Sloppy court interview

At court yesterday, I was given the following report (with names changed):

Children: Mary age 14, Jenny age 11

At the direction of the court Mary and Jenny were interviewed separately on June 16, 2011. Both girls said that they are okay with supervised visitation with their father for 4 hours one time per month. They acknowledged that it is somewhat difficult to schedule because they both have very busy schedules. Mary is a dancer and Jenny plays competitive soccer.

XY Supervisor, LCSW, reported that she withdrew from being the visit supervisor for this family. Ms. Supervisor said that it became apparent that her efforts in assisting Father were not helpful to Father. She also said that it is important that the children get to have a say about the locations of the monthly visits.

Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Virostko, LCSW
Family Law Investigator
6/16/11

I don't get the point of this report. Our kids have been forced to live under rules laid down by the court. They have resigned themselves to accept what the court orders, and that is all that came out of this interview.

Why is the court sending a social worker to ask 14 and 11 year-old girls to ask them about the difficulty in scheduling visits with their dad? Is dance more important than having a father?

I think that in a few years we will have a consensus that all child interviews should be video-recorded. I have no record of what my kids were asked, except for this report.

This supervisor dropped out after I asked her to correct some errors in her last report. She said that I violated some gym rules, but I double-checked with the gym, and it was the supervisor who misunderstood the rules. She stubbornly refused. I told her that this was just the latest of several negative comments in her reports that made no sense to me. I asked her to meet with me to explain why she says such things. She refused. I really don't see how she can call herself a "therapeutic supervisor" if she is unwilling to give me feedback in a way that I can understand.

If the supervisor was going to back out, it would have been better to back out without comment. Instead she makes a couple of weird comments. Who wants her opinion about the locations of visits, if she is not going to be involved?

I hope that this is helpful to others. Apparently the judge can, at any time, decide to schedule a court interview of the kids and get a silly report like this.

More court frustration

My ex-wife and I were in court today at 8:30. As usual, Judge Heather Morse processed every other before calling ours. We have been in her court for over a year, and nothing has been resolved. Each hearing has just created more issues that require more hearing.

Since I am now accused of contempt, and I did not waive my rights, the judge had to schedule us to come back next month in order to schedule a trial date.

I explained that I believe that I am in compliance with all orders, and that a trial will be a waste of time. I suggested that a clarification of her orders might resolve the matter. She rambled about her orders, and for a while I thought that she was trying to clarify them, but she sure did not clarify anything.

Meanwhile I have not seen our kids since March 6, because my ex-wife refuses to permit it.

My ex-wife is asking to make her sole custody permanent, because the supervised visitation is too much trouble for her. She said that if she had permanent sole custody with visitation entirely at her discretion, then she would be willing to let me attend one of the kids's soccer games, provided that I was accompanied by a visitation supervisor of her choice. The judge said that she believed my ex-wife's arguments that she want me involved in the kids' lives, but she is worried that there might be no visitation at all if my ex-wife gets what she wants.

On the way out, I called out to my ex-wife that I wanted to have a word with her before she goes. The bailiff (armed guard in court) leaped to his feet and told me that I cannot do that. I thought that he did not want me talking in the courtroom, so I told him that we were going to talk in the hallway. He then asked my ex-wife about three times whether she wanted protection from me talking to her. She kept saying that it was okay, so he eventually went away.

A few minutes later, the bailiff re-emerged to tell me that he had a complaint that I was talking too loudly in the hallway. I asked him whether he could hear me in the court, and he refused to answer. "I am warning you for the last time," he said. Wow, that guy was touchy. They have seats and tables in the courthouse hallway, and my ex-wife and I had a simple financial matter to settle. There was no one else in the hallway. The clerk was within earshot about 50 feet away, but I don't know why he would care how loudly we were talking.

I still don't have a visit scheduled, and my ex-wife is still refusing.

State Board wants more info

I just got this letter:

Board of Psychology Control No.: 1F 2011 215103 (Dr. Kenneth B. Perlmutter)
Dear Mr. AngryDad:

This letter is concerning the complaint received by the Board of Psychology (Board) regarding the above-named subject.

