Killer mom update

I mentioned this strange story, and now we have an outcome:

SEATTLE (AP) - A Washington state judge ruled Monday that a teenage boy can keep living with his father and a woman who killed her own young daughters in 1991.

The decision came in an unusual child custody dispute that attracted national attention because of the woman's criminal history.

Kristine Cushing was found not guilty by reason of insanity after shooting her 4- and 8-year-old daughters in their sleep in California's Orange County. She served four years in a mental institution followed by a decade of psychiatric monitoring before California determined she posed no further risk and granted her an unconditional release.

She then reconciled with her former husband and the father of the dead children, Lt. Col. John P. Cushing Jr. He has two other children with another woman, who went to court to bar her kids from being in the same house as a child-killer.

I am considered a threat because I reset an alarm and took my kids to a math contest. This mom killed her own kids, and it not considered a threat.

Student dismissed for lacking empathy

A Missouri newspaper reports:

ST. LOUIS • A former Webster University student who was studying to be a family counselor says in a lawsuit that he was dismissed from a master's degree program after it was determined that he lacked empathy.

The suit, which claims up to $1 million in losses and seeks at least $2 million in punitive damages, alleges the school dismissed him quickly rather than help him improve his empathy to complete the field work required for graduating. ...

The student, David Schwartz, 44, of University City, had received all A's and only one C in his course work, according to a school transcript. But he was dismissed from the program on March 14 after he received a "no credit" for failing to successfully complete the practicum, in which he was to apply his class work to a real-world counseling setting.

Schwartz alleges in his lawsuit that he was deemed a poor performer after he wrote an anonymous letter to the dean criticizing a professor's teaching methods and noting the romantic relationship between that professor and an administrator.

No, the school did not determine that he lacked empathy. That would require a DSM-IV diagnosis, or something like that. Instead, it appears that lacking empathy is just a code phrase for being willing criticize his superiors.

As the lawsuit points out, the university's own web site says:

Learning Goals

The student learning outcomes for the MA in counseling support the development of students as competent counselors in training. The learning outcomes are broadly divided into the following.

Upon completion of the program, students should be able to:

Identify, describe, and apply goals and objectives of professional organizations, professional codes of ethics primarily the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (2005); identify and describe ethical and legal considerations in counseling, professional credentialing, role identity of counselors, history and philosophy of counseling, counseling supervision models and practices, ethical decision making models, and advocacy processes leading to success for clients. (Professional Orientation and Ethical Practice)

Define, generalize, and synthesize the impact on the profession of counseling of multi-cultures including ethnic groups, religious and or spiritual belief orientations, urban and rural societies; personal constructs including gender, able-ism, age, race, sexual orientation, and other cultural groups and mores; use of leisure time, career, and differing life patterns in multi cultures; multicultural counseling theory; and the ethnic attributes and dynamics on relationships, issues, cultural trends, and the counseling relationship. Be able to describe the significance of Counselor self-awareness, culturally supported wellness, and counselor’s roles in eliminating bias and in promoting social justice and advocacy for diverse populations. (Social and Cultural Diversity)

That code of ethics (pdf), from the university's own web site, says:

F.9. Evaluation and Remediation of Students F.9.a. Evaluation Counselors clearly state to students, prior to and throughout the training program, the levels of competency expected, appraisal methods, and timing of evaluations for both didactic and clinical competencies. Counselor educators provide students with ongoing performance appraisal and evaluation feedback throughout the training program.

F.9.b. Limitations
Counselor educators, throughout ongoing evaluation and appraisal, are aware of and address the inability of some students to achieve counseling competencies that might impede performance. Counselor educators 1. assist students in securing remedial assistance when needed, 2. seek professional consultation and document their decision to dismiss or refer students for assistance, and 3. ensure that students have recourse in a timely manner to address decisions to require them to seek assistance or to dismiss them and provide students with due process according to institutional policies and procedures.

So the university is almost certainly in violation of its own ethics policies. If passing some sort of empathy test were a degree requirement, then the university should have told him before admitting him. And if he needed work in that area, they should have helped him. They are there to teach, after all, and it is common for counseling students to have an assortment of their own personal psychological problems.

I post this because I had a court psychologist, Ken Perlmutter, who recited this mantra about lacking empathy whenever I had some disagreement with him or the other authorities. If I fed my kids broccoli, he said I lacked empathy. If I set my alarm clock for 7:00, he said I lacked empathy. If I took my kids to my house, he said I lacked empathy. If I told my kids that the court and their mom were preventing me from seeing them, he said I lacked empathy. If I said I wanted joint custody returned, he said I lacked empathy. I will post some quoted examples of this, if I can do so without getting found in contempt of court. I became convinced that either he did not know what empathy is, or he just uses it as a silly code phrase to mean that he disapproves of my attitude, or something like that.

