The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals- Over 58,000 Children are Court Ordered to live with Abusers and Pedophiles

No Responses »
Oct 072010

posted by AMPP

How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

 

In a Conservative Estimate — OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser. This is more than twice the amount of childhood cancer.

Posted with permissions from: Montana Public Radio, KUFM, which ran on their news broadcast 10-5-2010.

Interview with Assistant News Director Edward O’Brien and Kathleen Russell of the www.CenterForJudicialExcellence.org about the cottage industry of Guardian Ad Litems aka GAL’s and the much needed State to State Reforms to pull their Immunity from accountability and prosecution for sending children to live with abusers in Disputed Child Custody Cases.

Remember that therapeutic jurisprudence COSTS money, and prolongs litigation. It costs nothing to abrogate their immunity and/or to get rid of them. See, http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Listen Now:  The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals – Legislative Reforms Needed

 

OVER 58,000 children are Court Ordered every year to live with the Abuser.

 

Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President

tel: (410) 938-4974 or email Joyanna Silberg

According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.

Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal. The Leadership Council urges citizens to work with legislators and agencies in their communities to examine this problem, review state agency policies and procedures, and develop legislative and policy solutions that help ensure safety from violence for children following divorce.

How We Obtained This Estimate:

No one knows the exact number of children who are left in the unprotected care of an abusive parent following their parents’ divorce. The Leadership Council has studied the problem and using the best available research has attempted to come up with a conservative estimate of the problem. We estimate that each year, 58,500 minor children are placed at risk for injury because the courts ordered them into the unsupervised care of a violent parent.

The estimate is meant to be conservative and was obtained using the figures in the following table. The research that we used to obtain these figures is explained in more depth in the following section.

Number of children affected by divorce each year

1,000,000

Number of families with allegations of child abuse and/or severe domestic violence (13%)

x.13
 

=130,000 cases

When investigated, percentage of cases found to be valid or suspected to be valid. (Research suggests that the number is between 43 and 73%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 70%. To be conservative we will use 60%)

X .60
 

=78,000

Percentage of children left unprotected. (Research suggests that the number is between 56-90%, with most data showing the rate is closer to 90%. A conservative estimate is 75%)

X .75

Estimate of children in the U.S. who are left in the unprotected care of an abuser after their parents’ divorce

=58,500

The research:

Estimates suggest that between 1 and 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year — ultimately 40% of all children are affected by divorce.1,2,3

It is difficult to determine the number of divorcing families affected by violence. The Women’s Law Center of Maryland analyzed an extensive dataset, which consists of a random sampling of all divorce and custody cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0%).4

This is likely an underestimate as court records often fail to note domestic violence5 and other studies have shown higher rates. For example, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), looking solely at court records, found documentedevidence of domestic violence in 24%-55% of custody court records depending on the state.6

In addition, studies suggest that in divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of children, there is often a history of violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence will continue after the separation. In many cases, the violence involves severe battering and/or the use of weapons.7

To be conservative we will go with 13%. So how many of these allegations are likely to be valid. Research suggests when allegations of child abuse are investigated, approximately 50-73% are found to be valid.8

However, when courts get involved in determining custody, children are rarely protected from the violent parent. In at least 75% of cases the child is ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser. (Research has found results ranging from 56-90%; a conservative estimate is 75%).9

So how many children whose parents divorce are left in the unprotected care of an abuser each year in the United States ? Thus a conservative estimate based on available research is that approximately 58,500 are left at risk of physical and psychological injury after being ordered into the unsupervised care of an abuser after their parents divorce. This number includes both those who are left in the sole care of an abuser and those who are required to have unsupervised visits.

Compare this to the number of cases of childhood cancer per year. In 2004 the incidence rate of newly diagnosed childhood cancers in the U.S. was 22,586.10

Most people who divorce do so early in their marriage,.3 and children who are court-ordered into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, an abuser will be at risk of abuse until they reach adulthood. Consequently, at any point in time it is likely that a half a million children are left unprotected from a violent parent after their parents’ divorce.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Divorce – Helping Children Adjust.http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ4KZADH4C⊂_cat=0
(“Every year, more than one million children in the United States experience the divorce of their parents.”)

2. National Institutes of Mental Health. (2002, October 15). Preventive Sessions After Divorce Protect Children into Teens.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2002/preventive-sessions-after-divorce-protect-children-into-teens.shtml
(“About 1.5 million children experience the divorce of their parents each year—ultimately 40 percent of all children.”)

3. Shiono, P. H., & Quinn, L. S. (1994, Spring). Epidemiology of Divorce.Future of Children, 4 (1). Available athttp://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART2.pdf
(Each year since the mid-1970s, more than 1 million children have experienced a family divorce.”)

4. The Women’s Law Center of Maryland. (2004). Custody and financial distribution in Maryland: An empirical study of custody and divorce cases filed in Maryland during fiscal year 1999. Towson, MD.
http://www.wlcmd.org/pdf/CustodyFinancialDistributionInMD.pdf
(“Domestic violence (including child abuse) was alleged by at least one party in 240 cases out of 1,847 (13.0 percent). Of these, 169 allegations were made by women and 36 by men.”)

5. Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11 (8), 991-1021.
(Researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle , studied divorce cases and found that in 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history of domestic violence, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files. Similarly the National Center for State Courts that a screening process [utilized by the mediation program] revealed a much higher incidence of domestic violence than a review of court records alone would have indicated [see ref 6 below]).

6. Susan Keilitz et al, Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers , prepared for the National Center for State Courts; State Justice Institute," NCSC Publication Number R- 202, p. 5.

7. Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-Conflict Divorce. The Future of Children, 4(1), 165-182, p. 167.

8. Research used in substantiation estimate:

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (1997). Problems and solutions in the management of child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes in the family court. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36(4), 431-443.
(Researchers reviewed court records of some 200 families where child abuse allegations had been made in custody and access disputes in jurisdictions in two states, observed court proceedings and interviewed court and related services’ staff.The allegations of abuse were usually valid. 70% were determined to involve severe physical and/or sexual abuse. The overall rate of false allegations during divorce to be about 9%, similar to the rate of false allegations in noncustody related investigations.)

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4 (4), 1-25.
(Researchers examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic. 72.6% were determined likely; 20% unlikely; and 7.4% uncertain. Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.)

Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation disputes. Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151-63.
(Researchers examined court records in 9,000 families in custody/visitation disputes. In the 129 cases for which a determination of the validity of the allegation was available, 50% were found to involve abuse , 33% were found to involve no abuse, and 17% resulted in an indeterminate ruling. [*note: Court records provide less reliable than evaluations by multidisciplinary teams trained in recognizing child abuse].)

Jones, D.P.H., & Seig, A. (1988). Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation disputes: A report of 20 cases. In E.B. Nicholson & J. Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book for Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, pp. 22-36.
(This article reports on 20 cases evaluated by the C. Henry Kempe Centre which involved both sexual abuse allegations and a parental custody dispute. 70% of cases were found to be reliable and 20% of the cases appeared fictitious.)

McGraw, J.M., & Smith, H.A. (1992). Child sexual abuse allegations amidst divorce and custody proceedings: Refining the validation process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(1), 49-61.
(This study describes 18 cases of child sexual abuse allegations made during divorce and custody disputes. The cases were reviewed using the clinical process of validation used at the Kempe Center in Denver, Colorado. The number of cases categorized as founded was eight [44.4%].  In two cases [ 11%]) there was insufficient information to make a determination, and five were judged to be based on an unsubstantiated suspicion. Three cases were judged to be fictitious [16.5%], only one of which came from a child.)

Paradise, J. E., Rostain, A. L., & Nathanson, M. (1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835-9.
(Researchers systematically evaluated child sexual abuse cases in a hospital-based consecutive series and one author’s practice were systematically reviewed. Abuse allegations made within the context custody or visitation dispute [39% of the sample] were compared with cases in which custody or visitation was not an issue. Cases involving custody problems were found to involve younger children [5.4 vs 7.8 years]. Sexual abuse allegations were substantiated less frequently when there was concomitant parental conflict [nonsignificant] but were nevertheless substantiated more than half of the time.)

Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333. (PDF)
Using data from the 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-98), this paper provides a detailed summary of the characteristics associated with intentionally false reports of child abuse and neglect within the context of parental separation. The national study examined abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada.
When there was an on-going custody dispute the substantiation rate by CPS was 40% and an addition 14% were suspected but there wasn’t enough evidence to make a final determination. 12% were believed to be intentionally false. Allegations of neglect was the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment. Substantiation rates varied significantly by source of report, with reports from the police (60%), custodial parents (47%), and children (54%) being generally most likely to be substantiated, while noncustodial parents (usually fathers) have a lower substantiation rate (33%), and anonymous reports being least likely to be substantiated (16%). Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the study, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.

Hlady, L.J., & Gunter, E.J. (1990). Alleged child abuse in custody access disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(4), 591-3.
(Researchers reviewed the charts of all children involved in custody access disputes seen by Child Protective Services (CPS) at British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital in 1988. Of the 370 such children evaluated by CPS, 34 involved allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) that arose during custody/access disputes. These children’s physical examinations were then compared with the 219 children seen during the same one-year period for alleged CSA not involving custody/access disputes. A similar percentage of positive physical findings were found in both groups. It is concluded that the concern that allegations of CSA that arise during custody/access disputes are likely to be false is not borne out by these findings.)

9. Research used in this estimate:

Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial Responses to Protective Parents, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 103-122.
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/J070.pdf (go to page 109 of pdf)
(Examined judicial responses to protective parents’ complaints of child sexual abuse in 300 custody cases with extensive family court records. The investigators found that only in 10% of cases was primary custody was given to the protective parent and supervised contact with alleged abuser.Conversely, 20% of the cases resulted in a predominantly negative outcome where the child was placed in the primary legal and physical custody of the allegedly sexually abusive parent (see p. 108). In the rest of the cases, the judges awarded joint custody with no provisions for supervised visitation with the alleged abuser.)

Lowenstein, S. R. (1991). Child sexual abuse in custody and visitation litigation: Representation for the benefit of victims. UMKC Law Review, 60, 227-82.
(This study examined 96 custody and visitation disputes involving allegations of child sexual abuse from 33 states. Visitation was the principal issues in 36 cases. The father was alleged to have sexually molested their child in each of these 36 cases. Yet in two-thirds (24) of these cases the alleged perpetrator was granted unsupervised visitation. 
Custody was the principle issue in 56 cases. In 27 of the 56 cases (48%) mothers lost custody. In 17 of these cases (63%) the mother lost custody to a father alleged to be a perpetrator. In two cases (3.6%) fathers lost custody. No father lost custody to a mother whose household included an alleged perpetrator (either the mother, a stepfather, the mother’s boyfriend, or one of mother’s relatives).

Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,11(8), 991-1021.
(Examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence on child custody and visitation outcomes. Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.)

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation’s failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 21-23. Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf
(Researchers compared 200 child custody mediations involving charges of domestic violence with 200 mediations that did not.Joint legal custody was awarded about 90% of the time, even when domestic violence was an issue.)

See also:
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053.

10. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. (2007). United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2004 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.Available at: www.cdc.gov/uscs .

For more information see:

Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9 (3), 33-47. (PDF)

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. (2006). 10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them. Washington, DC: Author.http://leadershipcouncil.org/docs/ABA_custody_myths.pdf

More research is available from the Leadership Council web site 
www.leadershipcouncil.org

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at: www.leadershipcouncil.org

Melinda Stratton: Another Mom Called A Criminal For Raising Her Own Child

15 Responses »
Sep 132010

Submitted by AMPP

Daddy ‘Ken Thompson’ is an alleged ABUSER who ‘hunts’ his victims down.

American Mothers Political Party

Join with Australian Mothers Political Party

in support of Melinda Stratton and HER son Andrew

There is much going on around the www about Melinda STRATTON and HER son Andrew (not Melinda “Thompson” – the SURname of her Male oppressor and slave master) as AngieMedia a  Fathers Rights site (with a woman’s name)–again wrongly reports.


“End the patriarchy! No mother is a criminal for raising her own child. Alienation is a bogus label to falsely stigmatize women and children who want to be free of a MALE guardian very similar to the false mental disorder of Drapetomania given to slaves who wanted to be free from their masters. Anyone who tries to take a child from their mother is a MONSTER. Nature made mothers the natural guardian, patriarchy enslaves the women and treats the children as property.”

Here is a great article from the Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

The Truth About Runaway Mothers

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the only pathetic explanation as to why a business women would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, “Oh…Um…yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser”.

Note the word most. The exclusion is the community of REAL mothers and children who have been through this and know what Melinda has gone through. Lets face it, experts get paid for their opinion at the end of the day and I am sure some are willing to alter some to get a nice big payout at the end of the day. I place my bets on experience.

In Australia, we now have grown up children who have been forced by court order to stay with an abusive parent. No law is going to stop them from speaking out in the end as Australian jurisdiction only reaches so far.

How to break the silence… MORE HERE

Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

I fully support the following from Anonymums:

Press Release

RE: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run


As a spokesperson for Anonymums, we understand that the Family Court does not investigate child protection matters and during the proceedings if there is no history of child protection involvement, there are no investigations that are likely to ensure the protection of children involved in proceedings. The matters of Arthur Freeman, Robert Farquharson and Jayson Dalton are just a handful of reported cases that reveals the amounting negligence that the Family Court has in regards to children’s rights.

