnering media attention.

"A judge shouldn't throw an all-A student in jail for refusing to visit his father," Platevoet said. "There are other ways to handle the situation, and apparently the judge agreed because he let him out."

Jacob was slated to remain in the Juvenile Justice Center until 7 p.m. Sunday but was released by Foster about 12:30 p.m. Friday. Foster had Jacob brought from the youth home in handcuffs about 8:30 a.m. Friday to appear in front of him in Macomb County Circuit Court later that morning. Jacob waited in a holding cell.

Moments after he was released Friday, Jacob said Foster didn't specify why he freed him.

"He said that I don't decide whether I see my dad or not," Jacob said. "It was kind of like a warning, this time, I guess."

Foster's secretary said the judge did not want to comment.

Jacob and Platevoet wouldn't delve into many details of why he won't visit his father, Victor Mastrogiovanni of Chesterfield Township. She said Jacob began resisting in July following an unspecified incident.

They said when Jacob has visited Mastrogiovanni recently that he is forced to stay in his room without any contact.

On Foster's order, the three have been attending weekly counseling sessions since early September. But they and the therapist have been unable to resolve the disagreement.

Platevoet and Mastrogiovanni never married and have had some disputes for years regarding custody and support issues, they said.

Mastrogiovanni, who has been married for two years and has a 15-month-old child, said he did not want to comment specifically about the dispute.

"I love my kid very much and want what's best for him," he said.

Platevoet said she would like her son to visit his dad but can't force him.

"What am I supposed to do? Grab him by the back of the head and put him in the car?" she said. "He's a teenager and wants to do teenager things."

She said Jacob "listens to me" about other things but not about the visits.

Platevoet's attorney, James Simasko, said he sympathizes with his client but didn't advise her to contact the media.

"The media is not the proper place for the parties to air their differences," he said.

Platevoet defended her public protest, saying she didn't want to air grievances but simply wanted her son released.

"The only reason I went to the media was to get him out of jail for what the judge did," she said. "He's my kid. I'm going to say something about it."

She said the county Friend of the Court also recommended the judge put him in jail.

"The Friend of the Court and judge are not looking out for the best interest of the child," Platevoet said. "They put him in jail with criminals."

FOC Director Lynn Davidson said she could not comment on the case. She said a child's wishes is one of 13 "best interests of the child" factors a judge considers in making custody decisions. Simasko said judges typically accept more input from a child as he or she grows older and matures.

Youth home Director Chuck Siedelman said his facility has handled minors for contempt of court in the past, but said he and his staff don't review the details.

"It's not our responsibility to know what took place; we hold them and house them," he said.

In the juvenile center off Dunham Road near Rose on the outskirts of Mount Clemens, Jacob was kept alone in a cell and slept on a mat, he said.

He had no complaints other than the handcuffs.

"They hurt," he said, showing lumps on his wrists from the metal tightened around them.

"The people were nice, but it's a bad place," he said.

His mother said Jacob, a ninth-grader at East Detroit High School, "is a good kid" who is on the honor roll and was voted "class leader" and scored No. 1 on a recent grade-wide exam. He plays baseball, wrestles and participates in other school activities.

His dad has coached him in baseball for several years.

Jacob said despite disliking his stay in the youth home, he vowed he will not comply with the visitation order.

"As terrible as a place as that is, I'd rather be there than" visit his father, he said.

The judge set a hearing on the matter for Monday morning.