Judge Heather D. Morse also recited this supposed lack of empathy the last time we were in court, and used that as an excuse to block visitation. I pointed out that no witness who actually observed me with my kids ever said that I lacked empathy. She had no response.

Kids sue for bad mothering

The Chicago Tribune reports:

Raised in a $1.5 million Barrington Hills, Ill., home by their attorney father, two grown children have spent the last two years pursuing a unique lawsuit against their mom for "bad mothering" that alleges damages caused when she failed to buy toys for one and sent another a birthday card he didn't like.

The alleged offenses include failing to take her daughter to a car show, telling her then 7-year-old son to buckle his seat belt or she would contact police, "haggling" over the amount to spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that she return home from celebrating homecoming.

Last week, at which point the court record stood about a foot tall, an Illinois appeals court dismissed the case, finding that none of the mother's conduct was "extreme or outrageous." To rule in favor of her children, the court found, "could potentially open the floodgates to subject family childrearing to ... excessive judicial scrutiny and interference."

In 2009, the children, represented by three attorneys including their father, Steven A. Miner, sued their mother, Kimberly Garrity. Steven II, now 23, and his sister Kathryn, now 20, sought more than $50,000 for "emotional distress."

Miner and Garrity were married for a decade before she filed for divorce in 1995, records show.

The detailed list of allegations is amazing.

Why did it take two years for the court to figure out what to do with this ridiculous lawsuit? I am beginning to think that maybe lawyers should not be allowed to have kids. They have attitudes that are not conducive to sensible child-rearing, and they are inclined to abuse the courts.

Free speech in California

I just filed this statement of my constitutional rights in California:

I have a First Amendment right to blog about matters of substantial public concern. Even if there is court order forbidding me to post certain documents, California law forbids punishing me for violating an unconstitutional order. Eg, see this 1962 case:

A series of California cases hold that the violation of an order which exceeds the court's jurisdiction cannot produce a judgment of contempt. … As Witkin states: the "view, long settled in California, is that a void order is never binding, and that its violation cannot constitute contempt. A party affected by an order may, and usually will, seek some orderly judicial means of setting it aside; but he may also ignore or disobey it at his peril. If he guesses wrong, he may be punished; if he guesses right, the final judicial determination that the order was without or in excess of jurisdiction is necessarily a determination that he committed no punishable wrong in violating it." (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, � 155, pp. 421, 422.) Brady v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.2d 69, 1962.

On May 28, 2008, Cmr Joseph conceded that a recent court decision showed that parties to a family court case have a free speech right to post events on a blog. He cited Evans v Evans, D051144 (Cal. App. 5/12/2008).

I also have rights under the rest of the Bill of Rights, such as a right not to testify.

California is actually one of the better states in this regard. In most states, you are bound to comply with unconstitutional orders. You can argue that the judge's order is unconstitutional, but even if you eventually convince the court, you can be punished for violations that occurred up until the order is officially rescinded. The idea is that only judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution, and not ordinary citizens, I guess.

California has the more enlightened view, and is much closer to what constitutional law is all about. The Constitution applies to everyone. If the Constitution says one thing, and some silly judge says something contradictory, then your allegiance should be to the Constitution.

Before the invention of the printing press, most people were illiterate, and the Catholic Church had the attitude that only priest and other officials should read and interpret the Bible. Without such authority, the Church could not maintain a coherent message to the public. The printing press changed all that.

In the armed services, you have to do what your commanding officer says, but you also have to obey the law. You hope your commanding officer does not give you an unlawful order, because that can make your life difficult.

I am going to trial for contempt of court because my ex-wife alleges that I posted quotes from reports that were ordered to be confidential. I don't think that I have violated any court orders. If court orders were interpreted that way, then they would be blatant violations of constitutional free speech rights. That means that the orders were null and void to start with, and under California legal precedents, I cannot be punished. I hope Judge Morse understands that.

Advice from MIT Marine

One of my readers, under the name MIT Marine, offers some useful advice in the comments on recents posts. See Battle not over yet and Picking your battles.

The system is broken. I hope that readers can learn from the experiences of others.

Putting kids in a killer's home

AP reports:

SEATTLE (AP) - An Oregon mother asked a judge Thursday to overrule a family law commissioner's decision letting her two teenage sons live in the same house as a woman who killed her own daughters 20 years ago.

Trisha Conlon of Silverton, Ore., had two boys with her former husband, retired Marine fighter pilot Lt. Col. John P. Cushing Jr., in the 1990s. But they split up several years ago, and John Cushing has since gotten back together with his first wife, Kristine, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after shooting their 4- and 8-year old daughters in California's Orange County in 1991.

Conlon has said she learned only this year that Kristine and John Cushing were once again together at Cushing's home on Vashon Island, south of Seattle, a fact her attorney, Todd DeVallance, argued should warrant changes to the boys' parenting plan. But a court commissioner found last month that even if Conlon didn't know about it, John and Kristine Cushing had been back together for some time, with no apparent detriment to the boys and thus, there was no change of circumstance that would require the plan to be modified.

