Tuesday, August 09, 2011

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:
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.


Anonymous said...


Could you please post once again, your first, or first few blogs ? I could not find them.

I think that they show the root of the problem. Nothing made sense about the court from the start. They did however get right down to business, grillng you about your finances, and such.

Like with me and i think all others, or most, of your readers we might have this one experience in common. It all began with the court interrogating us about money.


Anonymous said...

See, it may be a scenario in which we are to assume that it can not be that everyone else is to blame, so therefore you must be to blame.

It IS that everyone else is to blame. They all have a vested interest.

It is like one of those woven little toys that you can buy in chinatown, that you try to pull your two index finges out of. The harder you try to get out of it, the harder it becomes to get out of.

Anonymous said...

So he should just not do nothing right? I mean hey, if you don't play the game you will never lose right? In the meantime you lose all your money, your children, your life, etc. Nah, i'll pass on your way moron.

George said...

I am not quitting, even if the whole world is against me.

Anonymous said...

Moron ?

I never said he should do nothing.

I do not know what is best for his kids. I admire his effort, and dedication to them.

Does doing nothing equate to winning or losing ? What is winning or losing ? There is only doing what a parent feels serves the best interest of the child.

Doing nothing ? You can not do nothing, because doing nothing is a decision, and is in fact doing something.

What would you do if your child begged you to leave, saying that the lawyer and court psychologist were after you, and she did not want to be a part of the court persecuting you by her mother and her mothers lawyer who was employing her mother ?

She was being pressured to expose her mother, or lie about her father.

Is subjecting your kid to these people certainly the best option for your kids ? Maybe ? Maybe its something to consider.

My child is doing fine. She thanks me and appreciates what I have done for her. She sees it as a sacrifice
for her.

Know anything about the story of King Solomon ?

There are many ways to play the game, and winning is predicated on how your kids turn out and how they feel about what you did and did not do for them.

I respect and and admire the decisions George has made for himself and his children.

Try to understand that you can support people, and understand them and their personal situations.

If you think that fighting is going to be what is best for your kids in the end, then that is what you should do. Is it what your kids want ?

Anonymous said...

I think most kids want to be with most parents. And if one parent wants to prevent them from seeing the other then it stands to reason that parent should fight back. THAT is what's in the best interest of the children: both parents. The state, the legal system, the shrinks, the schools, none of them really has children's best interests at heart, they simply make their living and maintain their power controlling them. It's no different than the old Soviet Union w/their Red Pioneers and all that. You isolate the children at a young age and indoctrinate them into the state's ideology and make the state their parent. We're doing it here, too in this country.

Anonymous said...

I very much appreciate your perspective, and your points are very well taken. I figured that with far less resources, than George, and equal resolve, perhaps, that my chances were 100% that my child would be abused by the court system to some degree, and maybe a 1 % chance that I might end up with her. Although, succeeding with the 1% chance would too, result in exposing her mother and her ending up with 1 parent vs. 2 parents in the process... It's a zero sum game.

I asked myself, if my daughter asked why I had put her thru the abuse, that she already hated, for a 1 % chance to end up with 1 parent anyway, why would I have thought it was intelligent to fight, when it was a lose-lose ?

Again, I sincerely, thank you for your opinion and perspective. It honestly, is a difficlt thing for me to grapple with. I never tried to do anything other than what I believed was best for my child. I could be wrong though.

Anonymous said...

the problem is ultimately there are no winners when it comes to the recently sundered family unit other than those who make up the system. These are difficult choices to make and from my personal experience I can't say for someone else fighting vs backing off is better, not my place, I don't have the data, etc. I would say it varies from case to case, there are no absolutes. Problem is the family law system is the absolute unto itself and therein lies much of the problem.

What I've found both personally and reading history is that if you really want something or want to change "the system", whatever system you're talking about, you have to fight like a fiend, no two ways about it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, there have been no exceptions to this rule throughout recorded history.

Anonymous said...


btw...are you familiar with Ga. state congresswoman Nancy Schaefer ? her bold work, and what happened with her and her husband last year ?

She was a true American war hero.

Also a hero in this war is Dr. Stephen Baskerville, should you have an interest..

Anonymous said...

btw, if you're the poster at 12:43 and presumably 12:28 I didn't call you a moron, that was someone else ;-) Not polite to slag someone anonymously, that's for cowards.

The morons are the tools working for system who buy into the notion they're "helping". As Thoreau once said: Lord save me from those that want to do me good.

No, not familiar w/that GA congresswoman, can you direct me to where I can get more info? Amen re Baskerville and don't forget Glenn Sacks.

Anonymous said...

It was easy to distinguish you from the other individual.

George refernced Nancy Schaefer in this blog ..search blog for sept 28 2008, and april 1, 2011.

She was the only elected official speaking out publicly vs. cps and family courts etc.

She was either mob style hit, last year along with her husband or committed suicide, depending on various perspectives.

Many believe that organized crime plays a big role in profiting from family court and cps.

If you care to google Nancy Schaefer, congresswoman, a lot has been written about her and the incident.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

have not heard of the possible involvement of organized crime in family court and CPS, can you elaborate or point me somewhere that goes into that in more detail? Sure seems like the family law system acts like organized crime, though. Well, actually, it is an organized crime against families.

Thanks re refs on Schaefer,I'll look into that, very interesting.....

Anonymous said...


regarding nancy schaefer and org. crime.

Anonymous said...


org crime and cps

Anonymous said...

Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association: 2006 Affidavit of ...
airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com/.../2006-affidavit-of-mccook-m... - Cached23 Jun 2011 – Evidence indicates that an alleged organized criminal enterprise has ... of the organized criminal enterprise that has infiltrated family courts and .... Richardo Belda, are funding the bribery monies to Judge Wedoff. ...