In case you were wondering if you can be sent to jail for refusing to see your non-custodial parent, the answer is yes. A judge can do what he wants with you when you are involved in family court until you turn 18 years old.. He or she can make your life a living hell, and it is important to understand this going into a custody fight. You have the right to fight back, but there will be consequences.
In this case this kid had a decent relationship with his father early in his childhood as his dad coached him in baseball. But at some point this kid decided, "I'm done with this visitation bullshit" and then his great dad turned into a dick. This kid had gone over there and spent the entirety of the visit in his room. He didn't like it, he didn't want to go any more. But did his dad listen, NO. Did his dad care, NO. And now the relationship has been damaged to such a degree, that it will never be repaired.
The question becomes, what is this kid supposed to do. Should he get in a physical altercation with his father? Should he destroy the property at his father's house? Should he act violently? By giving this kid a record and time in jail, hasn't the judge forced this child to fight back in a way that is ultimately more damaging and more dangerous for all involved.
I'm curious as to what happened to this kid. If anyone knows please let me know, and as always, your own stories are important to me. So send them in.

More Insanity By The Courts

Mother chooses jail over visitation

Updated: Saturday, 02 Apr 2011, 2:21 PM EDT
Published : Saturday, 02 Apr 2011, 2:21 PM EDT

• BY KATHRYN BASSETT kathrynb@kpcnews.net

AUBURN, Ind. (WANE) - The following has been provided by the News Sun :
 
An Angola mother is spending this weekend in the DeKalb County Jail for refusing to comply with a court order to take her 8-year-old daughter to see the girl’s father in prison.

Last month, DeKalb Circuit Judge Kirk Carpenter found Jenny Collins-Thompson in contempt of a parenting-time order that grants the child’s father, Pedro Moreno, visiting time with the child once a year for up to two hours at the Indiana Department of Correction.
Moreno was sentenced to 20 years in prison for robbery by a Steuben County court in 2004 and is serving his time at Westville Correctional Facility, Thompson said.
Thompson said a decree of paternity that adjudged Moreno to be the girl’s natural biological father was issued in June 2006.
“Welfare wanted me to name the father to go after her birthing expenses,” Thompson explained. “I ended up having to name him.”
Thompson said up until that point, Moreno had made no contact with her, despite knowing she had given birth to the child.
Thompson said she had not wanted Moreno to be a part of her daughter’s life, because of his criminal history and the choices he had made.
“I knew he had gone to prison. I knew what he did. I thought, as her mother, it would be better to just not have him involved,” Thompson said. “Almost right after he accepted paternity, he filed for visitation and parental rights.”
Those rights were granted in June 2007, and when Thompson failed to take her daughter to visit Moreno in prison, Moreno asked the court to hold her in contempt.
Cases and court hearings involving paternity and parental matters are not open to the public. However, Thompson chose to share copies of her court documents with this newspaper.
According to a motion filed by Moreno from Westville on Oct. 10, 2008, DeKalb County Judge (pro tem) Thompson Smith issued a court order June 29, 2007, granting Moreno visiting parenting time with the child once a year for up to two hours at the Indiana Department of Correction.
Moreno said the order instructed Thompson to take her child to the Department of Correction. It said Moreno would be responsible for arranging the visit and notifying Thompson of the arrangements.
Moreno’s motion said the order stated that visitation should take place between June 1 and Aug. 15, and that Thompson should encourage the child to send letters, drawings and pictures to Moreno. The order also allowed Moreno to send letters, cards and appropriate gifts to the girl, Moreno said.
In his motion, Moreno said Thompson had not tried to bring her daughter to visit him, even though Moreno had notified Thompson when she could visit. Moreno said Thompson also had not encouraged the child to send letters or drawings.
Thompson said transporting her daughter to Westville posed a problem financially, because she worked part-time and earned minimum wage.
“Ms. Jenny Thompson has recklessly disregarded the court order for two years now,” Moreno wrote. “If the courts (sic) does not act, then she will keep on disregarding the court order. Mr Moreno will remind the courts how important this court order is, how much he loves his daughter and how much she means to him.”
At a hearing in December 2008, Thompson was found to be in contempt of the order, but was told the charges would be relieved if she took her daughter to see Moreno, she said.
Moreno sent another letter to the court in February 2009, saying about his daughter, “I would like to get to know her before it’s too late. I don’t want her to make the same mistakes I made. I’d like to be a part of her life.”
Still, Thompson said, she did not take her daughter to see Moreno.
On Feb. 11, 2010, the court entered an order of contempt enforcement and required Thompson to report to the DeKalb County Jail by Feb. 22, 2010, to begin serving a 180-day sentence.
Thompson hired Sara Seibert of Angola as her attorney. Seibert asked the court to stay the order requiring Thompson to report to jail, allowing time to review the case record.
Carpenter denied the request and, to avoid going to jail, Thompson said she had planned to take her daughter to Westville to visit Moreno. However, those plans were sidelined when it was discovered that Moreno was not registered to have visitors.
Seibert again filed a motion asking the court to withhold its Feb. 11, 2010 ruling. That motion was granted. But since that time, Moreno has registered to receive visitors, Thompson said.
Thompson said her attorney then filed a motion to transfer the case to Steuben County. At the time, she lived in Fremont and did not have reliable transportation to court hearings in DeKalb County, she said.
Carpenter denied the motion May 6, 2010, saying “… the court finds that to have the cause remain in this court is not a manifest inconvenience to the parties.”
In October, Thompson filed petitions to vacate the contempt order and deny Moreno’s parenting time. But Thompson said attorney fees became too costly