Yes, I do think that having a child-killer move into the household is a significant change of circumstances.

Personally, I think that I would trust a convicted murderer more than a mom who killed her own kids out of temporary insanity. Most murderers repent and do not commit more crimes. They understand what they did, and the penalty, at least. But a mom crazy enough to kill her own kids can never be trusted for anything.

"The sole evidence presented by the mother is one tragic episode that happened 20 years ago," Sorensen told the judge. "The court is required to deny (the motion) if there is not current evidence." ...

Cushing has emphasized that Kristine was considered temporarily insane at the time of the killings and thus, "There was no crime committed, there was a horrible tragedy that resulted in the deaths of our two daughters. (Conlon) and her counsel seem to feel that anyone who suffers from temporary insanity is incapable of recovering from that condition. Kristine's doctors disagree."

There is a certain twisted logic to that. No conviction in the criminal court, and hence no intervention by the family court.

I actually think that would be a good general rule. The family court gets wild accusations every day that could never be proved in a criminal court. Usually they are not even actionable in some real court. The family court could simplify a lot of its work if it would just ignore any criminal accusation that was not backed up by a criminal conviction.

But if there were ever an exception to the general rule, this case would be it. Even if this woman was not convicted of murder, she was adjudicated to be dangerously insane. Casey Anthony was also acquitted, but you sure would not put any kids in her care.

Advice to beat your kids

Fox News reports:

Fox News guest Bill Cunningham condoned beating as an appropriate form of punishment for kids on Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday.

Hannity touched a parenting hot potato when he asked how far was too far when it comes to disciplining kids. While his other guest, New York prosecutor Anna Sigga Nicolazzi, erred against corporal punishment, conservative radio host Bill Cunningham was in favor of it.

In fact, he urged parents, "I say beat kids appropriately and with love." ...

Cunningham, who said that his mother made him eat soap and hit him with a ping pong paddle, outright dismissed the possibility of wrongdoing. Cunningham said, "You got enough tough cases without making criminal bad parenting."

He probably has a CPS agent knocking on his door by now.

Attempts to micromanage parents

A Texas newspaper reports:

A Houston judge entered an order on June 24 which prohibits a father from leaving his children alone with any man they aren’t related to “by blood or adoption.” Because there was no allegation of abuse in the case, family law practitioners say the order is an unheard of infringement on the rights of parents and a judicial condemnation of the fact that the man, William Flowers, is not only gay but married to his partner, Jim Evans.

William and Jim were married on March 19 of last year in Connecticut, one of seven states which recognize same-sex unions. It was a second marriage for both.

When William and his ex-wife divorced in 2004, they agreed that their three children would live with her. Wanting to change the arrangement, William recently filed for custody in Harris County. A jury found that she should keep the kids, though his regular visitations would continue. Neither William nor his ex-wife alleged that the children had been abused or were in any danger of being abused.

Following the trial, Harris County Associate Judge Charley E. Prine, Jr. issued a ruling which included an injunction applicable only to William. It prohibits him from leaving his children alone with any male to whom the kids are not related by “blood or adoption.” So if, for example, William wants to visit his mother in the hospital (where she’s been for several weeks), he can’t leave his kids at home with his husband. As written, the injunction also prohibits male doctors, teachers and pastors from being alone with the children.

Attorneys who practice family law in Texas point out that in cases of abuse, it is common for courts to prevent children from being alone with specific people. But those same lawyers say that they’ve never heard of a case in which a step-parent or long-term partner is permanently enjoined from being alone with his or her step-children when abuse is not even alleged, let alone proven. No lawyer consulted for this story has ever heard of an order which prohibits children from being left alone with an entire gender.

Texas is the one state that allows jury trials for child custody. The dad got a jury trial. But it was not the jury that imposed the bizarre anti-male condition. It was a bigoted judge.

Meanwhile an Australian mom used shame to punish her child:

A mother made her child sit in public with a sign pinned to his shirt that said: "Do not trust me. I will steal from you as I am a thief."

The boy, thought to be aged about 10, was also wearing Shrek ears and writing lines in what appeared to a form of public punishment, according to dozens of witnesses who contacted the Townsville Bulletin.

The boy spent almost an hour on Sunday near a popular waterpark in Townsville while his family ate lunch nearby, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Diane Mayers was so "horrified" when she saw the boy she contacted Child Safety Services to intervene.

Ms Mayers, who worked with the department in the past, said any long-term effects of public humiliation would have been much worse than physical abuse.

The mom says that she had tried other alternatives, with no success. We don't have enough info to judge whether this punishment was appropriate, but Mayers is way out of lhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifine. Just what CPS intervention is she expecting? Putting the boy in foster care? Making the mom attend parenting classes? Anything CPS tries will do more harm than good.

