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"

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.

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.