for her, and Seibert withdrew from the case Jan. 20.
Thompson appeared without legal counsel at a March 9 hearing on her petition to vacate the contempt order and deny parenting time. In a ruling filed March 11, Carpenter said Thompson had not presented evidence to show that Moreno should not have the right to parenting time.
Carpenter also found that Thompson had not presented evidence to justify her intentional disregard of the court’s prior parenting-time orders.
“In order to enforce the prior parenting-time orders of this court, the court orders that the mother serve an executed jail sentence in incarceration of four days,” Carpenter ruled. With credit for good behavior, Thompson can serve the sentence in two days. She was scheduled to report to jail at 3 p.m. Friday.
Carpenter said Thompson also must follow the parenting-time order issued in June 2007 and that this year’s visit with Moreno must take place before June 1, with annual visits before June 1 of each subsequent year.
“If such visits do not occur, the court shall consider further enforcement orders,” Carpenter ruled.
Thompson said she is anxious and afraid about spending time in jail, but added, “If this is what I have to do to protect my daughter, then this is what I’m going to do.”
Thompson said she has allowed her daughter to send and receive letters and pictures to and from her father, but is opposed to her daughter visiting Moreno while he is in prison.
“Why can’t he just wait, come out (of prison) and stay out of jail?” Thompson said of Moreno. “Why do I want my daughter to bond with a man, if he can’t prove he can stay out of prison?
“If he can do all this stuff, then I have no problem with her bonding with him, but I want him to bond with her somewhere she feels comfortable, but not somewhere that is being forced upon her. I can understand parents who were there with their child having rights to see their child. But this is a man who wanted absolutely nothing to do with her and had made no contact with me until she was 4 years old.”
After serving her weekend in jail, Thompson said, she plans to appeal the denial of the motion to transfer her case. She also hopes to find assistance from legal aid or other outlets in seeking to vacate the visitation order and to take away Moreno’s parental rights.

 

 

Just so that we are all clear about how the idiots in family court think. This is a mother who has taken care of this child by herself for the past 8 years. Because this child shares some DNA with this man, the childs life and that of her mother has to be uprooted in some insane belief that there is a parent child bond that can be established. Again, never forget that the people in family court ( judges, evaluators, attorneys, GALs) are not thinking normally. Never trust them. Never believe them. Because they think that this is the right thing. 