If publicly shaming a 10-year-old boy were against policy, then maybe the Australians should pass a law against it. But they don't because many parents think that it is an effective form of discipline and there is no proof otherwise. CPS should not be stepping in and imposing their own opinion into a routine matter of parental discipline.

Judge cannot silence blogger

UCLA law professor (and 1A expert) comments on a recent protective order against someone who threatened to throw tomatoes at a parade:

Respondent is prohibited from posting any information/comments/threats/or any other data on any internet site, regarding the petitioner and any member of her immediate or extended family....

This order is a blatant First Amendment violation, it seems to me. Even if the injunction restricted only speech that allegedly fell into a First Amendment exception (such as libel or threats or obscenity), such an injunction would almost never be constitutional unless it was issued following a final decision on the merits that the speech indeed falls into a First Amendment exception

I mention this because I am about to go on trial for one of my postings here. No, I did not threaten anyone with tomatoes or anything else. I merely quoted the court psychologist on how he lied to the court in order to deprive me of joint legal custody of my kids, and how my ex-wife asked him to lie. Claiming that this info is confidential is just as obviously unconstitutional as the above order.

CPS persecutes petty drug use

A page one NY Times story yesterday reports:

The police found about 10 grams of marijuana, or about a third of an ounce, when they searched Penelope Harris’s apartment in the Bronx last year. The amount was below the legal threshold for even a misdemeanor, and prosecutors declined to charge her. But Ms. Harris, a mother whose son and niece were home when she was briefly in custody, could hardly rest easy.

The police had reported her arrest to the state’s child welfare hot line, and city caseworkers quickly arrived and took the children away. ...

New York City’s child welfare agency said that it was pursuing these cases for appropriate reasons, and that marijuana use by parents could often hint at other serious problems in the way they cared for their children. ...

Marijuana is the most common illicit drug in New York City: 730,000 people, or 12 percent of people age 12 and older, use the drug at least once annually, according to city health data. ...

[New York] State law considers a child neglected if his or her well-being is threatened by a parent who “repeatedly misuses” a drug. But the law does not distinguish marijuana from heroin or other drugs. The law says that if parents have “substantial impairment of judgment,” then there is a presumption of neglect, but it does not refer to quantities of drugs.

Furthermore, the law does not require child welfare authorities to catch parents while they are high or with drugs in their possession. Simply admitting past use to a caseworker is grounds for a neglect case. ...

The findings stay on parents’ records with the Statewide Central Register until their youngest child turns 28. ...

In a hearing the next day, the agency agreed to return Ms. Harris’s son on the condition that her boyfriend not return to the home, that she enroll in therapy and submit to random drug screenings, and that caseworkers could make announced and unannounced visits to her home. Ms. Harris’s case was closed in April without a finding of neglect.

Occasionally I hear someone suggest that parents should have to have licenses from the state to have kids, just as we have to have motor vehicle licenses.

If so, there might be standards for babysitting while intoxicated. A misbehaving child might be treated like a broken tail-light. Roving child police would issue tickets that would require either paying a fine or attending a class. With enough points on your record within 2 years, you could lose your license.

This would be a gross deprivation of our liberties. Not even Communist countries have done this. But how much worse would it be than our current system?

How does a CPS caseworker get the authority to kick out the mom's boyfriend? To make unannounced home inspections? To impose random drug screenings?

The problem here is not the marijuana. The problem is the state policies that have destroyed marriage and forced kids to be reared by single moms.

The law applies to parents having a “substantial impairment of judgment”. It seems to me that psychologists ought to be able to devise an objective test of judgment impairment, like an alcohol breathalyzer test. Then CPS caseworkers would have to back off if a parent passes the test. This would solve my problem, because no one has ever found an example of my judgment being impaired. It would cause a lot of problems for my ex-wife and many parents in the welfare class.

Picking your battles

I got some useful comments from "MIT Marine" and others in response to Battle not over yet, below. He says to pick your battles. He agreed to counseling, but not to admitted false charges of domestic violence.

In my experience, it never pays to admit to a false accusation in family court. I once admitted to having some unorthodox parenting approaches, thinking that it was a harmless admission. Dr. Gay used it as an excuse to reduce my custody, and to send me to a re-education camp. The family court repeatedly accused me of being "unorthodox", as if that meant something.

Since then, I took a simpler approach. I say that I am always willing to improve my parenting practices, if some expert can show me how I can do anything better than what I have done. So far, none of the court experts could say how I could do anything better than what I did.

For example, I had a visitation supervisor who was supposed to be a therapeutic supervisor. She would write some really kooky criticisms in her reports. She always tried to have at least one criticism in each report. One time after a 4-hour visit, her criticism was that I wanted to play the Monopoly board game for 2 hours and do something else for 2 hours. She insisted on playing Monopoly for 4 hours. I told her that if she is going to criticize me for this, then she ought to actually explain to me why it is better to play Monopoly for 4 hours. I tried to ask her, but she was unable or unwilling to explain it.