The laws particularly the Shared parenting bill based on United States joint custody laws, prioritize parent’s rights above children’s rights. Children don’t have a say and are often punished by the court if they speak out against child abuse often portrayed as “alienated children”. We are aware that these measures are in violation of human rights and until the court adequately provides protection for child abuse victims and domestic violence victims, we fully support the plights of protective mothers who are often alone in gathering the evidence and ignored by the court.

We believe Melinda Stratton based on her extraordinary lengths, the statements that support Melinda’s mothering concerns towards her child that despite the law that is against a higher law(human rights), she is doing the best she can for the child.

We believe that the system is incorrect and abusive towards both the mother and the child by barring her from vital services to provide for the child(Article 14) and hunting her down like an animal. It is the system itself that is at fault for failing to protect children and women in the first place regardless of the institution or reason.

There are more protections for murderers and pedophiles than there are for these children. We recommend that instead of Melinda coming forward to be jailed and barred from seeing her child that the system endeavors to investigate further into these allegations instead of laying the sole burden upon the mother. We recommend that the order that seeks her out be withdrawn until the system can adequately provide proper protections for Children. Until this takes place, we support the mother in obtaining alternative safety measures.

also see:

Here Come Da Psychologists & Mediators. To help return Mr. Thompson’s “wife” (property) to her right mind, Bring her to her knees under threat– Melinda Stratton’s Plight for safety

Melinda Stratton: Another Holly Ann Collins?

Randi James: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

Melinda Stratton « Anonymums’s Blog

Open Letter to Kansas Governor Parkinson

No Responses »
Aug 252010

Help MOMS Protect Open Letter to Kansas Governor Parkinson

Office of the Governor

Capitol, 300 SW 10th Ave., Ste. 241S
Topeka, KS 66612-1590

Voice – 877-KSWORKS (877-579-6757)
Local – 785-296-3232
For the Hearing Impaired – 800-766-3777

Email Governor Mark Parkinson

Dear Governor Parkinson:

As chief executive officer for the State of Kansas, you have certain powers and responsibilities to the citizens of Kansas. 
"The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor, who shall be responsible for the enforcement of the laws of this state."

- The Kansas Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 On 04.12.10 :


cc4.jpg

We as advocates for domestic violence victims and abused children take comfort that on 08.23.10 when the Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board released its 2009 Annual Report you stated,

“In our efforts to keep Kansans safe, it is critical that we not only protect the victims of domestic violence but continue to work toward preventing future crimes from occurring,” and “I appreciate the board’s continued efforts in focusing on the issue of domestic violence fatalities and tackling its root causes to prevent future victims.”

Robert T. Stephan, chair of the FRB added,  “Whether it be through more meaningful laws, adequate funding for programs or increased awareness in the community, our ultimate goal is to rid our society of domestic violence,” said “Kansas is fortunate to have a Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board that remains dedicated to finding the underlying causes of domestic violence and adequate remedies to eliminate it.”


We wish to thank both you and your  wife, Stacy, for  being active active in community and charitable organizations, including co-chairing the successful Sunflower House Capital Campaign which raised $4.2 million to support the child abuse assistance agency. They also completed a $6.7 million Capital Campaign for SAFEHOME, one of the most comprehensive domestic violence agencies in Kansas.

On 04.12.10 when you signed Substitute for HB 2517 legislation requiring a domestic violence designation in a criminal case if the court determines the defendant committed such an offense into law, you stated,

“Too many times, crimes are being committed by people who claim to love those that they hurt,” said Parkinson. “Even worse, these crimes were only being identified by the physical act and not by the underlying cause, blinding our law enforcement, our advocacy groups and our families from the truth about domestic violence in our state. By identifying cases involving domestic violence, this bill goes a long way in helping our courts ensure justice and our communities ensure prevention.”

.


cc2.jpg

With your knowledge of domestic violence and child abuse, we bring to your attention the plight of a very wonderful and loving mother and her precious daughter.  They have been victims of the injustice of the Kansas Courts for many years.  We ask  no we beg for you to help.


cc.jpg

These are are pictures of Claudine Dombrowski and some of the abuse she has suffered at the hand of her abusive ex husband, father of her only child, Rikki for whom the courts granted him sole custody.  To say this is a travesty of justice is putting it mildly  This is an outrage..


c2.jpg

Imagine that the face in the pictures is that of Stacy.  Perhaps that is too unbearable to do.  Know close your eyes and think of how Stacy would feel if she lost her children to the man who did that to her.  The man who has permanently disabled her.  Not a pleasant thought but reality for Claudine.


CD_1994_RikkiBirth_feature.jpg

This is a picture of Claudine and Rikki taken in 1994.  Yes, this has been going on for a very long time.  This child is still being denied her rights to even call her mother and the father is still making a mockery of the judicial system of Kansas by violating even the simplest of court rules like allowing this mother even to call her child.  This mother loves her child and this child loves her mother.


CD_coffin_feature.jpg

Do you know what this is???
This is the "COFFEE TABLE" in the home where Rikki is forced to live with her father, the man who has harmed her and her mother so badly.  IT IS A CHILD’S COFFIN.  MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.
Is this the kind of environment that you would want Sam, Alex and/or  Kit to be raised in???

We ask that you be the hero that Claudine and Rikki so desperately need and correct the injustices Kansas has dealt her. 
The following are links to websites where people around the world are concerned for this mother and child.

http://www.shawneecourt.org/doe/search.jsp?caseNumber=96D+000217&location

Case Number: 96D 000217

Petitioner:
RICHARDSON,HAL,,
Attorney:
HOFFMAN,DONALD,R,

Respondent:
DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,,
Attorney:
DUNCAN,ROBERT,E,II,

Division:
13

Next Activity:
H on 10/19/2010 at 9:00 AM

03/04/1996
-
Petition filed on 03/04/96

03/04/1996
-
Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. #1 Motion for Ex-Parte Interlocutory Orders filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON

03/04/1996
-
Summons issued personal service as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI issued to special process server.

03/04/1996
-
$61.50 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (61.50 DM Docket Fee)

03/04/1996
-
Temporary Restraining Order filed. – TRC

03/05/1996
-
Summons returned, personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 03/04/96 .

03/07/1996
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 04/02/96 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

03/07/1996
-
#2 Motion filed and entered by ALAN F ALDERSON for TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT. #3 Motion filed and entered by ALAN F ALDERSON for TEMPORARY CUSTODY

03/07/1996
-
Answer filed. Answering DEFENDANT CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. Answering attorney ALAN F ALDERSON. Worksheet T – Temporary Maintenance RESPONDENT’S Child Support Worksheet as of 3/4/96.

03/07/1996
-
DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDANT

03/19/1996
-
Domestic Relations Affidavit OF HAL RICHARDSON.

03/19/1996
-
Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Application for Temporary Maintenance and Child Support filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

03/25/1996
-
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS FILED BY ALAN ALDERSON.

03/27/1996
-
AFFIDAVIT IN CONTEMPT FILED. ACCUSATION IN CONTEMPT & MOTION TO SEVER CONTACT & REQUIRE THERAPY FILED BY ALAN ALDERSON.

04/02/1996
-
Petitioner appears in person and by D.Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by A.Alderson. Mr. Hoffman says temporary custody is not disputed, although visitation schedule is being worked on. Order of Conciliation signed. Motions continued re: temporary support and accusation in contempt for agreed order or to be reset upon request of parties. JWL

04/02/1996
-
ORDER FOR CONCILIATION – JWL

04/02/1996
-
Notice of service of Discovery filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/30/1996
-
### MOTION FILED BY ALAN F ALDERSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDANT

05/01/1996
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY NANCY E FREUND ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

05/09/1996
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 06/06/96 at 11:00AM. in division 01.

05/10/1996
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney ALAN F ALDERSON filed. – JWL

05/10/1996
-
#4 Motion filed and entered by NANCY E FREUND for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE.

05/17/1996
-
EMERGENCY CONFERENCE AT THE REQUEST OF MR. HOFFMAN. Re- porter, Martha Young. Petitioner appears by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears by Nancy Freund. Sheri Keller for Court Services. Telephone conference with Bernie Nobo, MSW, and all parties. Determined Respondent’s move would not be physical jeopardizing to minor. Court Services to work on exchange for visitation (child is 17 months old). Other terms on the record. Nancy Freund to prepare journal entry. Case continued to 6/6/96. JWL

05/21/1996
-
#5 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY.

05/28/1996
-
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY FILED BY NANCY E FREUND.

06/04/1996
-
Per phone call from Shirley in Don Hoffman’s office, and verified with Julie in Nancy Freund’s office, case to be taken off docket until reports from Dr. Maxfield are re- ceived. Cancel 6/6/96 hearing. DBC

06/05/1996
-
### MOTION FILED BY NANCY E FREUND TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDANT

06/07/1996
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY JOHN J AMBROSIO ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

06/17/1996
-
ORDER FILED BY NANCY E. FREUND JWL

06/17/1996
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney NANCY E. FREUND filed. – JWL

07/02/1996
-
SET – Status Docket on 09/04/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

07/02/1996
-
Notice sent.

07/24/1996
-
Notice of service of Discovery filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN

08/28/1996
-
#6 Motion filed and entered by JOHN J AMBROSIO for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET CHILD SUPPORT. Filmed 08/29/96.

09/04/1996
-
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.

09/04/1996
-
SET – Status Docket on 10/02/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

09/04/1996
-
Notice sent.

09/04/1996
-
STATUS: Petitioner appears by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears by John Ambrosio. Case continued to 10/2/96 status docket, 9:00am, awaiting a report from Dr. Maxwell. LGK/pro tem

09/09/1996
-
DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDANT Filmed 09/10/96.

09/11/1996
-
SET – Pre-trial on 10/23/96 at 03:15PM. in division 01.

09/11/1996
-
Notice sent.

10/18/1996
-
AMENDED DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

10/22/1996
-
PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN. Filmed 10/23/96.

10/23/1996
-
SUMMONS AND CONTINUANCE NOTICE FILED BY DIST. COURT TRUSTEE

10/24/1996
-
PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.

11/01/1996
-
SET – Status Docket on 12/04/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

11/01/1996
-
Notice sent.

11/04/1996
-
Phone conference with John Ambrosio with Don Hoffman in chambers. Scott McKenzie to be appointed GAL with $250.00 from each party up front, within 20 days. Court to prepare order. JWL

11/05/1996
-
PRETRIAL ORDER. JWL

11/05/1996
-
LETTER TO MR. HOFFMAN AND MR. AMBROSIO FROM JUDGE LEUENBERGER REGARDING THE PRETRIAL ORDER.

11/06/1996
-
ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SCOTT MCKENZIE, – JWL

11/12/1996
-
SET – Court Trial on 01/30/97 at 01:45PM. in division 01.

11/12/1996
-
Notice sent.

11/14/1996
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

11/15/1996
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 12/13/96 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/02/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified. Filmed 01/06/97.

01/06/1997
-
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW FILED BY SCOTT D. MCKINZIE. (FOR GAL)

01/07/1997
-
ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TO DONALD R HOFFMAN – JWL

01/14/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(JOHN FIORE) Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(LARNED STATE HOSPITAL)

01/15/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/23/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/15/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/21/97 05:00P.M. as to LARNED STATE HOSPITAL issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/15/1997
-
Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 01/10/97 .

01/16/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (8 SUBPOENAS)

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. $10.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. $10.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/24/97 05:00P.M. as to STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/17/1997
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, SCOTT MCKENZIE, filed. – JWL

01/17/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/27/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/17/1997
-
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN. Filmed 01/21/97.

01/21/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BRENDA DIVER 01/20/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to SHERRI KELLER 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 01/18/97 .

01/21/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 01/18/97 .

01/21/1997
-
WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY JOHN J AMBROSIO. Filmed 01/22/97.

01/22/1997
-
#7 Motion filed and entered by MERRILL J BEFORT HICKLIN for STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.

01/29/1997
-
#8 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE VISITATION SCHEDULE PENDING TRIAL.

01/30/1997
-
SET – Court Trial on 04/17/97 at 01:45PM. in division 01.

01/30/1997
-
Notice sent.

01/30/1997
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 02/21/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

01/30/1997
-
Notice sent.

01/30/1997
-
Scheduling Conference: Chamber conference with Donald Hoffman, John Ambrosio, and Scott McKenzie, GAL. Case continued to 4/17/97 at 1:45pm. Court to call Maxfield’s office for written report, if any available notify attorneys Parties to work out interim visitation. Motion for visitation continued to 2/21/97. Motion of SRS moot, they should prepare order, court to call. JWL

02/04/1997
-
MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY MERRILL J. HICKLIN BEFORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE KANSAS DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. Filmed 02/05/97.

02/07/1997
-
AGREED ORDER. JWL

02/11/1997
-
Call from Kathy in Ambrosio’s office. Said based on fax from Hoffman’s office, visitation issue settled by agreed order and no need for 2/21/97 hearing. DBC

02/13/1997
-
AGREED ORDER FILED – JWL

02/21/1997
-
Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to LARNED STATE HOSPITAL 02/14/97 .