The Evidence For Your Custody Decision

As you may have already realized, there is no scientific evidence that the custody decision that has been reached in your case is an appropriate one. Although you will often times hear or read that custody is determined "to be in the best interest of the child", what is in your best interest varies wildly from state to state and courtroom to courtroom. Judges are only people, they come with their own inherent biases and blindspots. Most judges believe that it is in your best interest to have an ongoing relationship with both of your parents, and in most cases they are correct. Studies show that children thrive under the love and caring of two responsible parents, whether those parents reside in the same house or not. The problem is that becomming a parent does not make some one automatically loving, caring or responsible. In cases in which a parent is not capable to form an a good parent child bond, either as the result of alcohol, drugs, or a controlling personality, there are no standard guidlines for custody.

This is particularly problematic in domestic violence cases, as the abuser ( overwhelmingly the father), utilizes the court system to continue to exert control over the mother and the children. For children caught in this tornado of lies and vindictiveness, there is often no calm until they reach the age that they can make their own decisions regarding custody. Until then they are marginalized by the court system and left vunerable by a mother who can not protect them. And the father's know it:

"Abusers understand that the best way to hurt mothers is to hurt their children. This is why so many abusive fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seek custody when the mother seeks to leave her abuser. Court professionals often miss recognizing the fathers’ motivation because they have repeatedly heard that contested custody are high conflict cases when most are actually domestic violence cases. The worst part of this work is hearing about the unspeakable pain suffered by mothers and children when courts send children to live with dangerous abusers and take safe, protective mothers out of their children’s lives. It is extremely frustrating because these mistakes cause so much harm, but could be prevented if the courts would apply current scientific research.

If there was a scientific basis for these decisions, an evaluator could tell the court how his recommendations have worked out for the children in earlier cases. There is no such research and the closest we have are the Courageous Kids. These are young adults who have aged out of custody orders forcing them to live with abusive fathers and denying them a normal relationship with their mothers. These kids have a moral authority that none of the rest of us has because the decisions were supposed to be made for their benefit. The decisions gave control to the fathers who had tremendous power and resources to silence the children. This means the many Courageous Kids who have spoken out, often in great pain in order to help other children from suffering the same fate, represent a small percentage of spectacularly mistaken decisions. They describe tremendous pain and suffering during childhood and many problems that last into their adult lives. In many ways they are the lucky ones because other children in this situation commit suicide, destroy their lives with drugs and other harmful behaviors or otherwise never reach their potential."

The excerpt above speaks volumes to the need for children, like you, to speak out in whatever fashion possible to explain how these decisions have affected you. Currently there are small beams of light shinning through the darkness on YouTube, Saving Damon, and Courageous Kids Network, giving children caught in custody a voice. However, if there is any hope of the court system listening to you, the children, you first have to speak up and fight for yourself. There is no evidence of your pain, until you first give it a voice. Please feel free to send FUCCED any stories, information, drawings, or emails regarding how you feel about your custody situation.

Father's Relationship with Their Children vs. Father's Access to Them: What Matters More

by Herb Goldberg

A number of years ago, when I would pick up my daughter after school in the sixth grade, there

was a man I would see there who was faithfully and daily picking up his two children. He was

earnest, devoted and reliable and the personification of a caring father. He was a single dad who

had custody of children who hadn’t seen their mother in several years.

Toward the end of the school year, I noticed that he hadn’t been coming to pick up his children

for several weeks, so I inquired about him from a parent who was a friend of his. I was told that

their mother had recently come back to visit the kids and, after a weekend of being with her, the

children happy and excited, expressed a desire to move back with her to her home in Colorado.

The father was helpless in the face of his children’s pleading and urgency.

In another instance, a man had recently separated from his wife. During his marriage, this

successful businessman dad had structured his busy work life so that he could be available to his

children, They were his first priority, even though he had an engineering consulting business

with 11 employees and clients all over the country. As his children became young teenagers, he

began to work out of his home so that he could be there for their little league games, PTA

meetings and at home projects such as building an addition to his house. He bought a private

plane just so he could always return at will from business meetings in order to attend his

children’s games and school functions. So concerned was he about their education that he ran

for and won a position on the school board. Whenever any of his two children had a problem at

school, he was there to meet with their teacher, to defend them against any unfair action and to

straighten things out.