As my reader said, I have to pick my battles. There was no use arguing with a high-priced babysitter about the merits of playing Monopoly. We played for 4 hours. Maybe I should have just admitted that I was wrong to want to only play Monopoly for 2 hours. Then maybe the supervisor would have said that I learned something. I don't know what I would have learned, but she probably would have preferred that.

Board complaint farmed out to expert

I just got this letter:

August 11, 2011
Board of Psychology Control No.: 1F 2011 215103 (Dr. Kenneth B. Perlmutter)
Dear Mr. [AngryDad]:
The California Board of Psychology (Board) is in the process of investigating the above-mentioned complaint you filed against Dr. Kenneth B. Perlmutter. This letter is to update you regarding the status of this complaint.

The Board has received all information needed regarding this matter. This information has been forwarded to a qualified expert for further review. Upon completion of this review, it will be determined if further investigation is needed or if a determination can be made for this case.

Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
Sincerely,
[name omitted]
Enforcement/Investigations Analyst
California Board of Psychology

I presume that the Board asked Perlmutter for my patient records, and he sent copies of his handwritten notes. I doubt that he sent the 3000 pages of court records that my ex-wife provided to him.

My only hope here is that the "qualified expert" is some psychologist who is not already owned by the corrupt family court system. I think that there is about a 5% chance that my complaint will get a fair hearing.

Opinions of the family court evaluation system differ widely among psychologists. Some believe that nearly all child custody evaluations are unethical because they do not rely on generally accepted professional wisdom, and because they circumvent parental rights and due process. Others say that anything is fair game as long as someone is willing to pay for it.

I am posting this so that others can know about the public accountability of court-appointed psychologists and custody evaluators. Here is my May 7, 2011 complaint, and some correspondence has been posted here, here, here, here, and here.

Battle not over yet

A reader asks:

I've followed your blog for several years. Is the battle over? You simply can't see your kids unless the ex says so and theres no more court dates...?

Your experience is worse than having no system at all. Double-speaking pseudo-therapists empowered by gutless judges is a guarantee of failure on a grand scale.

I admire your restraint.

No, it is not quite over. I expect to be going back to court until my kids are 18 years old.

The only scdeduled court date is a trial for contempt on Sept. 9.

My motion for increased custody and visitation was denied. My ex-wife's motion for permanent sole custody was also denied. Judge Heather D. Morse shows every intention of supervising the case until our kids are 18.

Except that the judge has very little understanding of the case. She has not met our kids, and repeatedly gets the facts wrong. She cannot find anything wrong with me as a parent, but she unwilling to let me have any custody or visitation rights. So I expect to keep bringing motions, and the court will probably keep issuing temporary orders favoring my ex-wife.

Mom prosecuted for refusing experimental psychiatric drug

A Detroit mom not only lost her kid, but she was criminally prosecuted:

Detroit mom Maryanne Godboldo, who was subjected to an armed SWAT team assault on her home during an attempted kidnapping by Child Protective Services, has been found in neglect today by a Wayne County juvenile court.

The jury of that court was somehow persuaded to believe that Maryanne's refusal to continue drugging her daughter with Risperdal, a mind-altering psychiatric drug used to "treat" ADHD, equated to parental neglect. ...

The court system in Detroit appears to be trying to make an example out of Godboldo by sending a message: "Don't resist tyranny." When the state orders you to drug your children, don't even think about saying no! If you do, armed SWAT teams will raid your house, CPS will kidnap your child, and you will be brought up on felony charges for resisting.

You can follow the case at Justice for Maryanne Godboldo.

It gets worse. The drug is not even safe for kids, and the company has been prosecuted for wrongfully marketing to kids:

The FDA told Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) in 1997 that its request to market the antipsychotic drug Risperdal for children was “without any justification.” ...

J&J had initially asked the FDA to approve the drug for use in children, and the FDA eventually allowed limited use in the over-10s in the 2006 and 2007. But in 1997, without clinical evidence to back its request, the FDA frowned on use of the drug for children. In a latter the J&J, the FDA wrote:

To permit the inclusion of the proposed vague references to the safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients and the nonspecific cautionary advice about how to prescribe Risperdal for the unspecified target indications would serve only to promote the use of this drug in pediatric patients without any justification.

“Promote use of this drug in pediatric patients” is exactly what J&J then did, according to the suit:

From January 1994 through September 2006, Janssen sales representatives directly promoted Risperdal to thousands of child and adolescent psychiatrists and pediatricians even though Risperdal was not approved to treat any pediatric conditions until October 2006.

Doctors were paid $1,000 to attend J&J’s pediatric “advisory board” meetings held at posh resorts, and eventually Risperdal reached a 50 percent share of pediatric antispychotic category, the suit alleges.