02/25/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from LARNED STATE HOSPITAL filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

02/26/1997
-
Subpoena recalled – as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 02/26/97

02/26/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

02/26/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 03/20/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

03/07/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

03/10/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

03/11/1997
-
ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY TO DONALD R HOFFMAN – JWL

03/14/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service FAX AS PER JOHN FIORE INSTRUCTIONS as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 02/28/97 Filmed 03/17/97.

04/01/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(5 PRAECIPES)

04/01/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/03/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with spouse – WITH HIS RECEPTIONIST – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 04/01/97 .

04/03/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to SHERRI KELLER 04/01/97 .

04/03/1997
-
Notice of Service for Discovery Requests Filed by Donald R. Hoffman. Amended Witness & Exhibit List Filed by Donald R. Hoffman.

04/15/1997
-
FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN.

04/17/1997
-
FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.

04/17/1997
-
CT: Petitioner appears in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by John Ambrosio. GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Court conducts a final and brief pretrial conference in chambers with both parties and all counsel, on the record. Parties given an opportun- ity to confer. Parties announce an agreed settlement, as per j.e. Outline of agreement on the record by Petitioner’s counsel. Respondent and her attorney left prior to outline of settlement on the record. Petitioner offered jurisdic- tional and grounds evidence. Divorce granted on grounds of incompatibility subject to final j.e. GAL announced his bill. GAL to continue appointment subject to terms in j.e. Journal entry to be prepared within 10 working days. JWL

04/18/1997
-
### MOTION FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

04/18/1997
-
LETTER TO JOHN AMBROSIO FROM CLAUDINE M. DOMBROWSKI.

04/21/1997
-
REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI #9 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CORRECT MINOR CHILD’S NAME IN ALL COURT DOCUMENTS #10 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CHANGE COURT SERVICES OFFICER

04/21/1997
-
#11 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER #12 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM #13 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR TEMPORARY CHILD SUPPORT

04/21/1997
-
#14 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY #15 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD #16 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AS TO RELOCATION AS TO RESPONDENT AND MINOR CHILD

04/21/1997
-
#17 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURPORTING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD OF NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE #18 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD

04/23/1997
-
SET – Hearing on 05/19/97 at 08:45AM. in division 01.

04/23/1997
-
Notice sent.

05/09/1997
-
#20 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CONTINUANCE Filmed 05/12/97.

05/09/1997
-
#21 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING PETITIONER’S VISITATION AND SHARED CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD Filmed 05/12/97.

05/19/1997
-
#22 Motion filed and entered by SCOTT D MCKENZIE FOR ORDER OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

05/19/1997
-
#23 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER DIRECTING MINOR CHILD OF PARTIES BE RETURNED TO PETITIONER PENDING TRAIL OF INSTANT CASE

05/19/1997
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 06/12/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

05/19/1997
-
GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Court Services appears by Sheri Keller. Petitioner appears in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears not but by John Ambrosio and Mike Broemmel for Anika Kweli. John Ambrosio’s motion to withdraw sustained. Scheduling conference: all motions set for 1 1/2 hours on 6/16/97. Respondent to file any matters in support by 5/29/97. Petitioner has until 6/9/97 to reply. GAL reply thereafter. Supporting affidavit for allegation of Indian Child motion. Trial set for 9/16/97 at 9:00am, full day. GAL has emergency motion set for 5/20/97 at 1:30pm. Visitation issue and Respondent not present for scheduling conference. JWL

05/20/1997
-
H: Petitioner appears in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent and minor child appears in person and Respondent by Anika Kweli. GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Evidence and motion heard. Ruling as per record. Motion denied, but temporary visitation modified. Order to be forwarded by 5/22/97. JWL

05/21/1997
-
SET – Hearing on 06/16/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

05/21/1997
-
Notice sent.

05/21/1997
-
SET – Court Trial on 09/16/97 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

05/21/1997
-
Notice sent.

05/22/1997
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, JOHN J AMBROSIO, filed. – JWL

05/22/1997
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 06/26/97 at 09:30AM. in division 01.

05/22/1997
-
#24 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ATTORNEY FEES

05/28/1997
-
Call to Mr. Hoffman’s office, okay to sign Temporary Child Custody and Support Orders, a copy was faxed to him pre- viously. DBC

05/28/1997
-
Temporary Custody and Support Orders filed by AINKA C KWELI. CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI to pay $119.00 beginning 05/20/97. – JWL

05/29/1997
-
#25 Motion filed and entered by SCOTT D MCKENZIE FOR ASSESSMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES

05/29/1997
-
### MOTION FILED BY SCOTT D MCKENZIE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM

05/29/1997
-
#26 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CLARIFY PRE-TRIAL ORDER

05/29/1997
-
#27 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT

06/02/1997
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, SCOTT D MCKENZIE, filed. – JWL

06/03/1997
-
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY BEFORE JUDGE LEUENBERGER 05/20/97

06/16/1997
-
$120.00 Cash recd from RICHARDSON,HAL,, (120.00 DM Payment)

06/16/1997
-
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Petitioner appears in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by Ainka Kweli. Scott McKenzie, former GAL, appears in person. Motions filed since 5/20/97: Petitioner’s Motion for attorneys fees, GAL’s motion for attorneys fees, Respondent motion to clarify pretrial order, Respondent’s Motion for Citation in Contempt. GAL fees allowed, divided one-half to each party. Other motions under advisement. JWL

06/17/1997
-
AMENDED TEMPORARY CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT ORDERS FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI. JWL

06/23/1997
-
Inter Office Memo

06/24/1997
-
PAY OUT 120.00 ON 96D217 PER OBLIGATION LOADED PER IOM 6/23/97

06/25/1997
-
LETTER DECISION FILED. JWL (CONCERNING ATTY.FEES) Filmed 06/27/97.

07/07/1997
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY SCOTT D.MCKENZIE. JWL (CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES) Filmed 07/08/97.

08/15/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. (NINE PRAECIPES) Filmed 08/18/97.

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to JENNY SHAW Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to ATT CORPORATION Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/20/1997
-
Transcript of HEARING, held 061697 filed.

08/25/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to JENNY SHAW certified mail #P755979344 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997
-
Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – Received by: SECRETARY – as to SHERRI KELLER 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to ATT CORPORATION certified mail #P755979347 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT certified mail #P755979349 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT certified mail #P755979350 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE certified mail #P755979351 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997
-
Transcript of HEARING, held 040297 filed. Filmed 08/26/97.

08/26/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from JENNY SHAW filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.

08/27/1997
-
Subpoena returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SGT. THOMPSON – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT 08/25/97 .

08/27/1997
-
Subpoena returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SGT. THOMPSON – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT 08/25/97 .

08/27/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from SHERRI KELLER filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.

08/27/1997
-
LETTER FROM SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT REGARDING OBJECTION TO TWO SUBPOENA’S FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

08/29/1997
-
AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY SCOTT D MCKENZIE

08/29/1997
-
#28 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT.

08/29/1997
-
#29 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CITATION IN CONTEMPT. #30 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CITATION IN CONTEMPT.

08/29/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. Filmed 09/02/97.

09/02/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/05/97 05:00P.M. as to S.A.R.P Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/02/1997
-
SET – Court Trial on 09/18/97 at 01:30PM. in division 12.

09/02/1997
-
Notice sent.

09/02/1997
-
Upon motion of Respondent to recuse, Judge Leuenberger recuses and case is transferred to Div 12. Administrative Assistant called both attorneys to advise trial changed to 9/18/97 and 9/19/97 beginning at 1:30 p.m. both days, from 9/16/97. JWL

09/02/1997
-
Reassigned to division 12 from division 1. OJA reason for transfer 2.

09/02/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified. Filmed 09/09/97.

09/03/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE certified mail #P755979346 08/28/97 .

09/03/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from ATT CORPORATION filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified. Filmed 09/09/97.

09/04/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (5 PRAECIPES FILED)

09/04/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997
-
Subpoena issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/05/1997
-
#31 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E KEESHAN for SHAWNEE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO STAY OR QUASH SUBPOENA.

09/08/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to S.A.R.P certified mail #P755983645 09/04/97 .

09/08/1997
-
Filed by Fax AMENDED WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY AINKA C KWELI.

09/08/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(4 SUBPOENA’S)

09/09/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 09/05/97 .

09/09/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to JENNY SHAW issued to special process server. $15.40 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to STEVEN E HARVEY issued to special process server. $17.15 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/10/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signee unknown – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW certified mail #P755984919 09/08/97 .

09/10/1997
-
Affidavit of Business Records from TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.

09/10/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 09/09/97 .

09/10/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 09/09/97 .

09/10/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to STEVEN E HARVEY 09/09/97 .

09/11/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD certified mail #P755984921 09/09/97 .

09/11/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SEC. – as to SHERRI KELLER 09/09/97 .

09/11/1997
-
Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by addressee – as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE certified mail #P755984924 09/08/97

09/11/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to JENNY SHAW 09/10/97 .

09/11/1997
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BRENDA DIVER 09/10/97 .

09/15/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

09/15/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to OFFICER BUTELL issued to special process server. $12.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/16/1997
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. (FOUR PRAECIPES)

09/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to DR GRACE MORRISON $215.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to GERI THOMPSON $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to MARY KELLY $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to HAL RICHARDSON III $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997
-
#32 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IN LIMINE. Filed by Fax

09/16/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with resident agent – LEFT WITH SGT MILLER – as to OFFICER BUTELL 09/16/97 .

09/17/1997
-
AMENDED WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY AINKA C KWELI

09/17/1997
-
FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED Filmed 09/18/97.

09/17/1997
-
FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY AINKA C KWELI Filmed 09/19/97.

09/18/1997
-
#33 Combined Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND MEMORANDUM TO PRODUCE BUSINESS RECORDS AND RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS. Filed by Fax

09/18/1997
-
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/19/1997
-
ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE MENTAL HEALTH TO AINKA C KWELI – JPB Filmed 09/22/97.

09/22/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to MARY KELLY 09/18/97 .

09/23/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to DR GRACE MORRISON certified mail #P755988036 09/20/97 .

09/24/1997
-
Filed by Fax #34 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR LEAVE.

09/25/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signed by addressee – as to GERI THOMPSON certified mail #P755988037 09/22/97 .

09/26/1997
-
SET – Telephone Conference on 10/03/97 at 11:00AM. in division 12.

09/26/1997
-
Notice sent.

09/29/1997
-
FINAL ARGUMENT FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN.

09/29/1997
-
Filed by Fax RESPONDENT’S CLOSING SUMMATION AND ARGUMENT FILED BY AINKA C KWELI.

10/14/1997
-
Subpoena duces tecum returned certified mail requested , no service, no reason given – as to HAL RICHARDSON III 10/13/97

10/28/1997
-
Journal entry granting divorce, property division, custody child support. RFAD JPB

10/28/1997
-
RFAD; 10/28/97

10/29/1997
-
JOURNAL ENTRY OF DIVORCE FILED – JPB Child Support Worksheet

11/03/1997
-
Filed by Fax #35 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. Notice of Appeal filed by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, to the APPELLATE Court.

11/03/1997
-
SET – Motion Docket on 11/20/97 at 10:00AM. in division 12.

11/07/1997
-
#36 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON JOINING IN RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR STAY AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT.

11/12/1997
-
SET – Motion Docket on 11/24/97 at 03:00PM. in division 12.

11/12/1997
-
Notice sent.

11/24/1997
-
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI Filed by Fax

11/24/1997
-
Entry of appearance filed by GARY N GORUP. ENTERING HIS AP- PEARANCE AS ATTORNEY FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. FILED BY FAX.

11/25/1997
-
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN. Filmed 12/02/97.

12/01/1997
-
Journal Entry filed. JPB

12/08/1997
-
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY GEARY N GORUP Filmed 12/09/97.

12/29/1997
-
NOTICE FROM THE APPELLATE COURT, MOTION BY APPELLANT, CLAUDINE DOMROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL GRANTED.

01/05/1998
-
Card from the Clerk of the APPELLATE Court; they have received and filed the Notice of Appeal – Case No. 97-80304-A Filmed 01/16/98.

01/16/1998
-
Completed Table of Contents and mailed to attorneys; DONALD HOFFMAN AND GEARY GORUP

03/04/1998
-
Filed by Fax – INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM. Filmed 03/09/98.

03/17/1998
-
Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE

03/17/1998
-
Filmed 03/17/98.

03/17/1998
-
Garnishment order issued certified mail to STATE OF KANSAS IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

03/24/1998
-
Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to STATE OF KANSAS certified mail #P756185657 03/20/98 .

04/07/1998
-
BUSINESS RECORDS OF JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 03/07/97

04/07/1998
-
BUSINESS RECORDS OF LARNED STATE HOSPITAL DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 02/20/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 03/10/97

04/13/1998
-
SUPREME COURT RULE NO. 3.02 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONS TO RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY GEARY N GORUP. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY GEARY N GORUP.

04/15/1998
-
DEMAND FOR ESTIMATED COST OF TRANSCRIPT FILED BY ESTHER L THOMPSON.

04/21/1998
-
RECEIVED COPY OF LETTER REQUESTING TRANSCRIPT, CHECK SENT TO COURT REPORTER.