Following a review of the correspondence you submitted, it is apparent we will need additional information. Please provide the Board with the following:

• A copy of the 2003 agreement signed by you and Ms. AngryMom agreeing to joint custody of your children
• A certified copy of the 2005 court order granting you and Ms. AngryMom joint legal and physical custody
• A certified copy of the 2007 custody order granting Ms. AngryMom temporary sole physical custody pending your submission to a psychological evaluation, but denying her sole legal custody
• A copy of Dr. Perlmutter's May 2010 report
• A copy of Dr. Perlmutter's June 2010 deposition transcript
• A copy of Dr. Perlmutter's December 2010 testimony (transcript)
• A copy of the court transcript and/or any order issued by Judge Morse at the May 23, 2011 hearing, evidencing your allegation that she conceded that Dr. Perlmutter was biased against you, and that no further testimony from him would be accepted by the court.

Please note that failure to respond in writing by July 5, 2011 will cause your complaint to be closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Wow, someone actually read my complaint! It could still be a big whitewash, but it appears to be a legitimate investigation.

I hope this info is useful to anyone else who might have been a victim of unethical psychologist behavior, and who wants to complain about it.

New curb on crime lab reports

The US Supreme Court just ruled:

Once more divided 5-4 on how to define the right of a criminal suspect to confront accusers, the Court rules that, if a crime lab report is offered by prosecutors, the person who did the test and prepared the report must testify, and a supervisor cannot do so in the absence of that technician.

This has been one of the most divisive issues in the Supreme Court, sharply dividing both the conservatives and the liberals. I don't know why this is so contentious. It has always been one of our core civil liberties that every citizen has a constitutional right to face his accusers in court. It is in the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

This case had nothing to do with family law, but it touches on one of the most annoying things about the family court. It relies on hearsay all the time.

I currently have a therapeutic child visitation supervisor who likes to say things about me to the court that she does not want to say to my face. That is exactly backwards. If she were really interested in helping me, she would be giving me confidential advice. She would only report something to the court after discussing it with me, and giving me a chance to question her and explain everything.

Commenting on the commissioner

I mentioned below that a local family court self-help group is collecting comments on a commissioner who is being considered as a substitute family court judge. Here is what I sent to the woman who runs that group. She will forward the comments to the court, so that the court can get citizen comments. I encourages others to also send their comments.

To: Santa Clara Superior Court
Date: June 23, 2011

I am told that the Santa Clara court has hired Irwin H. Joseph as a commissioner. I knew him from his work on tha Santa Cruz family court for 3 or 4 years. He was a terrible judge, and I strongly suggest that you do not use him in your family court.

Mr. Joseph took a dislike to me because I got him reversed on appeal in a published opinion, and because I commented on his court action on an online blog at angry-dad.com.

Joseph issued an order for the police to seize my kids just because my ex-wife had made a complaint to CPS alleging emotional abuse. CPS wrote a report that did not recommend that any action be taken.

After an open court hearing with members of the public present, Joseph held me in contempt of court for posting some quotes from the public testimony. As far as I know, Joseph is the only judge in American history to punish someone for quoting the public testimony against him in open court.

Joseph prevented me from seeing my kids until a psychologist did another evaluation, even though there had been five previous evaluations and none reported any problems. When the psychologist backed out, Joseph refused to appoint a replacement. Because of this refusal, I did not see my kids for a couple of years.

Joseph does not have the competence or temperament to be a judge.

When the State Breaks a Man

This William Norman Grigg essay tells the story of a New Hampshire man who killed himself by setting himself on fire. The newspaper courageously printed his final statement:

My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.

After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested.

Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.

This country is run by idiots.

The statement is quite long, and it gets worse. He is right that the country is run by idiots, but it is much worse than that. They are evil idiots.

Fired commissioner still wants to be a family court judge

The Santa Cruz family was run for about three years by a commissioner (and judge wannabe) Irwin H. Joseph, until he was fired last year. For about a year had a consulting business, relying largely on referrals from the family court to mediate disputes. Then he got a job as a commissioner in the next county, Santa Clara county. Last I heard, he was doing traffic court.