It still gets worse. It turns out that the goons who reported the mom to CPS were on the drug company payroll. NaturalNews reports:

Thanks to the Voice of Detroit (VOD), it is now coming to light that the New Oakland Child-Adolescent & Family Center - a private facility which reported Maryanne to CPS for taking her daughter off the drug -- has paid connections with Big Pharma since at least 2004.

Pharmaceutical companies were involved all along
According to the Center's website, Kimberly Smith -- Director of Pharmaceutical Research for all its facilities since 2004 -- provides "clinical support and supervision" for the Clinton Township facility. She is also the head of the Center's Office of Recipient Rights. The website openly says that Kimberly has been coordinating Adult and Pediatric CNS (Central Nervous System) Clinical Trials for a number of big pharmaceutical companies for the last ten years.

Smith was recently contacted by VOD at her office, and she admitted that not only is she paid by the drug companies she works with, but that trials she is paid to conduct are among those carried out at New Oakland's facilities.

This is wrong on many levels. Too bad the jury could not see thru the corruption.

I don't know much about this drug, except that one of my readers has sent me info about it being ordered by the Santa Cruz court, where the order was written by a quack with a mail-order degree. This is a drug that should never be ordered by a court for a child. It is very unlikely that it ever does any good, and it has some bad side effects.

Pennsylvania Judge Gets 28 Years

FoxNews reports:

A longtime northeastern Pennsylvania judge was ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state's high court to toss thousands of convictions.

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as "kids for cash."

There are a lot of scathing attacks on this judge, but I really don't see how he is that much worse than judges like Judge Heather D. Morse. She just sentenced my kids to grow up without a father, and she could not give any reason for it. One one point, she read an email that my ex-wife had submitted to show that I was unreasonable, but it was a completely irrelevant email about someone simply stating conditions for a deposition. The judge showed no evidence of reading the papers or understanding the facts about the case. She kept misstating what had happened. The only actual negative thing she said about me was that I could have more empathy with my kids. I pointed out that the only witness who said that was someone who had not even observed me with my kids. The witnesses who had observed me with my kids did not say that. But even if it is true, what kind of evil judge would use that as a reason to force kids to grow up without a father? She cannot possibly think that we have a public policy of taking kids away from parents for such a silly and subjective reason.

Evil court psychologist finally gets caught

A forensic family court psychologist was finally exposed:

The Seattle Times recently featured a special report about a psychological “expert witness” who destroyed countless lives in the court cases in which he was hired to serve as an expert witness. He made up bogus psychological diagnoses for many people, like labeling a conscientious, mentally-healthy mother as a “quasi-psychotic” and “grave danger to her son” who was “‘probably’ sexually abusing him.” He also falsely claimed that a child-molesting priest had reformed, enabling him to molest several additional children.

For a quarter century Stuart Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress.His peers elected him their national president. ...

But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies.

All this wrong-doing made him a star in family courts in King County, Washington, where judges in divorce cases rubber-stamped his recommendations about which parent should receive custody of a child. “At conferences and in classrooms, in Washington and beyond, he taught others to do what he did. He became his profession’s gatekeeper, quizzing aspirants, judging others’ work, writing the national certification exam.” Later, state courts sealed his disciplinary records, permitting him to continue his wrongdoing even after it was well-known to state regulators, who did nothing about it. He was finally apprehended after he was caught videotaping his own employees using the restroom for his own sexual gratification.

It should not be necessary to catch the guy doing something perverted in order to expose him as a crook. It must have been obvious to everyone connected to the court for 25 years, and no one did anything about him.

I found the story with this unrelated story of a 39-year-old man with alleged PTSD who sought a restraining order against an 86-year-old neighbor woman, without him having to appear in court. The trial court dismissed his complaint, but the appeals court voted 6-1 to reinstate it.

No, I do not always side with the man. Most PTSD is a phony way to claim a disability. The guy's claim is probably completely frivolous, and he certainly should not get anything without appearing in court.

No relief in court

My ex-wife and I were before Judge Heather D. Morse this morning. As usual, she waited until 10 minutes before noon, and after she cleared out the other cases.

I was complaining that I have not seen our kids for 5 months. My ex-wife claimed that it was all my fault somehow. The judge was clearly biased against me, and it was all I could do to talk her out of permanently terminating my parental rights.

My ex-wife said that she is still pursuing the comtempt of court charges. The judge said that I waived the time limits. I objected, and said that I had not. The judge then read the minute order saying that I waived the limits. I really don't see how the clerk could have gotten that wrong, because we had a 5 minute discussion about it last time, and I was very emphatic about not waiving the limits. So the judge scheduled a trial for Sept. 9.

Visitation is now at my ex-wife's discretion. I will post more details later.

Shrinks writing orders

A reader asks:

George, if Perlmutter writes an order, doesn't it have to be approved by a judge? And now, you can't even have a court reporter unless you pay for one yourself. There are no records showing what transpired. SC County is a 3rd world country.