04/23/1998
-
LETTER FROM ESTHER L THOMPSON, COURT REPORTER RECEIVED HER ESTIMATED COST FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSCRIPT AND IS DUE ON 05/29/98 AND ANTICIPATE FILING THIS TRANSCRIPT BEFORE THIS DATE FILED.

05/04/1998
-
Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 03/08/98 & ENDING 03/21/98) Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 03/22/98 & ENDING 04/04/98) Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 04/05/98 & ENDING 04/18/98)

05/04/1998
-
RECEIVED EXHIBITS REQUESTED BY GEARY N. GORUP FROM THE COURT REPORTER. (3,A,B,& C)

05/04/1998
-
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED BY ESTHER L. THOMPSON TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD ON 18TH & 19TH OF SEPTEMBER 97.

05/04/1998
-
TRANSCRIPT OF VOLUME II OF PROTIONS OF COURT TRIAL HELD ON 18T & 19TH DAYS OF SEPTEMBER 1997.

05/06/1998
-
Order to pay in and pay out filed. STATE OF KANSAS to pay in $169.38 Clerk to pay SCOTT D MCKENZIE. -JPB

05/06/1998
-
Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE

05/06/1998
-
Filmed 05/07/98.

05/07/1998
-
Garnishment order issued certified mail to STATE OF KANSAS IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

05/07/1998
-
Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE

05/07/1998
-
Filmed 05/08/98.

05/07/1998
-
Garnishment order issued certified mail to COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to HAL RICHARDSON

05/12/1998
-
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND DISMISSAL OF GARNISHMENTS FILED BY SCOTT MCKENZIE. CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO STATE OF KANSAS

05/13/1998
-
Answer of Garnishee COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST returned and filed. Holding $.00 Copy to attorney.(UNABLE TO FIND ACCOUNT)

05/14/1998
-
Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to STATE OF KANSAS certified mail #P756103038 05/11/98 .

05/14/1998
-
Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST certified mail #P756063503 05/12/98 .

05/18/1998
-
Received from the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, a request to transmit the Record on Appeal to Clerk of the Appellate Courts.

05/18/1998
-
HAND CARRIED RECORD ON APPEAL TO THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT 05/20/98.

12/30/1998
-
Mandate from the APPELLATE Court filed. Judgment of District Court, AFFIRMED. MEMORANDUM attached.

01/05/1999
-
LETTER TO HARRY MOORE FROM GEARY N GORUP DATED 12/31/98 THAT KANSAS SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED PETITION FOR REVIEW.

01/05/1999
-
BUSINESS RECORDS OF SHERRI KELLER DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 08/27/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/10/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF AT & T DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/03/97

01/05/1999
-
BUSINESS RECORDS OF JENNY SHAW DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 08/26/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/02/97

01/29/1999
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY REBECCA A KING ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. Filmed 02/01/99.

02/09/1999
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY REBECCA A KING. Filmed 02/11/99.

03/02/1999
-
#37 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR STATUS CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT.

03/17/1999
-
SET – Status Conference on 03/30/99 at 09:00AM. in division 12.

03/17/1999
-
Notice sent.

03/23/1999
-
CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER. JPB RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM HARRY MOORE ATTACHED.

03/30/1999
-
Hoffman and petitioner; King for respondent. Agreed case should be referred to case manager for further work before motions. JPB

03/30/1999
-
COPY OF MEMO TO HARRY MOORE FROM JUDGE JAMES BUCHELE.

05/10/1999
-
OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed by REBECCA A KING

05/13/1999
-
CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed by HARRY MOORE ORDER ON CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed – JPB

05/27/1999
-
Transcript of TELEPHONE CALL, held 05/26/99 filed.

05/28/1999
-
#38 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ADVANCE HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS.

05/28/1999
-
ORDER FOR HEARING FILED – JPB ORDER FOR SERVICE FILED – JPB

05/28/1999
-
ORDER FOR HEARING issued as to HAL RICHARDSON personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

05/28/1999
-
ORDER FOR HEARING issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

05/28/1999
-
RETURN OF SERVICE ON ORDER FOR HEARING WAS FAXED TO PAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AS PER JUDGE BUCHELE

06/01/1999
-
ORDER FOR HEARING returned , personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI returned by fax 05/28/99 .

06/03/1999
-
ORDER FOR HEARING returned , personal service – as to HAL RICHARDSON 06/01/99 . Entered by 0211.

06/09/1999
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (2 PRAECIPES)

06/09/1999
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 06/15/99 09:00A.M. as to LENA NATION issued to special process server. $12.50 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

06/09/1999
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 06/15/99 09:00A.M. as to SHAWN NATION issued to special process server. $106.50 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

06/14/1999
-
Filed by Fax

06/14/1999
-
#39 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY,CHILD SUPPORT,& MODIFICA- TION OF PREVIOUS JOURNAL ENTRY REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO MOVE TO TOPEKA & TO CHANGE THE MINOR CHILD’S SURNAME. Filmed 06/16/99

06/14/1999
-
Child Support Worksheet Filmed 06/16/99.

06/14/1999
-
Filed by Fax

06/14/1999
-
DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT Filmed 06/16/99. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. Filmed 06/16/99 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE JAMES BUCHELE. Filmed 06/16/99

06/15/1999
-
Subpoena returned , personal service – BY LEAVING WITH SHAWN, FATHER OF LENA – as to LENA NATION 06/11/99 Filmed 06/16/99.

06/15/1999
-
Subpoena returned , personal service – as to SHAWN NATION 06/11/99 Filmed 06/16/99.

06/15/1999
-
#40 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE. Filmed 06/22/99

06/16/1999
-
06/15/99 Parties appear with counsel Hoffman and King. Hearing held on issue of enforecement of prior order and order of case manager enforcing the order to move to Shawnee County. Miscellaneous orders stated on the record. King to prepare Journal Entry and submit per Rule 170. JPB

06/21/1999
-
TRANSCRIPT OF INFORMAL HEARING ON MOTION TO RECUSE

06/22/1999
-
MEMORANDUM TO JUDGE BULLOCK FROM JUDGE BUCHELE REGARDING MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED BY REBECCA KING FILED. Filmed 06/23/99.

06/28/1999
-
ORDER TO ENFORCE PRIOR ORDER, ORDER ESTABLISHING SUPERVISED VISITATION, ORDER FOR HEARING ON CHILD SUPPORT, ORDER ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND ORDER AMENDING PRIOR DECISION REGARDING SURNAME FILED. – JPB

06/28/1999
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE BUCHELE TO DONALD HOFFMAN REGARDING HEARING ON 6-15-99 ON VISITATION.

07/01/1999
-
SET – Hearing on 07/09/00 at 11:00AM. in division 12.

07/08/1999
-
Ruling on motion# 40 —Affidavit in Support of Recusal of Respondent DISMISSED by Court per Memorandum Decision and Order filed. JMM

07/08/1999
-
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FILED. – JMM

07/09/1999
-
CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET OF PETITIONER

07/12/1999
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE BUCHELE TO JUDGE BULLOCK REGARDING TRANFER PENDING CASE TO DIFFERENT JUDGE.

07/16/1999
-
AGREED UPON ORDER FOR CHILD SUPPORT FILED BY REBECCA KING. – JPB (attached Child Support Worksheet of Petitioner)

07/21/1999
-
Reassigned to division 2 from division 12. OJA reason for transfer 1.

07/26/1999
-
Notice of Appeal filed by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas.

07/26/1999
-
Filed by Fax

07/26/1999
-
AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)

07/26/1999
-
#41 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 60-262

07/26/1999
-
Filed by Fax

07/26/1999
-
AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)

07/28/1999
-
SET – Motion Docket on 08/12/99 at 10:30AM. in division 02.

08/04/1999
-
Filed by Fax

08/04/1999
-
#42 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S AND FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY.

08/12/1999
-
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

08/12/1999
-
Shawn Hoff, reporter. Pet by Hoffman. Resp by King. Resp’s motion to stay 6-28-99 order under K.S.A. 60-262 denied. Hoffman instructed to prepare J.E. RDA

08/12/1999
-
Filmed 09/21/99

08/13/1999
-
LETTER TO JUDGE ANDERSON FROM HARRY MOORE

08/13/1999
-
LETTER TO REBECCA KING FROM HARRY MOORE

08/13/1999
-
LETTER TO HARRY MOORE FROM REBECCA KING

08/30/1999
-
#43 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD.

08/31/1999
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN

09/01/1999
-
SET – Motion Docket on 09/23/99 at 09:30AM. in division 02.

09/01/1999
-
OBJECTION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTY OF RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR RESP FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

09/02/1999
-
SET – Show Cause on 09/21/99 at 01:30PM. in division 02.

09/02/1999
-
AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY HAL RICHARDSON

09/02/1999
-
#44 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN – RDA

09/02/1999
-
Request for Service filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN RETURN OF SERVICE ON ORDER TO APPEAR WAS FAXED TO BARTON CTY SHERIFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

09/03/1999
-
AFFIDAVIT,MOTION FOR ORDER,ORDER TO APPEAR issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

09/03/1999
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN. – RDA (re: motion for order of stay)

09/03/1999
-
ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN – RDA

09/09/1999
-
RECEIVED CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. SENT TO DCT.

09/09/1999
-
#45 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI for CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT MOTION OF CONTEMPT signed by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

09/10/1999
-
AFFIDAVIT, MOTION FOR ORDER, ORDER TO APPEAR returned personal service requested. Served Claudine Dombrowski on 9/9/99 at 112 W 7th Street.

09/21/1999
-
HEARING: Shawn Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Donald Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. Trial on Pet’s Motion to Show Cause (#44). Motion #44 denied. Pet has failed to prove resp. did not estabish residency in Topeka by Sept. 1, 1999 as required by Court’s June 28, 1999 Order. Resp’s Motion for Attorney Fees denied. Shawn Hoff, reporter. RDA

09/21/1999
-
Ms. King withdraws Motion #43 to Withdraw as Attorney. RDA

09/22/1999
-
AFFIDAVIT,MOTION FOR ORDER,ORDER TO APPEAR returned personal service requested , no service, no reason given – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 09/22/99 . 5100 HOUCK STREETOR 5200; HOUCK STREET; PAWNEE ROCK, KS 67567 -

09/22/1999
-
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT FILED BY REBECCA KING.

09/22/1999
-
RESPONSE MF 100199

09/22/1999
-
OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY REBECCA A KING.

09/22/1999
-
OBJECTION FILMED 100599

09/27/1999
-
NOTICE FROM APPELLATE COURT OF ACTION TAKEN – ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MF 100699

09/27/1999
-
ACTIVITY NOTICE FROM APPELLATE COURT – PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL MF 100699

09/28/1999
-
Transcript of MOTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER held 6-15-99 filed.

09/29/1999
-
Filmed 09/29/99

10/13/1999
-
Card from the Clerk of the APPELLATE Court; they have received and filed the Notice of Appeal – Case No. 99-83905-A Filmed 10/14/99.

10/22/1999
-
Completed Table of Contents and mailed to attorneys; HOFFMAN, KING, BEFORT, & KEESHAN

11/03/1999
-
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE MANAGER FILED BY REBECCA KING

11/03/1999
-
OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY REBECCA A KING.

11/09/1999
-
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT OF CASE MANAGER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

11/12/1999
-
Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 11/19/99 at 02:30P.M.

11/18/1999
-
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT & OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER MF 111899

11/24/1999
-
Filmed 12/02/99

11/24/1999
-
JE MF 120299

11/24/1999
-
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FILED. -RDA (RE: REASSIGNMENT OF CASE MANAGER) JOURNAL ENTRY FILED. -RDA (RE: VISITATION)

03/10/2000
-
NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE FROM US POSTAL SERVICE FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. UPDATED COURT RECORD. SENT NOTICE TO DISTRICT COURT TRUSTEE

03/27/2000
-
OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

03/30/2000
-
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION FILED BY REBECCA A KING

03/30/2000
-
Filed by Fax

03/30/2000
-
AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FILED BY REBECCA A KING

03/30/2000
-
Filed by Fax

04/06/2000
-
Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 06/08/00 at 09:00A.M.

04/06/2000
-
SET – Hearing on 06/08/00 at 09:00AM. in division 02.

04/11/2000
-
NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO GREAT BEND SHERIFF DEPT.

04/11/2000
-
NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO PAWNEE ROCK POLICE DEPT.

04/11/2000
-
NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.

04/11/2000
-
NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO WESTERN RESOURCES INC.

04/14/2000
-
OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY REBECCA A KING AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)

04/14/2000
-
Filed by Fax

04/17/2000
-
$20.00 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

04/17/2000
-
#46 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY

04/17/2000
-
Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 06/08/00 at 09:00A.M.

04/17/2000
-
AMENDED OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS FILED BY REBECCA A KING AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d))4)

04/26/2000
-
#47 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY. Filed by Fax

04/26/2000
-
#48 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.

05/08/2000
-
SET – Motion Docket on 05/25/00 at 11:00AM. in division 02.

05/08/2000
-
Motion for Pretrial set on docket at request of Ms. King. She will send notice. Vi

05/08/2000
-
Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 05/25/00 at 11:00A.M.