Now I heard a rumor that he is trying to get on the family court in Santa Clara. He is a public employee, and the govt officials making the decision should certainly consider input from the public. Some of us who sat in his Santa Cruz court have a good idea what kind of a job he did, and we ought to inform the Santa Clara authorities.

The nice folks at familycourtscore.org are collecting some letters about Cmr. Joseph, and will send them in. I suggest emailing your opinion to them. I will send them a statement myself.

Fathers Day

The WSJ writes:

Given the depth of the change, you might expect a dramatic alteration in one of the most fundamental male-female relationships: the one between dads and daughters.

In my research into the lives of some 75 high-achieving, clearly independent women, I knew that I would find a powerful connection between them and the first men in their lives. Many other studies have confirmed it. What surprised me was how deep (and surprisingly traditional) the bond is, how powerful it remains throughout their lives, and how resilient it can be ...

Good father, bad father, indifferent father, absent father: In my work with the women whose stories form the heart of my book, I encountered them all. The stories are as different as the women themselves. But I found one thing time and again: Our fathers are a potent and enduring part of ourselves.

—Ms. Drexler is a professor of psychology at Weill Cornell Medical College and the author of "Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers and the Changing American Family."

Happy Fathers Day.

Ideas get rejected

This is yesterday's Dilbert.

A reader asks whether I have not been posting because the court has censored me.

I have a censorship motion pending against me on the 29th, but the only effect on this blog is whether I can tell the story of how I lost joint legal custody of my kids. If I lose, then I will just delete the offending sentences.

Transcript of the shrink's error

My ex-wife has filed a motion to hold me in contempt of court for telling the story of how she tricked the psychologist into giving her sole legal custody of our kids.

The simple story is that we had 50-50 joint custody, until my ex-wife complained to CPS and petitioned the court for temporary sole legal and physical custody. The court denied her request for temporary sole legal custody, and granted temporary sole physical custody pending a hearing and an evaluation from a psychologist. The court appointed Kenneth B. Perlmutter to evaluate her allegations. My ex-wife somehow persuaded Perlmutter, over my objections, that she already had sole legal custody. This was in spite of the fact that we gave him the court papers, and I explained it clearly to him. The Perlmutter wrote the order that took away my joint legal custody.

Here is the story in Perlmutter's own words. It is from p.46-53 of the transcript of his June 7, 2010 deposition. I asked the questions, and he answered. It is verbatim and unedited, except for the pseudonyms in square brackets.

These transcripts are tedious to read, but it is the only way I can demonstrate the evil of what this man has done.