Even Third World countries are not stupid enough to let psychologists write court orders.

Yes, I thought that orders had to be signed by a judge, after a hearing or at least an opportunity for a hearing. In my case, the psychologist (Perlmutter) sent his proposed order to a juvenile delinquency court commissioner who then rubber-stamped them as an order without any notice or hearing. I was expecting the matter to be heard by the family court judge. I never got any explanation for why it was done this way.

I did depose Perlmutter to try to get an explanation for what he meant by the order that he wrote. He was evasive, and what I got was this:

DEPOSITION OF KENNETH PERLMUTTER, Ph.D.
23 Q. Well, I'm not asking your opinion about what
24 things ought to be. We are now subject to the order
25 that you wrote.

1 A. Of which I have no control over that. Of
2 which it doesn't even make sense the order that was
3 signed because there are contradictory things in
4 there. So that order doesn't even make sense. But if
5 you will be patient for a minute, I would like you to
6 give me one minute to speak about this issue with C.J.
7 Neustadter.

8 Q. You wrote it and I'm trying to comply with
9 it. Okay?

10 A. How can you comply with it? There's nothing
11 in the order as it's filed with the court that is
12 compliable. It's absolutely insane. You can quote me
13 on that. It's on the record. It makes no sense to me
14 that my recommendations are a court order because there
15 are contradictory things in the court order.

16 So I've seen a judge sign something like this,
17 but I've also seen a judge X out the things that are
18 contradictory. So we all know that that didn't
19 happen. Or I've seen -- I've seen a judge sign it and
20 then add additional instructions.

21 Could I just speak about C.J.?

22 Q. Okay. Wait. This is wild. You're telling
23 me -- I mean, you've done 650 evaluations?

24 A. Yes, that's true. Over 650.

25 Q. You normally make recommendations at the end
1 of your evaluation?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you write them all out in a form in which
4 they are all ready to go as a court order?

5 A. No, absolutely not.

6 Q. But you're expecting the judge to just go
7 through and X out the stuff that doesn't make any
8 sense; is that the way you do your evaluations?

9 A. No, that is not the case. And rather than go
10 through the rules in Santa Clara County or San Mateo
11 County, all you need to do is refer to the local rules
12 and you'll understand what the process is. I knew full
13 well --

14 Q. You know, listen, listen. I wish I could say
15 I could read the rules and understand the process. My
16 experience, the court violates the rules all the time
17 and the upshot is that now I have an order that you
18 wrote and I'm trying to comply with it.

That was over a year ago, and the same order is still binding. I don't know what it means, and the jerk who wrote it refuses to take any responsibility for it.

New psychology school

Palo Alto University has a big display ad in today's newspaper for a new Scotts Valley program for master's degrees in counseling. It says that information sessions are at the local Hilton Mon-Tues-Wed evenings this week, and the rest of the week in Monterey.

This is horrible. It appears that they are trying to scoop out students from the lcoal Christian college that recently went bankrupt, and turn them into soul-sucking shrinks. I hope that these poor students learned about the devil before being dismissed.

Palo Alto U. calls itself a university, but they just teach psychology. Their web site has nothing about this new Scotts Valley initiative. Their phone numbers just lead to voicemail. You would think that when an ad points to a web site, the site would have some info on what is being advertized. You would also think that a university would have a telephone number that permitted talking to a live person.

We have a lot of crazy people in Santa Cruz, but we also have a lot of psychologists, counselors, psychotherapists, mediators, hypnotists, social workers, psychics, astrologers, palm readers, etc. We do not need any more. I fear that this new program is just going to train a bunch of quacks with phony credentials to wreck peoples' lives.

Back to court

I scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday. The issues include the usual custody and visitation issues that have been pending for nearly 4 years and never resolved. I am also facing arraignment for contempt of court.

The main contempt charge is for quoting Palo Alto psychologist Kenneth B. Perlmutter admitting that he lied to the court in order to make a crooked deal with my ex-wife to unlawfully deprive me of joint legal custody.

You can read about the contempt charge here, with Perlmutter's explanation under oath, and my ethics complaint against him.

Perlmutter is a vermin of the worst sort. He was personally cruel to my kids, and dishonest with me and the court. He is unethical and corrupt. But I have primarily restricted my criticisms to what I can prove using his own admissions under oath. And he has admitted some extremely reprehensible behavior under oath. He does not even dispute what I say here, as far as I know.

I don't know why my ex-wife would want to prosecute me for contempt, when any such trial will expose how she lied to Perlmutter and to the court in order to improperly gain sole legal custody of our kids. These are strong words, but I would not say them unless I have the transcripts and court papers to prove them.