05/11/2000
-
LETTER RULING: (1) Pet’s Motion to Change Residential Custody (Motion #46) dismissed as premature. The issues must first be presented to the Case Manager. (2) Resp’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Change Residential Custody (Motion #47) is denied as moot. (3) Resp’s Motion for Pretrial Conference is denied as moot (4) June 8, 2000 hearing will relate only to Case Manager Objections. RDA

05/12/2000
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD R HOFFMAN & REBECCA A KING DATED 05/12/00

06/08/2000
-
HEARING ON PET’S OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. ORDER: Recommendations adopted in part & denied in part. RULINGS: (1) Mr. Richardson’s visitation expanded – alternating weekends Fri thru Sun, exchange times subject to parties’ agreement or absent agreement, Court will set times for exchange sua sponte; Wed. visits to remain same as Nov. 1999 order; Holiday visits per Guidelines – father parent A; mother parent B. Summer visitation 3 weeks. (2) Tele visits permitted & encouraged; (3) Y-Safe visit monitored exchange terminated, parties to work w/Case Manager to determine alternate exchange location or parties may agree to have direct exchange; (4) July 21, 2000 @ 9 a.m. – Hearing re: enrollment in school residency placement & mother’s request to move. (5) Parties to submit CSW w/in 15 days together with positions on Child Support & unreimbursed medical expenses. (6) Restraining orders modified to permit parents to talk re: child & to permit exchange. (7) Ms. Dombrowsksi directed to release employment informa- tion to Court Services – Mr. Moore to prepare report & distribute report to parties. (8) Court Reporter to prepare transcript of Court’s Order. Costs of transcript assigned equally to parties. RDA

06/09/2000
-
SET – Hearing on 07/21/00 at 09:00AM. in division 02.

06/09/2000
-
Notice sent.

07/06/2000
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – RDA (re: Modifies & Denies the Recommendations of Case Manager Harry Moore contained in the report date 03/21/00 as stated in the Transcript held 060800

07/06/2000
-
Transcript of COURTS RULING, held 06/08/00 filed.

07/21/2000
-
HEARING: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. Hearing re: enrollment in school. Ms. Dombrowski requests to be released from Court’s order to live in Topeka with Rikki. RDA

07/31/2000
-
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER FILED – RDA.

08/07/2000
-
#49 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EMERGENCY HEARING OR EX PARTE MOTION. Filed by fax

08/08/2000
-
#50 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR A NEW TRIAL.

08/08/2000
-
### MOTION FILED BY REBECCA A KING TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

08/09/2000
-
Mandate from the APPELLATE Court filed. Judgment of District Court, AFFIRMED. MEMORANDUM OPINION attached.

08/10/2000
-
SET – Motion Docket on 08/24/00 at 10:30AM. in division 02.

08/14/2000
-
Order to Withdraw as Attorney of Record signed. DEB

08/14/2000
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, REBECCA A KING, filed. – DEB

08/28/2000
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – RDA.

09/05/2000
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY KYLE KAY WINGFIELD ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

09/07/2000
-
Report received from Harry Moore & placed in social file.Vi3

09/11/2000
-
$20.00 recd from WINGFIELD,KYLE,KAY, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

09/11/2000
-
#51 Motion filed and entered by KYLE KAY WINGFIELD for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION.

09/14/2000
-
SET – Motion Docket on 09/28/00 at 09:30AM. in division 02.

09/28/2000
-
MOTION DOCKET: S.Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Kyle Wingfield Case Manager will report to Court within 30 days how Rikki is adjusting to father’s home, school & parenting plan. Motion to Change Custody denied. RDA

12/19/2000
-
ORDER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN – RDA.

12/20/2000
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 01/17/01 at 09:00AM. in division 02.

12/20/2000
-
MH notice sent.

12/27/2000
-
### MOTION FILED BY KYLE KAY WINGFIELD TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

12/28/2000
-
#52 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR EX PARTE’ ORDER TERMINATING RESPONDENT’S CONTACT WITH MINOR CHILD OF PARTIES

12/28/2000
-
OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL BY COUNSEL FILED

12/29/2000
-
ORDER SUSPENDING PARENTING TIME FILED. – RDA

01/11/2001
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

01/18/2001
-
$20.00 Cash recd from ROBINSON,LEONARD,M, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

01/18/2001
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

01/18/2001
-
#53 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI (suspended visitation)

01/19/2001
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, KYLE KAY WINGFIELD, filed. – RDA

01/25/2001
-
CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER TO RETURN CHILD TO HAL RICHARDSON RETURNED BY SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. ORDER NOT SERVED. NO CONTACT AS OF 01/22/01.

02/08/2001
-
LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 01/30/01.

03/07/2001
-
Received call from Hoffman on their motion in which they will send notice. t/c with Robinson. ka

03/07/2001
-
SET – Administrative Hearing Officer Child Support Mot. on 04/02/01 at 02:30PM. in room 311.

03/07/2001
-
Received e-mail from case manager stating child support should be reviewed. lly/aho

03/09/2001
-
#54 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ESTABLISH CHILD SUPPORT

03/09/2001
-
Child Support Worksheet OF FATHER

03/12/2001
-
NOTIFIED MR. HOFFMAN’S OFFICE OF THE NEED FOR A $20.00 MOTION FILING FEE.

03/13/2001
-
$20.00 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

03/13/2001
-
AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/02/01 @ 02:30 PM

03/30/2001
-
Filed by Fax: RESPONDENT’S DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT’S SUPPORT WORKSHEET

04/02/2001
-
DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

04/02/2001
-
Child Support: Ruling on Motion #54. Tape 681, 1689-1861. Estimated Cost 12.00. Appearance by Petitioner and with counsel D. Hoffman. Appearance by Respondent and with counse l L. Robinson. AHO recuses herself from this case. Respond ent is married to AHO cousin. Attorney to contact Div 2 for hearing date and time. lly/aho

05/18/2001
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 08/06/01 at 03:00PM. in division 02.

05/18/2001
-
MH notice sent.

05/18/2001
-
LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 05/03/01.

07/13/2001
-
$20.00 Check recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

07/13/2001
-
#56 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY

07/23/2001
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO LEONARD ROBINSON & DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 07/20/01.

07/25/2001
-
Advised by counsel they have reached an agreement as to child support. Hearing on 8-6-01 deleted. Vi

08/06/2001
-
AGREED ORDER FILED – RDA. MANDATORY SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS FILED. KPC INFORMATION SHEET FILED.

08/22/2001
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 08/21/01.

08/27/2001
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 08/27/01.

09/06/2001
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 09/05/01.

09/07/2001
-
THE ABOVE LETTERS DATED 08/21/01, 08/27/01 AND 09/05/01 HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE CLERK OF THE DIST. COURT’S SAFE

10/19/2001
-
Electronic Request for Income Withholding Order filed by DANNY J VOPAT

10/19/2001
-
Income Withholding Order issued certified mail as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

10/22/2001
-
### MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FILED BY DIST. COURT TRUSTEE

10/29/2001
-
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

11/08/2001
-
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS

11/08/2001
-
(Original Request for Review document kept in the Imaging department, photo did not image well.)

11/13/2001
-
Income Withholding Order returned certified mail requested , no service, unclaimed – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 11/09/01 . PO BOX 984; MANHATTAN, KS 66505 – Entered by 0876.

12/20/2001
-
LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 12/19/01.

12/21/2001
-
SET – Support Docket on 01/22/02 at 08:30AM.

12/21/2001
-
Setting made per attorney request.

12/21/2001
-
Electronic Request for Application for examination of judgment debtor filed by DANNY J VOPAT

12/21/2001
-
Order issued first class mail returnable 01/22/02 08:30A.M. as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

12/28/2001
-
Order returned , first class mail – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 12/27/01 . Entered by 2995.

01/09/2002
-
ORDER DISMISSING MOTION & ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED – RDA.

01/10/2002
-
MOTION & ORDER TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER FILED – RDA.

01/16/2002
-
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER ON CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 30,2001 FILED – RDA.

01/25/2002
-
KPC COURT ORDER ENTRY, COPY OF WEB PAGE

01/25/2002
-
Notice of assignment of support rights filed IV-D AFDC.

01/25/2002
-
PARTICIPANT IS 1O/R-2O/E HAL RICHARDSON.

01/29/2002
-
REQUEST FOR HEARING AND OTHER RELIEF FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON

02/14/2002
-
ORDER FILED – RDA.

02/19/2002
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – RDA.

03/11/2002
-
STATUS CONFERENCE: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Leonard Robinson. Also, attending CM Harry Moore; Dr. Milfred Dale, Court evaluator; Dr. Bonnie Uffman, Resp’s therapist; Rene Netherton, re gal assignment; Resp’s husband, Mr. Yockers; Ms. Stumpf, maternal grandmother. AGREEMENTS & ORDERS: (1) Parties agree Dr. Dale will serve as Court’s evaluator for risk in unsupervised visits w/ Resp. & recommendation for therapy. Resp. to pay expense of evaluation. (2) Harry Moore resigns as CM. Parties to suggest names of successor. (3) Parties to work on PT schedule to be implemented after evaluation & on condition that unsupervised PT approved. RDA

03/22/2002
-
LETTER FROM RENE M NETHERTON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 03/20/02.

03/22/2002
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DR MILFRED DALE DATED 03/22/02.

03/22/2002
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 03/22/02.

04/19/2002
-
LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 04/12/02.

04/19/2002
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 04/19/02.

05/10/2002
-
Conf w/counsel re: parenting time schedule. RDA

07/01/2002
-
LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO DONALD R HOFFMAN DATED 05/22/02.

07/01/2002
-
LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 06/28/02.

07/01/2002
-
LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LEONARD M ROBINSON DATED 06/10/02.

07/15/2002
-
Hearing on Proposed Journal Entry. S. Hoff, reporter. Resp. appears in person & by Leonard Robinson. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. J. E. to be resubmitted with schedule & other provisions as ruled on by Court. Dr. Albott rather than Dr. Dale selected as therapist. RDA

07/16/2002
-
LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 06/28/02.

07/24/2002
-
LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LEONARD M ROBINSON DATED 06/10/02.

07/31/2002
-
Order for Unsupervised Parenting Time signed. deb

08/01/2002
-
ORDER FOR UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME FILED – DEB.

12/30/2002
-
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY, FOR LEONARD M ROBINSON; UP-DATED RECORD

05/14/2003
-
Transfered from Div.02 to Div.03, New Judicial Assignment.

05/23/2003
-
#59 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR AN ORDER FOR WRITTEN REPORT

05/28/2003
-
SET – Motion Docket on 06/12/03 at 10:00AM. in division 03.

06/03/2003
-
#60 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FILED BY DYNTEK

06/04/2003
-
Remove from Motion docket 6/12/03 agreed by attorneys

06/05/2003
-
SET – Support Docket on 07/15/03 at 08:30AM.

06/05/2003
-
#61 MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR AN ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE FILED BY JOAN HAWKINS

06/05/2003
-
CITATION IN CONTEMPT (FAILURE TO PAY) FILED BY JOAN HAWKINS – JMS

06/05/2003
-
Request for Service

06/05/2003
-
MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & CITATION IN CONTEMPT issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

06/10/2003
-
$25.00 Cashier Check recd from ROBINSON,LEONARD,M, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)

06/10/2003
-
#62 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY

06/11/2003
-
SET – Motion Docket on 06/26/03 at 10:00AM. in division 03.

06/12/2003
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

06/12/2003
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 06/26/03 10:00A.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPT & RESPONDING OFFICERS issued to special process server.

06/12/2003
-
ORDER FILED – JMS.

06/13/2003
-
MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & CITATION IN CONTEMPT returned , personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 06/11/03 . Served by 0885. Entered by 1117.

06/13/2003
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

06/16/2003
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 06/26/03 10:00A.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT issued to special process server.

06/17/2003
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum returned , personal service – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 06/17/03

06/19/2003
-
Remove from mot/d 6/26 and set for half a day hearing on 7/16/03 at 1:30 pm per call from Mr. Robinson’s office

06/19/2003
-
SET – Hearing on 07/16/03 at 01:30PM. in division 03.

06/23/2003
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum returned , personal service – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPT & RESPONDING OFFICERS 06/12/03

06/27/2003
-
#63 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR CONTINUANCE RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY FILED.

07/08/2003
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE SCHMIDT TO LEONARD M ROBINSON AND DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 07/07/03.

07/08/2003
-
ORDER TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT – JMS

07/08/2003
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

07/08/2003
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

07/15/2003
-
CONTEMPT DOCKET: Ward Rowe appears for Dyntek. (2OR)Obligor not present but Leonard Robinson appears. Personal service 06/11/03. Order back 08/26/03 at 08:30AM EXPO

07/15/2003
-
Judge Schmidt recuses herself from this case.

07/23/2003
-
SET – Support Docket on 08/26/03 at 08:30AM.

07/28/2003
-
Notice of Hearing Continuance filed. To be heard 08/26/03 at 08:30A.M.

08/26/2003
-
Support Docket: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI (2OR) Present.

08/26/2003
-
CONTEMPT DOCKET:ROWE APPEARS FOR DYNTEK.DISMISS CITATION.BCH

08/27/2003
-
Case Manager Recommendations received from Amanda Smith Wilson, Court Services. deb

09/04/2003
-
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION AND ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE

09/04/2003
-
RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS

09/11/2003
-
PETITIONER’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS

09/30/2003
-
Case Management Order filed – DEB.

