Dad regains autistic boy on appeal

A reader sends me this S. California appeals case pdf:

In this case, the parties disagree fundamentally on how best to raise their highly intelligent son, J., who was diagnosed at a young age with Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of high functioning autism. The parents care deeply for their son, but hold diametrically opposed views on the extent of his disabilities and on the efficacy of certain types of autism treatment. Mother has written a published book on autism, gives lectures on the subject, helps other families obtain services for their children with autism, and plans to write several more books about autism. Father is a special education attorney and has a master’s degree in psychology.

In 2008, when the parents divorced, they agreed, in a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (the judgment), to submit future disputes about matters involving J. (such as custody and education) to a special master selected in accordancewith the judgment. The judgment provided: (1) the special master would be a licensed mental health professional; (2) if a party disagreed with the special master’s decision, the party could seekthe court’s intervention; and (3) the special master would report any unresolved conflictsto the court. Under the judgment, the parties shared joint legal custody of J. and divided their physical custody of him based on a designated schedule. In January 2009, mother discontinued any direct communication with father and advised him she had asked her fiancé to be “an intermediary, whenever possible, for ALL communications with you.”

The mom got remarried, and tried to cut the dad out of their boy's llfe. They went to court, and the judge appointed psychologist David J. Jimenez as a child custody evaluator. His web site advertises:

Family Law Child Custody Evaluations
Full & Solution-Focused Evaluations, Relocation & “Move Away” Evaluations, Domestic & International, Attachment & Bonding Evaluations, Parental Alienation, Visitation & Parenting Plans, Collaborative Divorce

Criminal Evaluations
Death Penalty, Sexual Exploitation, Robbery, Dangerousness, Domestic Violence, Rape, Kidnapping, Stalking, Child Pornography & The “Internet”, Child Molestation & Abuse, ‘Competency To Stand Trial’, ‘Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity/NGI’, ‘State of Mind at Time of Offense’, Substance Abuse

Dependency Evaluations
Reunification, Bonding & Attachment, Adoption

Expert Witness

He brags:

Psychological Consultation, Evaluation, Treatment, and Expert Court Testimony in Family Law, Criminal, & Dependency California Superior Court matters since 1991.

Privately Retained by Both the Prosecution and Defense.

Provided Thousands of Court Evaluations under Court E.C. 730 Appointment (PC:1368, 288, Etc.)

Provided Expert Testimony in over one hundred Family Law, Juvenile & Adult matters

He offers to do a Full Child Custody Evaluation on a sliding fee scale.

He turned out to be corrupt, and privately bragged that he had "deep pockets" clients. He sided with the mom and billed $42,000. He still has California Psychology License PSY 10629, but the state is now trying to revoke his license.

You can tell that people don't know anything about Asperger syndrome when they call it "Asperger's". The professional literature calls it "Asperger", not "Asperger's". Those who call it "Asperger's" are getting their info from the oversimplified lay press. Similarly the people who refer to the Book of Revelations are probably getting bad info, because if they read the Bible they would notice that the name is the Book of Revelation.

The only reason this case got to the appellate court was that the family court judge found Jimenez's work to be incompetent, but ordered that he be paid and his recommendations be followed anyway. Usually judges follow incompetent recommendations without documenting the incompetence of the expert.

It is common for parents to have more expertise in parenting their kids than the court evaluators and special masters. This case is unusual in that the parents had the credentials to prove it.

These parents had some minor disputes about schooling and other matters, and a settlement agreement with a mechanism to resolve such disputes. That is what should have happened. Instead the psychologist and judge went berserk trying to fleece them for money and reorganizing their lives.

The court found it was in J.’s best interest for mother to have sole legal custody. As to father, the court stated: “None of [father’s] positive and constructive involvement with [J.] will be adversely affected by [mother] having sole legal custody. He can continue to provide beneficial and very helpful assistance in doing homework, particularly math” and “can continue to try and involve his son in quality activities such as boating and even if they share a common interest in pocket knives.”

This is sick. This devalues fatherhood to just someone who pays money to the mom, helps on homework, and takes the boy boating, but is stripped of any authority or responsibility for the boy.

I cannot explain this bias against teaching math. I also had the problem of judges saying that I should not have legal custody if I teach me kids math.

Orange County Judge Clay M. Smith should be fired for this anti-father opinion.

Jimenez says that he has done 1000s of child custody evaluations over 20 years for the court. And he is not even Jewish. Psychologists like him are a menace to society. Other similarly experienced evaluators who ought to lose their licenses are: Kenneth Barry Perlmutter PSY 7053, Faren Ray Akins PSY 7110, Bret Kale Johnson PSY 10630.