His relationship to his wife wasn’t good. She was often critical of his opinions about the

children and his parenting philosophy. She was withdrawn sexually from him for years because

of her many resentments. Consequently, when his youngest was 14 years old he began an affair

with a prominent local businesswoman and subsequently left his wife to be with her.

What he discovered was that all the years of being there for his children and making them a

priority had resulted in a “worse than nothing” relationship. Specifically, they didn’t want to be

with him. On the weekends and other times when they were in his custody they were hostile and

withdrawn, sitting silently and sullenly watching television at his apartment until it was time for

them to go back to their mother. Once they passed the age of 18, both of his children opted not

to see him at all.

While he could blame his wife for ‘poisoning’ the children’s minds and promoting the alienation,

it became clear that it had little to do with her. His children just didn’t like being around him.

While he had been the ‘perfect’ father in terms of his commitment, caring and devotion, he

couldn’t connect with them. In their minds he was a know-it-all who lectured them and always

knew the right way to do things. They disliked him and learned to tune him out.

A woman I knew who wanted a child began dating a married man who thought she was on birth

control. When he found out she was pregnant, he was enraged and withdrew from her

completely. The mother, an independent professional, decided not to pursue child support

because she didn’t want the angry father in her life. When I met and became friendly with her

and her seven-year-old daughter, I discovered that the daughter was constantly composing letters

of longing to the father who lived nearby but didn’t want to see her because he felt he’d been

used by the mother. Years later, when the father finally responded to the child’s letters and

messages, his child was overjoyed. Even though she had never seen her father, when she finally

met him she was excited happy and so appreciative.

One thing that struck me most clearly and powerfully during the period when Robert Bly was

prominent and father figure to the men’s movement, was the recurring theme in the lives of

many of the men who attended his workshops, of an absent or negative connection to their

fathers. Many hated the father they remembered as having been critical, abusive, alcoholic, selfcentred,

emotionally unavailable, controlling, angry and pretty much impossible to talk to.

Others just felt indifferent, as if they had no father at all.

Their feelings, which determined their memories of their father, were not that different from

what feminists had been saying that these men were like, The irony, however, was that in most

cases these were not absent fathers. These dads had been at home throughout. These were

fathers who, I’m sure, were convinced that they had been good parents, doing the ‘right thing’ as

they believed that to be. In the end these fathers, like my client and the Mr. Mom of my

daughter’s elementary school, were embittered and dumbfounded that after all they had done for

their children, their children could care less about them, and in many cases even hated them.

What seems clear from these examples is that the issue in fathering goes way beyond physical

access to the children and loving intentions. I have no doubt that most of the fathers who now

are rejected and even hated, loved their children. Ironically, those who were full time dads still

married to mother might actually have been appreciated more had they been at home less or gone

from home entirely. To the children, dad’s presence was toxic. A negative because of

related and how he was experienced. The more he was around the more he was disliked and

avoided. It didn’t matter what he thought that he was trying to do as a parent. What mattered

was how he came across to the children, how it felt to them to be with him.

How a father is experienced is usually something a dad can’t see, any more than most men can

see when they are being blatantly manipulated and used by women. Call it ego, cluelessness or

denial, fathers can’t see it, and children disguise their real feeling out of fear or cynical

indifference and disdain. What fathers aren’t aware of, however, is the real reason father-child

bonds dissolve, Were the bond there, no amount of physical separation could dissolve and

destroy the relationship.

How does all this relate to custody issues and battles? These power struggles over access to the

children are usually ludicrous and pathetic as two parents nit-pick over the exact amount of days

and times that they will spend with the children. The custody battles are misguided and

redirected control and revenge battles that have nothing to do with the children and their welfare,

nor will the outcome of these battles affect the deeper relationship between the children and each

parent, except for traumatizing and polarizing them. Particularly once, when the child is more

than three or four years old, the die has been cast. If the bond is positive and present, little will

disrupt it except temporarily. If the bond is absent or negative, the custody fight will exacerbate

it. The more dad battles mom for custody, the more the children will recoil from him, as they

perceive their mother as being abused. If he ‘ wins’, he will have won less than nothing as any

potential for positive bonding has been seriously damaged.