09/30/2003
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

10/10/2003
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD SWARTZ, DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER, TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND HAL RICHARDSON DATED 10/06/03.

10/30/2003
-
*********AHO RECUSES HERSELF FROM THE CASE ************KA

11/18/2003
-
SET – Hearing on 12/19/03 at 01:30PM. in room 311.

11/18/2003
-
Notice of hearing for 12/19/03 Hearing issued .

12/09/2003
-
#64 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR CONTINUANCE

01/06/2004
-
Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support.

01/08/2004
-
Order to Withhold Income for Child Support – JMS

01/08/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ DATED 01/06/04

01/13/2004
-
Agreed Order signed. deb

01/13/2004
-
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND LEIN SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

01/14/2004
-
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND LIEN SIGNED BY HAL RICHARDSON

01/14/2004
-
AGREED ORDER FILED – DEB.

01/23/2004
-
Order re: case manager’s letter signed. deb

01/23/2004
-
ORDER FILED – DEB.

02/12/2004
-
WRITTEN OBJECTION TO FEBRUARY 2004 RECOMMENDATION OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FILED BY FAX

02/20/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

03/02/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 02/26/04.

03/02/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

03/03/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

03/11/2004
-
LETTER FROM DIV. 12 TO RALPH RAPOSA DATED 03/11/04.

04/28/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

04/28/2004
-
Reassigned to division 12 from division 3. OJA reason for transfer 2.

04/29/2004
-
$26.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (21.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)

04/29/2004
-
#65 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EXPEDITED HEARING TO REMOVE DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FOR CAUSE AND REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED VISITATION

05/03/2004
-
ORDER FILED – DEB.

05/03/2004
-
ORDER FILED – DEB.

05/04/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

05/06/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 05/04/04.

05/07/2004
-
#66 MOTION FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

05/07/2004
-
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FILED

05/10/2004
-
Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Counsel from Leonard Robinson signed. deb

05/10/2004
-
RESPONSE OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER TO MOTION FOR EZPEDITED HEARING TO REMOVE DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FOR CAUSE AND REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED VISITATION

05/10/2004
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, LEONARD M ROBINSON – DEB

05/12/2004
-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.

05/20/2004
-
Order signed. deb

05/20/2004
-
ORDER FILED – DEB.

05/24/2004
-
Filed by fax – RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INVESTIGATION REPORTS SUBPOENA

05/26/2004
-
PRAECIPE FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN

05/27/2004
-
Subpoena – Business Records issued personal service returnable 06/01/04 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

05/27/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 01/01/04.

05/27/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

06/01/2004
-
Affidavit of Business Records from SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

06/02/2004
-
Subpoena – Business Records returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 05/28/04 . Served by 0391. Entered by 1125.

06/02/2004
-
( JUDY FORESTER )

06/03/2004
-
Order to Release Business Records signed. deb

06/03/2004
-
ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT TO GEORGE MARTIN, HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN LAW OFFICE – DEB

06/04/2004
-
Memorandum received from Amanda Smith Wilson.

06/04/2004
-
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT TO THE LETTERS TO THE COURT OF DR. ALBOTT AND CASE MANAGER LLOYD SWARTZ, RESPECTIVELY SENT MAY 26, 2004 AND MAY 7, 2004 FILED BY FAX

06/07/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

06/10/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO LEONARD ROBINSON & DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 04/01/04.

06/10/2004
-
LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LLOYD SCHWARTZ DATED 04/27/04.

06/14/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 06/14/04.

06/16/2004
-
#67 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STATUS CONFERENCE OR TO REINSTATE UPON ORDER UNSUPERVIED PARENTING TIME. Filed by fax

06/21/2004
-
Order to Release Business Records signed. deb

06/21/2004
-
ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI – DEB

06/23/2004
-
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE COURTS RECORDS

06/24/2004
-
ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JILL DYKES – DEB

06/24/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

06/28/2004
-
POST OFFICE RETURNED AN ORDER TO REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME THAT JUDGE DID NOT SIGN BECAUSE OF A BAD ADDRESS FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

06/29/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 06/29/04.

07/01/2004
-
LETTER FROM FELICIA THEEL TO JILL DYKES DATED 07/01/04.

07/11/2004
-
#69 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT OF VISITATION RIGHTS

07/13/2004
-
Order Allowing And Assessing Fee signed. deb

07/13/2004
-
PETITION AND ORDER FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES FILED – DEB

07/29/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 07/29/04.

07/30/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

08/04/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PETITIONER & RESP DATED 08/02/04.

08/13/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 08/12/04.

08/27/2004
-
LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

09/03/2004
-
LETTER FROM M JILL DYKES TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 08/31/04.

09/18/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 09/17/04. FILED BY FAX.

10/01/2004
-
Transfered from Div.12 to Div.05, New Judicial Assignment.

10/01/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO HAL RICHARDSON & CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 093004.

10/08/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/07/04.

10/08/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 09/30/04.

10/28/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO MR. SWARTZ DATED 10/28/04. FILED BY FAX.

11/01/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/29/04.

11/08/2004
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/29/04.

12/02/2004
-
Recommendation of Domestic Case Manager, November 2004, ORDERS of the Court signed. EZW.

12/06/2004
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 12/06/04. FILED BY FAX.

12/17/2004
-
RECOMMENDATION OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER AND ORDER FILED-EZW

01/07/2005
-
SET – Hearing on 03/03/05 at 09:00AM. in division 05. STATUS CONFERENCE

01/07/2005
-
Notice of hearing for 03/03/05 Hearing issued .

02/09/2005
-
Notice of termination of assignment of support rights filed IV-D AFDC.

03/03/2005
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/03/05.

03/03/2005
-
Ct.Rptr:TAYLOR (SHC050303-081110).Petitioner appears and by DONALD R.HOFFMAN; Respondent appears pro se; Rikki appears not but by JILL DYKES, GAL. Also appearing: LLOYD SWARTZ, CM. Status Conf.-Resp.directed to provide current contact info.to C.M., to include physical address, phone number. -Resp.directed to inform C.M. of intent to file Motions before filing them with Court to get C.M.okay to file them with Court. -Resp’s request to remove C.M. and GAL is denied. -Court makes no changes to current orders except as set forth above. Resp’s parenting time with child will remain supervised at this time. -GAL’s request for fees granted. Advanced by County. Parties shall submit income statements to C.M., who will send court a recommendation as to assessment of fees to the parties.(cont’d.next screen)

03/03/2005
-
(cont’d.from previous screen) DYKES will journalize. EZW,Div.5.

03/10/2005
-
Order Allowing and Assessing Fee signed. EZW,Div.5.

03/11/2005
-
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – EZW (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)

03/15/2005
-
LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/14/05.

03/17/2005
-
NOTICE PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY M. JILL DYKES

03/18/2005
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/18/05. FILED BY FAX.

04/24/2005
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD C SWARTZ DATED 04/19/05. FILED BY FAX.

05/03/2005
-
Journal Entry signed. EZW,Div.5.

05/03/2005
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 05/03/05. FILED BY FAX.

05/03/2005
-
Journal Entry filed. EZW

05/23/2005
-
OBJECTION TO THE CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATION DATED MAY 11, 2005. FILED BY FAX.

06/28/2005
-
Filed by Fax – LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SAFE VISIT STAFF DATED 060705.

07/18/2005
-
RECEIVED BY FAX A MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION ON 07/13/05 FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. THIS IS BEING RETURNED TO HER BECAUSE THE $26.00 MOTION FILING FEE WAS NOT PAID.

07/19/2005
-
$26.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (21.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)

07/19/2005
-
#70 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI PRO SE, TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION

07/19/2005
-
Order signed. EZW,Div.5.

07/20/2005
-
SET – Hearing on 10/25/05 at 02:00PM. in division 05. Special Setting, set by Court.

07/20/2005
-
ORDER- 1)TERMINATING CASE MANAGEMENT; 2)DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS M JILL DYKES AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; 3)DISMISSING RESPONDENT’S (A) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENCY AND (B) MOTION TO MODIFIY CUSTODY AND VISITATION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT; AND 4)SETTING A HEARING FOR RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PARENTING TIME-EZW

08/26/2005
-
DIVORCEWORKS Certificate of Completion for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

09/13/2005
-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY BETHANY J ROBERTS AS ATTORNEY FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

09/27/2005
-
Notice of hearing for 10/25/05 Hearing issued .

10/25/2005
-
Ct.Rptr:TAYLOR. Pet.appears and by D.R.HOFFMAN; Resp.appears and by B.J.ROBERTS; JILL DYKES, GAL, also appears. Hearing on Motion to Modify P.T. Court rules: 1)P.T. will remain supervised thru Safe Visit; 1x/week from 4pm-5pm on Sunday; 2)Resp.may have unsupervised T.C. w/minor on Tues.and Fri. evevning at 8pm for 1/2 hour. Resp.will initiate call. 3)Resp.and minor into Fam.Therapy as selected by GAL, Resp. to pay for it. 4)Review hearing set for 2/2/06 at 9am. 2 hours. ROBERTS to prepare JE. EZW,Div.5.

10/26/2005
-
SET – Hearing on 02/02/06 at 09:00AM. in division 05. REVIEW HEARING – 2 Hours Allowed.

10/26/2005
-
Notice of hearing for 02/02/06 Hearing issued .

10/28/2005
-
Order Allowing and Assessing Fee signed. EZW,Div.5.

11/01/2005
-
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEES FILED – EZW (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)

11/16/2005
-
Journal Entry (Motion to Modify Parenting Time) signed. EZW,Div.5.

11/21/2005
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – EZW

01/30/2006
-
Case transfered Div 05 to Div 04,New Judicial Assignment.NEP

02/03/2006
-
ORDERDED HOME STUDY FOR PETITIONER’S HOME,PARTIES ORDERED TO CONTACT COUNSELOR FOR MINOR CHILD AND REPORT TO THE COURT PR IOR TO NEXT HEARING. CREDENTIALS FOR THE THERAPIST(MS BROWN) TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. SAFE VISITS TO CONTINUE ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PREVIOUS ORDERS UNTIL NEXT HEARING. ATTORNEY ROBERTS TO JOURNALIZE THE HEARING.JDJ

02/14/2006
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – JDJ

03/03/2006
-
SET – Hearing on 04/10/06 at 10:30AM. in division 04.

03/03/2006
-
Notice of hearing for 04/10/06 Hearing issued .

03/14/2006
-
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY CONFERENCE FILED

03/14/2006
-
SET – Counsel Conference on 04/14/06 at 10:00AM. in division 04.

04/14/2006
-
PARTIES PRESENT AND THROUGH COUNSEL. RESPONDENT APPEARED PERSONALLY. GAL, JILL DYKES APPEARED ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD. COURT ORDERED THAT SAFE VISITS ARE TO CONTINUE. RESPONDENT ORDERED TO RECEIVE AN EVALUATION THROUGH FAMILY SERVICES AND GUIDANCE CENTER. MATTER PLACED BACK ON THE STATUS DOCKET FOR AUG 9@9AM.JDJ

04/14/2006
-
SET – Status Docket on 08/09/06 at 09:00AM. in division 04.

04/14/2006
-
Notice of hearing for 08/09/06 Status Docket issued .

05/09/2006
-
JOURNAL ENTRY REGARDING PARENTING TIME SIGNED BY JDJ

05/09/2006
-
Journal Entry filed. JDJ

06/12/2006
-
#71Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI PRO SE FOR ORDER TO ALLOW GRANDPARENT VISITATION EMERGENCY ORDER.

06/13/2006
-
#72 MOTION FILED BY BETHANY J ROBERTS TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

06/14/2006
-
SET – Motion Docket on 07/27/06 at 09:30AM. in division 04.

06/14/2006
-
Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date July 27, 2006 09:30AM.

06/14/2006
-
PETITIONER’S RESPOSNE AND OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO ALLOW GRANDPARENT VISITATION EMERGENCY ORDER FILED

06/27/2006
-
Order for withdrawal of attorney, BETHANY J ROBERTS – JDJ

07/24/2006
-
TAKEN OUT OF SETTING ON 8/9

07/25/2006
-
CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

08/31/2006
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 08/31/06.

09/07/2006
-
SET – Status Docket on 10/16/06 at 02:00PM. in division 04.

09/07/2006
-
Notice of hearing for 10/16/06 Status Docket issued .

09/13/2006
-
SET – Status Docket on 09/27/06 at 11:30AM. in division 04. THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2006@ 11:30 A.M. COUNSEL, IF YOU DISCOVER THIS SETTING CONFLICTS WITH YOUR CALENDAR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE.

09/13/2006
-
Notice of hearing for 09/27/06 Status Docket issued .