British Anti-Social Behavior Orders

The British are way ahead of us in having crazy restraining order, and Reason magazine reports:

Anti-Social Behavior Orders, or ASBOs, first came to the United Kingdom in 1998. The civil orders allow judges to prohibit individuals from engaging in otherwise legal behavior, such as standing on street corners, spitting, or getting drunk. Warring neighbors often try to inflict ASBOs on each other. One man was hit with an ASBO for whistling the theme from The Addams Family at an elderly couple. In another case, a woman was banned from engaging in noisy sex.

The BBC is now billing a 700-year-old document from the London Metropolitan Archives as an ancient ASBO -— a demonstration that Tony Blair was hardly the first to inject the law into neighborly disputes. The complaint is against one Alice Wade, who contrived to connect her in-home privy to a public gutter, sparing her the trouble of using a chamber pot. The locals were less than impressed by her clever arrangement, complaining that the gutter “is frequently stopped up by the filth therefrom” and that they were “greatly inconvenienced by the stench.” Alice was ordered to remove the pipe within 40 days but remained free to whistle, spit, or have noisy sex as she pleased.

I think that the judges probably had a lot more common sense 700 years ago. The order was against the illegal plumbing, not the behavior. Today's court orders against otherwise-legal behavior have gotten out of hand, both here and in England.

Support neurodiversity

I just found this announcement of a conference in New York tomorrow:

On August 5, 2011, Syracuse University will be hosting a regional symposium on neurodiversity and autistic self-advocacy. Neurodiversity is a concept and social movement that advocates for viewing autism as a variation of human wiring, rather than a disease. As such, neurodiversity activists reject the idea that autism should be cured, advocating instead for celebrating autistic forms of communication and self-expression, and for promoting support systems that allow autistic people to live as autistic people.

The purpose of this event is to raise public awareness of the concepts of neurodiversity and the different facets of the neurodiversity movement, and to increase understanding and dispel myths about what it means to be against curing autism.

Registration is still open, and free. I am ordering a t-shirt.

Judge Heather Morse has taken my kids away by accusing me of possibly having Aspergers, a condition related to autism. All ten psychological evaluations for the court said that I did not, but this judge seems to think that she knows more than the psychologists.

The judge is an ignorant bigot. She does not know what Aspergers is, and yet she is willing to use it as an excuse to force my kids to grow up without a father. Even if I did have Aspergers, there is no scientific basis for saying that they are any worse parents than anyone else, and there is no public policy to take kids away from parents with Aspergers.

This is a court that uses Dr. Gay to do a psychological evaluation of me. All he had to say was to complain about how I brush my daughters hair and about what vegetables I feed them. As far as I could tell, he has no training or experience with women or children. The court also has orders being written by a parenting coordinator with a phony mail-order degree.

The judge is an ignorant bigot. She should be forced to attend a conference like the above Neurodiversity Symposium. Maybe she would learn that there are two kinds of people in the world, and that she is relying on morons to discriminate against people who are much more psychologically healthy than those court experts.

Update: I got the t-shirt.

Duped by a blonde too good to be true

I posted before about Crooked cops fueling nasty divorces with dirty DUI charges. Sunday's paper has this followup:

She was a striking blonde who spent a lot of time in Hawaii, just like he did. She was an avid Sharks fan, just like him. She said all the right things and made it clear that she wanted him.

"I haven't had sex in so long," she cooed on their first date.

Deep down, Dave Dutcher -- unassuming aeronautics engineer, father of three, recently split from his wife -- suspected that his Match.com sweetheart was too good to be true. And when a wildly flirtatious second date ended in a DUI, Dutcher wondered whether his ex-wife was somehow connected to the woman who had fed him shots and invited him hot-tubbing with an equally coquettish friend.

Then, two years later, a major police corruption scandal centered on a Concord private investigator exploded, and a prosecutor confirmed Dutcher's suspicions: He had been set up. ...

On that night, when his date and her friend flashed their breasts at Dutcher, he said he was as confused as the other men at the bar who wondered whether he was some kind of movie producer. ...

"Again, there was no plan to set up a DUI arrest; I only wanted Mr. Butler to watch Mr. Dutcher drink and drive so he could report this to the court for the safety and protection of my children," Susan Dutcher wrote in a declaration to the court. "There was never a discussion with me about Mr. Butler notifying the police if he saw Mr. Dutcher driving after drinking to excess."

Butler, one of five former police officers who have pleaded not guilty to a 38-count felony complaint, told a DA inspector that Dutcher was the second divorcing spouse of a Nolan client who was arrested for DUI as a result of one of his undercover stings using female decoys. ...

"Everything changed after the arrest," Dutcher said. "Custody went from 60/40 to 90/10, though it's really more like 4 (percent). My kids are so alienated now, I rarely ever see them."

This scheme by the police and ex-wives is thoroughly reprehensible. No man should be held responsible if some hot blonde flashes her breasts, gets him drunk, and seduces him. The cops participated in this entrapment. The family court should not be punishing the kids by cutting them off from the dad.