7 Q. Are you saying you have no idea whether her
8 concerns have any merit at all?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And even if they had merit, are there any
11 concerns that -- that -- where you can even describe
12 how serious the allegation is?
13 A. I can't answer that hypothetical.
14 Q. I don't think it's a hypothetical. I'm asking
15 you if there were any serious allegations that, in your
16 opinion, seem serious to you.
17 A. I did not assess it. I figured out that I
18 couldn't assess it.
19 Q. So for all you know joint custody worked
20 flawlessly for four years?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. Is it true that the CPS did an
23 investigation in November 2007 but closed the case
24 without recommending any action?
25 A. That's my understanding.
1 Q. Is it true that your evaluation was
2 precipitated by an ex parte motion that [Jill] brought
3 to the family court on November 16th, 2007?
4 A. I don't recall that document, but that's
5 generally my recollection.
6 Q. Is it true that [Jill]'s sole allegation was
7 emotional abuse?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Is it true there was no allegation at that
10 time of co-parenting difficulties, move away or any
11 other change of circumstances?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Is it true that I had no notice of the motion
14 and was not present in court?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Is it true that [Jill] asked for and received
17 an emergency order for the police to seize our kids at
18 my home?
19 A. That I recall. I believe that that's true.
20 Q. Was there any court ruling that gave [Jill]
21 sole legal custody of our kids?
22 A. I believe that there is a document that gives
23 her temporary custody of the kids.
24 Q. Does it give her temporary sole legal
25 custody?
1 A. We have to pull it out to look at it.
2 Q. Let's pull it out.
3 A. I believe we're talking about --
4 Q. If it helps, you might want to refer to the
5 last paragraph of page 7 of your report where you
6 discuss this very point.
7 A. Okay. I believe we're talking about document
8 number 157.
9 So the one document is -- the minute order of
10 12/6/07 says: "All temporary orders remain in effect
11 pending further hearing and order of the court."
12 And before that we have the November 16th, '07
13 order which I believe says that [Jill] has temporary
14 legal and physical custody of the children.
15 Q. Can we pull that and mark it as an exhibit?
16 A. Yeah. That's number 121. Actually, that's
17 122.
18 MS. [ANGRYMOM]: Those tabs survived the copy
19 machine. You can put those papers into a copy machine
20 and the tabs stay there. The tab you don't need to
21 pull off to copy that.
22 (EXHIBIT 2 WAS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
23 BY MR. [ANGRYDAD]:
24 Q. So is the -- is that the order you are
25 claiming gives [Jill] sole legal custody?
1 A. What this order says is on page 1 you are
2 ordered to comply with the temporary orders attached,
3 and then attached to it is the order of apparently
4 temporary legal and physical custody to [Jill].
5 That's that --
6 Q. Can you show me where it says that?
7 A. Well, on page 1 it says, "You are ordered to
8 comply with the temporary order attached."
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. And on here it says "to be ordered pending the
11 hearing," and it says legal custody to [Jill], physical
12 custody to [Jill].
13 Q. Okay. Can you please read the large block
14 letters at the top of the page.
15 A. It says, "This is not an order." So you can
16 even see I wrote a question mark.
17 Q. So is that an application or is that an
18 order?
19 A. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
20 I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. This is what
21 was confusing to me and this is my understanding of
22 it. It says this is a temporary order.
23 Q. Okay. If you turn to a later page, isn't
24 there an order later on?
25 A. It says "temporary order." Same thing.
1 Q. And then what is, in fact, ordered in a
2 temporary order?
3 A. Legal custody to [Jill], physical custody to
4 [Jill].
5 Q. Where does it say that?
6 A. Same thing. It's the same exact page.
7 Q. On the page that says, "This is not an order"?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Can you find a page that does not say, "This
10 is not an order" and find a page that is an order?
11 A. Not in here. Not in here. However, it does
12 say under "temporary orders" on the last page, "Minor
13 children, Petitioner, subject to the other party's
14 rights of visitation professionally supervised."
15 Q. And does it say "sole legal custody"?
16 A. It doesn't say "sole legal custody."
17 Q. So, in fact, legal custody was not ordered to
18 [Jill]?
19 A. You're asking for me to form a legal opinion.
20 I'm not competent to do that.
21 Q. I'm asking you to read the order.
22 A. I just did. I don't understand it. In my
23 history I tried to explain the history. I don't know
24 the answer.
25 Q. Well, let me refer you to the last page where
1 it says in big block letters at the top "Temporary
2 Orders."
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Okay. And then what does it say is actually
5 ordered in connection with the minor children?
6 A. It says, "Will have the temporary physical
7 custody, care and control of the minor children subject
8 to the other party's rights of visitation as follows:
9 Professionally supervised."
10 Q. So, in fact, that is ordering a change in
11 physical custody but not a change in legal custody?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. So was there ever order granting [Jill]
14 sole legal custody?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Were you looking at the order? What does it
17 say?
18 A. How many binders do I have here? I have seven
19 binders of documents. I did not review every single
20 document. I don't know whether there is a document
21 that says that. I tried to figure it out.
22 Q. Okay. Well, look at what you wrote on the
23 bottom paragraph on page 7.
24 A. In the context of that is my attempt to recite
25 my understanding of the history of your matter. I am
1 now looking at the bottom of page 7.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. Would you like me to --
4 Q. Yeah. Read the sentence starting "based on
5 this filing" in the middle of that last paragraph.
6 A. Based on this filing dated November 16th,
7 2007, the court ordered that pending the hearing on
8 November 6 -- on December 6th, she would have temporary
9 legal custody and physical custody of the children and
10 that [George] should only have professionally supervised
11 visitation.
12 Q. Do you now admit that that is wrong?
13 A. I admit that it's very possible that it's
14 wrong. If my interpretation of that is incorrect, then
15 I'm wrong.
16 Q. Well, you just looked at the court order.
17 A. I -- clearly. Again, if that's true, then --
18 if that document is true, then what you're saying is
19 true. There's nothing that specifically states legal
20 custody.
21 Q. Is it also true that I explained to you that
22 there was no order changing legal custody?
23 A. That is true.
24 Q. Okay. Let me refer to you page 1 of your
25 recommended orders, paragraph number 1.
1 A. I see it.
2 Q. Can you read that, please.
3 A. "Mother shall continue to have temporary sole
4 legal and sole physical custody of the minor
5 children."