09/27/2006
-
PETITIONER APPEARS IN PERSON AND THROUGH COUNSEL, MR. DON HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT APPEARS IN PERSON, PRO SE. THE CHILD APPEARS THROUGH THE G.A.L., MS. DYKES. THE COURT ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUS ORDER TO GET AN EVALUATION COMPLETED AT FAMILY SERVICE & GUIDANCE CENTER. CHILD’S PICTURE TO BE REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S WEBSITE. CHILD TO BE AVAILABLE ON WEDS & SUNDAYS AT 7PM FOR CALLS FROM MOTHER. ALL VISITS BY MOTHER WILL BE THROUGH SAFE VISITS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. MATTER CONTINUED FOR 30 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE. JDJ

09/27/2006
-
PSYCH. EVALS/ASSESSMENTS/RECORDS FILED

09/27/2006
-
JOURNAL ENTRY ORDER FILED – JDJ

09/28/2006
-
RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FILED

10/10/2006
-
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER FILED – JDJ (CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO COURT ADMIN)

11/01/2006
-
#73 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE TO RESTORE PARENTING TIME.

11/01/2006
-
POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

01/29/2007
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED

01/29/2007
-
01/24/07. Filed by Fax

02/07/2007
-
SET – Hearing on 04/04/07 at 02:00PM. in division 04. ***PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS AN AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING**** DISREGARD ANY PREVIOUS NOTICES

02/07/2007
-
Notice of hearing for 04/04/07 Hearing issued .

04/04/2007
-
PARTIES PRESENT AND WITH COUNSEL. MS. DYKES FOR THE PARTIES MINOR CHILD. THE COURT ORDERED MS. DOMBROWSKI TO MEET WITH MS. CYNTHIA TURNBULL FOR EVALUATION. MR. HOFFMAN IS TO JOURNALIZE. JDJ

04/11/2007
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 04/10/07.

05/21/2007
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 05/21/07.

06/15/2007
-
JOURNAL ENTRY OF 4/4/07 HEARING SIGNED BY JDJ

06/15/2007
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – JDJ

06/29/2007
-
LETTER FROM JENNIFER OLSEN TO DONALD R HOFFMAN DATED 06/29/07.

07/11/2007
-
LETTER FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DISTRICT COURT DATED 07/10/07.

07/23/2007
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 07/23/07.

07/26/2007
-
COPY OF LETTER FROM SAFE VISIT ADMINISTRATOR TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 06/15/07 COPY OF LETTER FROM SAFE VISIT ADMINISTRATOR TO HAL RICHARDSON AND CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 07/24/07

08/06/2007
-
Transcript of HEARING, held 04/04/07 filed.

08/30/2007
-
EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCESS FILED

09/12/2007
-
SET – Review Hearing on 11/07/07 at 11:00AM. in division 04.

09/12/2007
-
Notice of hearing for 11/07/07 Review Hearing issued .

09/19/2007
-
FORMAL OBJECTION TO ANY THIRD PARTY INTERFERANCE AT SAFE VISIT FILED

09/20/2007
-
#74 Motion filed and entered by M JILL DYKES as GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO ALLOW DOCTOR TO OBSERVE SAFE VISIT

09/20/2007
-
ORDER ALLOWING DOCTOR TO OBSERVE SAFE VISIT FILED – JDJ

10/25/2007
-
LETTER FROM MARY ANN DUGAN TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 11/17/06.

11/07/2007
-
PETITIONER PRESENT AND THROUGH COUNSEL, JASON HOFFMAN FOR DON HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT MOVED TO RECUSE THE G.A.L. SAID MOTION WAS DENIED. RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED TO CONTACT MS. TURNBULL CONCERNING PSYCH EVALUATION AND TO SCHEDULE THE SAME. UPON SCHEDULING THE G.A.L. WILL BE ADVISED. PHONE CALLS WILL BE ON SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAYS FROM 5:30-6:30P.M. THE PHOLE WILL NOT BE ON AT ANY OTHER TIME. JDJ

11/09/2007
-
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES FILED AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – JDJ (CERTIFIED COPY TO CRT ADMIN)

11/16/2007
-
AMENDED PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES FILED

11/16/2007
-
LETTER FROM CYNTHIA TURNBULL PHD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN DATED 11/12/07

11/27/2007
-
LETTER FROM M. JILL DYKES TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 11/12/07.

11/27/2007
-
Filed by Fax

12/16/2007
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 12/13/07.

01/03/2008
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 01/03/08

01/03/2008
-
Filed by Fax

01/15/2008
-
LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 01/15/08.

02/04/2008
-
#75 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE FOR IMMEDIATE ORDER RESTORING AND REINSTATING WITHOUT RESTRICTION CHILD AND PARENT ACCESS. A VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL AND CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS OF BOTH CHILD & PARENT. Filed by Fax

02/13/2008
-
#76 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE.

02/14/2008
-
SET – Show Cause on 03/13/08 at 01:30PM. in division 04.

02/14/2008
-
Notice of hearing for 03/13/08 Show Cause issued .

02/19/2008
-
Filed by fax – RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION

02/28/2008
-
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE/ADVANCEMENT & ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE/ADVANCEMENT FILED – JDJ.

02/29/2008
-
SET – Show Cause on 04/25/08 at 11:30AM. in division 04.

03/20/2008
-
Three Praecipes for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE.

03/20/2008
-
Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to MICHAEL L BURLISON

03/20/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER

03/20/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT

03/20/2008
-
Sheriff Process Fee ($10.00 cash) received and forwarded.

03/27/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 03/25/08 . Entered by 1153.

03/27/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT 03/25/08 . Entered by 1153.

03/28/2008
-
Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MICHAEL L BURLISON 03/27/08 . Entered by 0148.

04/02/2008
-
#77 Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION OF THIS COURT FOR THE HEALTH AND BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILD.Filed by fax

04/03/2008
-
SET – Motion Docket on 04/24/08 at 10:30AM. in division 04.

04/03/2008
-
Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date April 24, 2008 10:30AM.

04/03/2008
-
#78 Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR DEMAND RULING. Filed by fax

04/04/2008
-
HEARING SET FOR 4-24-08 ON RESPONDENTS MOTIONS HAS BEEN CONSLIDATED WITH HEARING ON 4-25-08 AT 11:30 A.M.

04/25/2008
-
PETITIONER PRESENT AND WITH COUNSEL, MR. HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT APPEARED PRO SE. THE G.A.L. MS DYKES ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RESTORE ACCESS TO THE CHILD. THE G.A.L. GAVE HER REPORT TO THE COURT FAVORING AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SAFE VISITS THAT ARE PRESENTLY ONGOING. THE MATTER WAS ALSO BEFORE THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION WAS SUSTAINED.THE PAR- TIES WILL BE PLACED IN THE ODYESSY PROGRAM. THE PARTIES WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM’S VISITATION AND THERAPY COMPO- NENTS. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION WAS SUSTAINED FOR CHANGE OF VISITATION WITH THE MINOR CHILD. JDJ

06/18/2008
-
FAXED LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 06/18/08.

08/25/2008
-
Case transfered Div 04 to Div 13,New Judicial Assignment.NEP

10/15/2008
-
POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

10/15/2008
-
#79 EMERGENCY Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR ORDERS OF JUSTICE

10/17/2008
-
SET – Motion Docket on 11/13/08 at 09:30AM. in division 13.

10/17/2008
-
Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date November 13, 2008 09:30AM.

10/28/2008
-
#80 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE, FOR TEMPORARY ORDER ALLOWING MINOR CHILD TO ATTEND HER GRANDMOTHERS FUNERAL. Filed by fax

10/30/2008
-
SET – Motion Docket on 11/04/08 at 03:30PM. in division 13.

10/30/2008
-
Notice of hearing for 11/04/08 Motion Docket issued .

11/04/2008
-
Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court hears from counsel and denies Respondent’s motion. Court schedules Respondent’s emergency motion for orders of justice for December 16, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. DBD

11/04/2008
-
SET – Hearing on 12/16/08 at 01:30PM. in division 13. Motion Hearing

11/04/2008
-
Notice of hearing for 12/16/08 Hearing issued .

11/05/2008
-
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN

11/07/2008
-
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

11/13/2008
-
LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL, MANAGING REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 11/13/08.

11/21/2008
-
JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – DBD

12/04/2008
-
EIGHT PRAECIPE FOR BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FILED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to JUDGE DAVID E BRUNS

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DREX FLOTT LSCSW CLINICAL DIRECTOR

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to M JILL DYKES

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to KARA HARRY DIRECT THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to LLOYD SWARTZ

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER

12/05/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to CONNIE SANCHEZ

12/09/2008
-
$57.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (57.00 DM Transcrpt)

12/12/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT 12/10/08 . Entered by 1153.

12/12/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 12/10/08 . Entered by 1153.

12/12/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to CONNIE SANCHEZ 12/10/08 . Entered by 0883.

12/12/2008
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE BRUNS TO JUDGE DEBENHAM DATED 12/12/08.

12/15/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to JUDGE DAVID E BRUNS 12/11/08 . Entered by 0885.

12/15/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to DREX FLOTT LSCSW CLINICAL DIRECTOR 12/11/08 . Entered by 1128.

12/15/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to KARA HARRY DIRECT THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT 12/11/08 . Entered by 1128.

12/15/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to LLOYD SWARTZ 12/11/08 . Entered by 0885.

12/16/2008
-
MISC. Petitioner in person and by counsel, Donald Hoffman; G.A.L. Jill Dykes in person; Respondent in person, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court hears evidence and arguments of parties and denies Respondent’s motion as it is unsupported by the evidence introduced by Respondent. Based on evidence put on by Respondent, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the child to leave parenting time as it is presently set and in a supervised fashion. Any further motions filed by Respondent will need to specify factual allegations and legal conclusions to support the motion or the Court will entertain motions to dismiss the same. Donald Hoffman to prepare JE. DBD

12/16/2008
-
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

12/22/2008
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned personal service requested, no service, no response to notes left – as to M JILL DYKES 12/18/08 . Entered by 0572.

12/23/2008
-
LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL, MANAGING REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 12/23/08.

12/29/2008
-
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN

12/29/2008
-
EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCESS FILED BY FAX

01/14/2009
-
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES & ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – DBD. (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)

01/27/2009
-
#81 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE, FOR COURT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND KANSAS APPEALLATE RULINGS IN THAT THE LAST OF ORDER OF THIS COURT (DECEMBER 16, 2008) IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AND DEMANDS THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ILLEGAL RULING IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE ANY ALL FURTHER STEPS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAWS SETFORTH

01/27/2009
-
Filed by Fax

01/27/2009
-
#82 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE

02/13/2009
-
$213.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (213.00 DM Transcrpt)

02/24/2009
-
SET – Hearing on 03/17/09 at 01:00PM. in division 13. (hearing to determine if Respondent needs appointed counsel) (1/2 hour)

02/24/2009
-
Notice of hearing for 03/17/09 Hearing issued .

02/24/2009
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 04/06/09 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (1/2 day)

02/24/2009
-
ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE FILED – DBD.

02/24/2009
-
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED.

02/24/2009
-
Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

02/25/2009
-
MOTION/AFFIDAVIT SHOW CAUSE & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service issued to special process server.

03/13/2009
-
POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

03/13/2009
-
#83 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR ORDERS OF JUSTICE

03/13/2009
-
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUSTICE FILED

03/13/2009
-
#84 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE

03/13/2009
-
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE FILED

03/13/2009
-
#85 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR COURT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND KANSAS APPEALLATE RULINGS IN THAT THE LAST OF ORDER OF THIS COURT (DECEMBER 16, 2008) IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AND DEMANDS THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ILLEGAL RULING IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE ANY ALL FURTHER STEPS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAWS SETFORTH

03/17/2009
-
MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent does not appear. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court finds Respondent’s Motion to Recuse was improperly filed but after consideration denies the Motion for Recusal. On evidence presented Court finds Respondent was personally served with Motion and Order to Appear and Show Cause scheduled for April 6, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. pursuant to K.S.A. 60-303(d)(4). Court appoints Kevin Cook to represent Respondent during hearing scheduled on show cause order. Court denies Respondent’s motion filed 12/29/08 titled, "Expedited Judicial Process", Motion #81, Motion #83, and Motion #85, as none of the motions have alleged any new information or basis for overturning Court’s December 16, 2008, decision. Court will journalize order. DBD

03/18/2009
-
ORDER FILED – DBD.

03/20/2009
-
#86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT

03/20/2009
-
Journal Entry filed. DBD

03/24/2009
-
ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD.

04/06/2009
-
MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered "Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case". Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD

04/24/2009
-
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

04/28/2009
-
LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL,COURT REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 04/28/09.

05/22/2009
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE DEBENHAM TO ROBERT DUNCAN II DATED 05/22/09.

06/16/2009
-
Transcript of HEARING, held 04/06/09 filed.

06/29/2009
-
LETTER FROM JUDGE DEBENHAM TO ROBERT DUNCAN II DATED 06/29/09.

08/28/2009
-
$52.00 Check recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (42.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 10.00 DM Surcharge)

08/28/2009
-
#87 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY VISITATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ORTHODONTIC CARE AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT

08/28/2009
-
SET – Motion Docket on 09/17/09 at 10:30AM. in division 13.

08/28/2009
-
Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date September 17, 2009 10:30AM.