Looked at from another angle, in a relationship of love and attraction, whether romantic or a

friendship, think about those people in your life who you were drawn to and had a warm,

positive feeling toward, You may have only been with them little but their memory is large and

potent. Getting together is strongly anticipated. In between seeing each other, though they may

not be around in person, they exist powerfully in fantasy. If it’s a woman a man is attracted to,

weeks and months may go, but when she reappears it’s as if no time has elapsed. Likewise with a

beloved friend, years may pass without personal contact, yet the moment they are present it feels

exciting and enjoyable. Contrariwise, if a bond is not there or is negative, contact with the

person only strengthens the resistance and dislike.

I have seen men impale themselves emotionally and financially in misguided, destructive

custody battles. They are victims of a classic masculine blindspot, the belief that the relationship

to their children has to do with schedules, access and not letting mother ‘win’ or control the

children. They spend fortunes of time, money and emotion only to discover that the ‘victory,’ if

accomplished, was hollow.

When children are bonded to and love a parent, even if they see them rarely, they will be excited

and happy when they are with them. In between they will be anticipating, longing and thinking

about it. Contrariwise, I’ve seen men who gain joint or full custody in the courts, only to

discover that the weekends or times when they have it, their child doesn’t want to be with them

and is hostile, withdrawn and passive-aggressive. It becomes so painful and ‘impossible’ to be

together that eventually dad gives up and loses interest and desire. It’s not very enjoyable to be

with a child who makes it clear that he or she doesn’t like you and doesn’t want to be with you.

Or worse, to be with a child who sees it as punishment to be with dad.

Growth for fathers means to gain awareness of how it is for the child to be with them, rather than

fighting for their ‘right’ to parent. It is traditionally masculine to turn a relationship problem into

an issue of right and wrong, or a battle over rights. However, it is my belief that a protracted

custody battle, and the perception that the courts discriminate against men and prevent them

from being fathers, is largely delusional and a final nail in the relationship coffin of men.

If a child wants to be with his father, and the mother does block or prevent it, the outcome will

be that the child will resent the mother and make mother’s life hell until she gladly gives the

child over to dad. Contrariwise, if the child doesn’t want to be with dad, and no positive bond or

connection exists. Even if mom is supportive of the child’s relationship with him, the experience

will be negative.

There are many psychological reasons why an ugly custody battle, particularly one in which a

man believes that he is fighting the system and the poisonous influence of the mother over his

children, is counterproductive and damaging to a man’s expressed desire to parent his progeny.

The following are some of them:

1. By the end of a marriage, a woman’s rage over feeling she has been controlled and

abused is at a peak. She sees custody issues as the final battle ground and will

relentlessly fight to any extreme in order to win Attorneys feed on this adversarial tone

and see it as a way to make money as they stoke the rage. She will pull out all the stops,

and drain the father and the finances in this final stand to not let him get his way “this

time”.

2. In most families, children have a stronger emotional connection to their mother. In

painful custody battles, because the children are vulnerable and threatened, they will

bond even more strongly with her and will perceive what father is doing through other’s

eyes. Whereas a man may believe his children will appreciate how hard he is fighting

for the right to be with them, he is wrong, just as fathers have traditionally been wrong in

the belief that they will be loved for being good providers. What the child sees is that

dad is abusing mother and is a jerk.

3. If a man has a loving bond already in place with his child, he will be missed by the child

and a mother who blocks the child’s ability to be with him will find her life made hellish

by an angry and rebellious child.