Perlmutter is obviously incompetent to read a court order. He could not even get as far as reading the large boldface block letters saying what is and is not an order. And yet the court has used him to write court orders, and I am currently subject to the order that he wrote.

Tennessee news

A reader sends this news from Tennessee:

Despite the increase in numbers, single dads still make up a relatively small percentage of the state’s total population, with 2.3 percent being single-parent households where a man lives with his own children and has no wife present.

That number, however, is up from 1.9 percent in 2000 and has increased even as the total percentage of Tennessee households with kids under 18 has decreased.

Another reader sends:

The Tennessee Supreme Court soon will decide whether a woman already earning $72,000 a year should get $15,000 a year in alimony for the rest of her life or until she remarries. The case is important because it could determine how money is awarded in divorce cases across the state.

The case argued before the court on Thursday involves a Sumner County couple who divorced in 2009.

Johanna Gonsewski made $72,000 a year working in information technology for the state. Craig Gonsewski made $137,000, including a $38,000 bonus,

These alimony absurdities are going to have to come to an end.

No Fathers Day in Mass.

A reader sends this story:

In Massachusetts we have been suffering with the highly incompetent, ultra liberal socialist, matching bookend to Obama, Governor Deval Patrick. We all know about his appointing about 20 devout lesbian militant feminists to the family court where they can do the most damage to men and one to the state supreme court.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

What you won’t hear in the media, is now he has kicked fathers again where it hurts. Patrick taking a cue his buddy, also from Chicago, Obama, who denigrated fathers at least on two Father’s Days in the past with his speeches, has really done something truly inexplicable.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has refused a request to hang a banner in the Massachusetts State House honoring fathers this coming Fathers Day.

Mitt Romney was a previous Republican governor of Mass. Someone should ask him where he stands, now that he is running for President.

Meanwhile, the Death of Caylee Anthony has gotten a lot of publicity. The mom, Casey Anthony, is on trial for murder. She was a single mom, with no dad in sight. She has a very long trail of lies, far-fetched stories, and bad behavior. She may get the death penalty.

Wife runs over husband with SUV

It seems that courts are always making excuses for crazy things that crazy women do. Here is the latest example:

Well, perhaps ten times would be premeditate then? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday, May 24, in a rare use of its powers ruled that a women who ran over her husband five times with a minivan should not be convicted of first-degree murder according to the Boston Globe.

According to the court, apparently the woman’s mental issues were responsible for the way she killed Richard Rutkowski. Even though the wife called her husband “retarded” and predicted killing him by saying something like: “You will be dead very soon”, the court did not believe this was evidence of premeditation.

The jury decided that it was premeditated murder.

False Allegations Awareness Month

This month is False Allegations Awareness Month:

America’s legal system has become awash in false allegations of abuse, including false accusations of domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. False allegations are harmful because they:

Take away scarce protections and services from real victims
Can be devastating to the falsely accused
Undermine due process and cause misuse of our legal system
Force children into single-parent households, placing them at higher risk of social pathologies

Let’s be perfectly clear: Making a false accusation of domestic violence is a crime, and persons who make such allegations should be held liable for their actions.

June is False Allegations Awareness Month, and this year’s theme is “Zero Tolerance for False Allegations.” Throughout the month, events will be held around the country to raise awareness that making a false allegation of abuse is a form of abuse.

M current family court troubles started when my ex-wife made a false complaint to CPS 3.5 years ago. The court-appointed psychologist said that there was no abuse, but the court will not admit that it made a mistake.