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"

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.

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.