4. A woman is energized by a custody battle with dad. It is her chance to ‘pay him back’

for years of feeling and believing that she has been diminished and abused. Without such

a battle to engage in, it is very likely that mom won’t even want that much responsibility

or time with the children. She’ll focus instead on her need for freedom, the opportunity

to enjoy herself and to act on what she believes are her long suppressed impulses and

need to find herself. By a man not fighting her, she may in fact try and push the children

onto their father so that she can be free to date, be with another man or pursue her new

found passions.

5. Even in the worst-case scenario, where a man is denied contact with his children

altogether, if a positive bond is in place, it will remain and grow in memory. His

influence will remain, as the child will do things to make dad proud in the future. Once

the child enters teenage or young adulthood, he or she will seek out the father and the

intervening years of no contact will dissolve.

6. Fighting custody battles only promotes a masculine nightmare of personal and

relationship disconnection. Relationships are not about control, power, winning or

losing. They are about emotional connection, empathy and bonding. A man’s energy

should go toward personal transformation to develop ways to maximize his connection to

his child and overcome his relationship shortcomings. To do that, he must first

acknowledge them and overcome his belief that he is a maligned but good and loving

father who doesn’t have dysfunction but is being abused and misunderstood.

7. As a working therapist for many years, I’ve never seen a man benefit from fighting these

battles. Even if he wins in court, he has won the battle and lost the struggle to focus on

and nurture his bonding potential.

8. No matter what a court decides. The children will ultimately decide custody and the

emotional nature of the parent-child relationship. If the child wants to be with father

more, or even full time, it’s only a matter of time before that will happen. No parent can

withstand the atmosphere of a hostile child who wants to be with an absent parent.

9. Relationships with one’s children are continually in flux and no court can nail that down.

Whatever it is today, it will be something different tomorrow. Court made agreements

are washed away each time the tide turns.

10. Finally, lawyers feed on and directly or indirectly promote the alienation and antipathy

between parents. Get out of their clutches. They are the only ‘winners’ in these custody

disputes and the financial price and emotional bitterness can be devastating.

how he

This article is copywritten as part of Dr. Herb Goldberg’s upcoming book,

Time for Men: Surviving and Thriving in the Battle of the Sexes.

A Tough Love

Dr. Herb Goldberg is a licensed clinical psychologist practicing in Los Angeles and a

Professor Emeritus at California State University. Los Angeles.

Ten Reasons for Men

Not to Fight Custody Battles

A letter from your mother

“For those of us who can speak out, we know that if we put our voices together, we can make a difference and change the family court system that is wrecking so many kids’ lives. The Courageous Kids Network is an organization dedicated to stopping the continuing assault on children’s human right to live free from abuse.” — A Message From the Courageous Kids Network

I am writing to give my support and prayers to all the Courageous Kids as well as the mothers fighting alongside them. If you are a mother who has lost her child to an abuser and endured family court warfare, my heart goes out to you. If you are a child who has been victimized by family court, and forced into an unsafe situation or feel utterly unprotected by the system, my heart goes out to you. I keep you in my thoughts and prayers. You are not alone.

For the lawyers, therapists, teachers, family members, clergy, friends and advocates–whoever you may be or whatever your role, I encourage you to take a moment to listen. The sounds of abuse may be as loud as broken glass, pounding fists or threatening phone calls–or as silent as unheard tears or homeless families wandering the streets or sanitized court records. I spent years of abuse in silence, trying to appease the rage of my abuser. I am now silenced by the family court; told not to talk about abuse, told I must forget because it all “happened in the past” and told I must look away as my children suffer. To raise my voice means I am causing a problem. Then begins a new battle, to overcome the enormous amount of “proof” required to “substantiate” my allegations and that of my children, to be verbally and emotionally attacked by vicious allegations and invented psychological labels, and finally to be threatened by the court staff that if I speak  out they will deny me contact with my children. We can do better. We must do better. The change begins when the best interest of our children is really what is safe, healthy and nurturing for the child. I encourage you to take a stand to advocate for our children, and for the families fighting to secure safety and stability in the midst of family court chaos. You may just save a life. The change begins when we begin to listen to our children, listen to the stories of family court atrocities and the various research and writing conducted on custody battles. The change begins when we, as a society, as a people,  will no longer tolerate domestic abuse nor the brutality perpetrated on children. The change begins with you.

I am a mother currently involved in family court warfare involving my children.  My child is too young to speak as clearly as the kids posting on Courageous Kids but his pictures and words are loud enough. My child draws pictures in crayon of the abuse he has suffered. My child draws pictures of the words “daddy” taught him–stupid, fuckin ass, bitch.  My child is drawing pictures of how he feels after being forced by family court to live with “daddy”–the pictures say the words “sad, “mad” and “bad”. The child in the picture has a frown that fills his entire face. In another picture, the child is standing in the middle of a rain storm and is being struck by lightning. My child has told me “I wanna die” and “I hate myself so much”. The guardian ad litem working with my family ignores my child’s distress and told me that I cannot “substantiate my allegations” and I have nothing to worry about because my abuser “has a house, a job and a car”. I was also told that since my abuser is not physically hurting me (I fled my home and now live in hiding) that there is no “abuse” happening. Meaning, I have to risk my own life in order to “prove” abuse. I would gladly put my life before my child’s; but if I did so my children would be left without a mother, and put into the hands of an abuser or perhaps, left to fend for themselves at the hands of child welfare services. I tell my story in hope that one day my children will know how much Mommy loves them, and that I did keep up the fight to protect them and give them a good home. I tell my story in hope that something can be done to protect another family-to give a voice to all those who have been silenced. And to encourage those brave fighters to keep on fighting for change, to keep on advocating, to keep on giving voice, to keep on living.

It is heart breaking as a parent to know that you cannot protect your children and you have to send them back to an abuser–or else.  It is sad that children are being forced into abusive situations and instead of healing, they now have to fight for their lives–and the child has to be the one to fight for change because so many have failed to protect them. I applaud Courageous Kids, and sympathize with your struggle. I pray for you and your families. I applaud your determination and courage in speaking out, and working for change. I support you. I will do whatever I can to help. I hope and pray that there will be many more who will stand alongside you and lend their support and help. And I believe there are just as many who support you in silence, in tears–afraid or unable to speak.

I cannot end this letter, not in good conscience. There is no “the end” or “happily ever after” when the cycles of domestic violence continue in the family court system. I express sympathy to the plight of the families enduring family court warfare. Abusers must be held accountable–they are the most likely to become repeat offenders, risking the lives of innocent children. Family court officials judges, guardian ad litems, counselors. attorneys and all involved in making decisions that affect the life and well being of a child must also be held accountable. Especially when they place a child at risk. I am not asking for change–I am demanding it.  As the old spiritual goes, “A change gon’ come, yes it will…”

Evanlee, 2008

Dear Evanlee,

Your letter has been copied so that it may reach the children who need so badly to hear it. Children who are wondering why their mother's can not help them. Why they have been set adrift to fight for themselves with out guidance from the people who matter most to them.  You are correct when you speak about "family court warfare", for this is a war. It's a war for our children to be protected and to have a childhood. This is an inherent human right recognized the world over but systematically denied to children held hostage in family courts. But I want to assure you that the children you speak so lovingly of are also aware that this is a war. A war against them, and against their right's to love and by loved free from interference. The children at this site recognize that they are soldiers in this fight. Even though we have done so much to shield them from the battle, they know. Children are neither stupid nor helpless. We did not choose this war for them, but if war has come calling to their door, we are remiss if we do not ready them for battle. That is the purpose of this site. To teach them what the courts don't want them to know,  to love them even when we have been told not to, and to fight alongside them in a battle they were never supposed to have been a party to. And we do these things so that when they battle is over, we can all sit together and celebrate their victory, as a family.