09/17/2009
-
MISC. MOTION DOCKET. Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L. Jill Dykes present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. 1) Parties agree that Petitioner will have child looked at by 2 other orthodontist within 60 days and share estimates of cost with Respondent; 2) Both parties are responsible for half of all orthodontic care for the minor child; 3) Parties are to exchange MDRA within 10 days; 4) Respondent to file amended motion to modify visitation with counsel’s signature; 5) Both parties ordered to provide U.A.’s today; and 6) Hearing set for 11/13/09 at 11:00 a.m. on supervised parenting time. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD

09/17/2009
-
SET – Motion Hearing on 11/13/09 at 11:00AM. in division 13.

09/17/2009
-
Notice of hearing for 11/13/09 Motion Hearing issued .

09/18/2009
-
ORDER FILED – DBD.

10/16/2009
-
#88 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE

10/16/2009
-
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED

10/22/2009
-
Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

10/23/2009
-
MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & ORDER TO APPEARS & SHOW CAUSE issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service issued to special process server.

11/09/2009
-
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FILED

11/09/2009
-
Filed by Fax

11/13/2009
-
MISC. Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, in person. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter comes before Court on Respondent’s motion for unsupervised visitation and Petitioner’s motion for contempt. Parties have agreed that motion for contempt will be deferred pending Petitioner’s locating and removing all referenced items to the minor child on the internet. Matter to be reset if disagreement between the parties about removal of items referring to minor child and her likeness from internet. Court interview minor child – no record per agreement of the parties. Court suspends parenting time of Respondent due to Respondent’s continued use of her website and the internet to publish photographs of minor child and statements reference minor child. Court will entertain motion to reinstate parenting time once Respondent deletes all photographs and likenesses of minor child, any reference to minor child on her website and the internet, agree not to discuss Court proceedings with minor child and not to discuss divorce with minor child. Review set for December 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. T. Duncan to do JE. DBD

11/13/2009
-
SET – Hearing on 12/16/09 at 10:00AM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

11/13/2009
-
Notice of hearing for 12/16/09 Hearing issued .

11/13/2009
-
#89 Amended Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY VISITATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ORTHODONTIC CARE AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT

11/13/2009
-
MINI DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF HAL RICHARDSON

11/13/2009
-
CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET SUBMITTED BY FATHER

12/16/2009
-
Hearing continued at request of Respondent. Hearing reset January 8, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. DBD

12/16/2009
-
SET – Hearing on 01/08/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

12/16/2009
-
Notice of hearing for 01/08/10 Hearing issued .

12/16/2009
-
ORDER FILED – DBD.

12/21/2009
-
Hearing for 1/8/10 rescheduled due to conflict in Court’s schedule to 1/22/10 at 1:30 p.m.

12/21/2009
-
SET – Hearing on 01/22/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

12/21/2009
-
Notice of hearing for 01/22/10 Hearing issued .

12/22/2009
-
Hearing for 1/22/10 reset due to conflict in attorney’s schedules.

12/22/2009
-
SET – Hearing on 01/28/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

12/22/2009
-
Notice of hearing for 01/28/10 Hearing issued .

01/29/2010
-
MISC. Petitioner in person and by Jason Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Motion #88 to find Respondent in Contempt and Motion #87 by Respondent to Modify Visitation before Court. Evidence presented – Court finds Petitioner has failed to prove an intentional violation of Court’s prior orders by Respondent and denies motion to find Respondent in contempt. Court finds minor child has serious concerns about parenting time with mother but they do not rise to the level that would seriously endanger child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health per K.S.A. 60-1616(a). Further, reasons for ordering supervised parenting time in 2004 were not presented in the evidence, minor child is 15 now and it is in best interest of child that both parents have relationship with child. Court orders unsupervised parenting time from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. every Sunday, starting January 31, 2010 – exchanges at LEC, parenting time to be exercised in public within boundary of Shawnee County, Kansas. Neither parent to discuss divorce, proceedings or other parent with child. Respondent allowed to call daughter every Tuesday and Thursday between 8:00 p.m and 9:00 p.m. for 1/2 hour. Respondent to pay her remaining balance at Odyssey. Court will review case on March 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to determine if parenting time should be expanded. Duncan to do JE. DBD

01/29/2010
-
SET – Hearing on 03/02/10 at 08:30AM. in division 13. (Review of parenting time)

01/29/2010
-
Notice of hearing for 03/02/10 Hearing issued .

02/12/2010
-
ORDER ESTABLISHING PARENTING TIME FILED – DBD.

02/26/2010
-
#90 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CONTINUANCE

02/26/2010
-
Filed by Fax

03/01/2010
-
Agreed Order of Continuance signed by Court. Hearing for 3/2/10 removed.

03/02/2010
-
SET – Hearing on 05/24/10 at 11:00AM. in division 13. (review hearing)

03/02/2010
-
Notice of hearing for 05/24/10 Hearing issued .

03/04/2010
-
HEARING DATE OF 5/24/10 WAS A CONFLICT FOR MR. DUNCAN – MATTER RESCHEDULED UPON AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES TO MAY 26, 2010 AT 1:30 P.M.

03/04/2010
-
SET – Hearing on 05/26/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review hearing)

03/04/2010
-
Notice of hearing for 05/26/10 Hearing issued .

03/10/2010
-
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

03/16/2010
-
LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL,COURT REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 03/12/10.

05/17/2010
-
#91 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CONTINUANCE. Filed by fax

05/25/2010
-
SET – Hearing on 08/20/10 at 09:00AM. in division 13. (review hearing)

05/26/2010
-
AGREED ORDER OF CONTINUANCE FILED – DBD.

05/28/2010
-
Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 08/20/10 at 09:00A.M. Filed by fax

07/06/2010
-
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCUSATION IN CONTEMPT FILED.

08/18/2010
-
#92 Motion filed and entered by M JILL DYKES for CONTINUANCE

08/18/2010
-
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED.

08/18/2010
-
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED.

08/18/2010
-
#93 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, TO JOIN GAL’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

08/18/2010
-
AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MOTION TO JOIN GAL’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED

08/19/2010
-
Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by JASON P HOFFMAN.

08/19/2010
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 08/20/10 09:00A.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER issued to special process server.

08/19/2010
-
Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 08/19/10

08/20/2010
-
MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter proceeds on review of Court’s order of January 28, 2010, establishing unsupervised parenting time for Respondent. Dr. Rodeheffer offers testimony – matter continued to a date to be agreed upon for additional testimony. Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order. DBD

08/20/2010
-
SET – Hearing on 10/19/10 at 09:00AM. in division 13.

08/20/2010
-
Notice of hearing for 10/19/10 Hearing issued .

Are You Ready To Do The WHITE HOUSE Again….And More?

No Responses »
Aug 182010

post by Nancy Carroll

White House Vigil on Mothers Day, May 9th, 2010

On Mother’s Day 2010, a large crowd of well over 100 concerned citizens wearing Mothers of Lost Children white T-shirts rallied in front of the White House.  After a silent vigil from 11:00 am until noon and a speakout from noon to 1:00 pm that included Mildred Mohammad, former wife of the D.C. Sniper, there was a march down 17th Avenue. Our signs and banners protested the family courts endangerment of 58,000 children per year who must visit or live with their batterers and molesters with no hope of release.

The event was so well received that we will meet again on Friday, October 1st, 2010, the first day of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, in front of the U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001 for a press conference at 11:00 am (pending permits). We will then march about a mile to the Senate buildings and attend prearranged visits with Senators to request that they reschedule the 1994 the Senate Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee Congressional hearing that was postponed. That hearing was designed to address the issues of failures of child protective and family court systems to protect adult and child victims of violence and abuse, statutes of limitations for reporting sexual abuse, and retaliatory targeting of mandated reporters who report child sexual abuse. These problems have grown significantly worse in the past 16 years. We will end our march at the Sewall Belmont House, 144 Constitution Avenue NE, the suffragists’ headquarters a century ago.

We plan to stay at the Hostelling International, 1009 11th Street NW, Washington DC, which we found to be clean and inexpensive. The following day, Saturday, October 2nd, we will rally at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

For more information please contact Connie Valentine, 916-233-8381 orcppa001@aol.com.

AMPP – Mothers Seeking Justice & Accountability

No Responses »
Jul 192010

American Mothers Political Party

MR PRESIDENT WE MOTHERS WANT LIBERT NOW! AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children. We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute. We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser. We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!

We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t. We demand the same “rights and freedoms” to which all humans are entitled. Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children. Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child. Until Mothers and Children’s voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!

High Conflict Divorce or Stalking by Way of Family Court? The Empowerment of a Wealthy Abuser in Family Court Litigation: Linda v. Lyle – A Case Study

No Responses »
Jul 132010

T. J. Sutherland, R.N., B.S.N., P.H.N., J.D.

Table of Contents

Author Notes
Suggested Citation
Introduction
Definition of Terms
Part I: Comparisons and Contrasts: Batterers, Stalkers and High Conflict Divorces
Batterers and Stalkers
High-Conflict Divorce
Analysis
Part II: Linda v. Lyle
Overview
The Focus – Loss of Parental Rights
Lyle’s Role
Overall Analysis
Part III: The Safeguards
Part IV: Conclusion

Author Notes

T. J. Sutherland, R.N., B.S.N., P.H.N., J.D. 3841 Fourth Ave. #271 San Diego, CA 92103 tel: 619-296-4048 Dedication: To my children, Damien and Lisa.

Suggested Citation

Sutherland, T.J. (2004). High Conflict Divorce or Stalking by Way of Family Court? The Empowerment of a Wealthy Abuser in Family Court Litigation: Linda v. Lyle – A Case Study. Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 22(1&2) 4-16.

Introduction

Virtually all coverage of high-conflict divorce assumes both parents are the source of the conflict.[1] Blame is assigned solely and equally to the parents in essentially all cases without much analysis. However, if one party is abusive and sufficiently wealthy to fund on-going litigation, the Domestic Court may be ideally suited to the spurned mate’s agenda.[2]The systematic assertion of ‘dominion and control’ via Family Court litigation would superficially mimic a high-conflict divorce because there would be ongoing litigation.[3] [4] The interpretation is consistently that the parties cannot get along and they are using their children as pawns.[5] A closer look shows high conflict divorce has features common to both domestic abuse relationships and the stalking behavior displayed by abandoned abusers.[6] This fascinating case study illustrates how power is transferred from the abusive mate to the professionals, who are, apparently, also at risk to lose control.

This article will look at the possibility that some or all high-conflict divorces are actually the manifestation of stalking behaviors by wealthy domestic abusers. Part I will compare and contrast the research on batterers and stalkers to the literature on high-conflict divorce. In Part II, an actual high-conflict case will be described. While it is understood that "the plural of anecdote is not data,"[7] the purpose of this short narrative is only to show that Family Court lends itself to use as a forum for post separation stalking. Part III will explore the lack of consumer protection. Part IV will offer a modest proposal that may discourage protracted Family Court litigation and call for studies that apply stalking and battering dynamics to high-conflict divorce so stalking by way of Family Court can be quantified and illuminated.

Definition of Terms

Westrup[8] defines stalking as "one or more of a constellation of behaviors that (a) are directed repeatedly toward a specific individual (the target), (b) are experienced by the target as unwelcome and intrusive, and (c) are reported to trigger fear or concern in the target." Walker and Meloy[9] define domestic violence as "an abuser’s attempt to use physical, sexual or psychological force to take away a woman’s power and control over her life." Arguably, the critical feature of domestic violence is the power differential in the relationship.[10] Here, the term battering will be used to describe the tools used by batterers as they systematically seek power. Battering includes physical violence, sexual or psychological force, or any other force the batterer harnesses to maintain control. Doolittle and Deutsch[11] define high conflict divorce as those cases where the parents continue to litigate and do not reach a resolution of their conflict within 2 years.

Part I: Comparisons and Contrasts: Batterers, Stalkers and High Conflict Divorces

Batterers and Stalkers

Experts cite fearful attachment style as a personality finding in stalkers[12] and in batterers.[13] Fearful attachment is described as occurring where there is a negative self image and a negative image of the other.[14] These individuals vacillate between pursuit of closeness and distrust and fear of rejection or abandonment.[15], [16] Anger[17], [18] and rage[19] are associated with fearful attachment. In the fearfully attached, delusions of impending abandonment precipitate intimate rage,[20] and when actually abandoned, the "urge to destroy" the mate is overwhelming.[21] When abandoned, they use physical assault, stalking, economic abuse, verbal and psychological abuse, physical coercion and recurrent litigation.[22] Batterers minimize the significance of their acts[23] and demand secrecy about their behavior.[24] Leaving betrays that secrecy.[25] Experts believe batterers who stalk[26] are the most dangerous and the most likely to kill,[27] and that the highest risk to the departing mate is 2 years post-separation.[28]

Obsessive thinking is common to stalkers[29] and batterers.[30] It is neither volitional nor welcome.[31] Obsessive thinking is typical in the context of actual or imagined abandonment.[32] Initially, obsessive thinking serves "some defensive purpose." [33]

Stalkers[34] and batterers[35] deny, minimize and project blame on their victim for their own behavior. Jordan, et al.[36] cited the stalker protagonists in two movies who justified the escalation of their stalking behavior "by insisting they (were) getting to the bottom of a mystery."

Stalkers[37] and batterers[38] use threatening symbols to instill fear and the promise of future consequences.[39] These symbolic gestures may be very bizarre, and the more bizarre the gestures, the more difficulty the victim has in convincing others that her reports are accurate. [40]

Retaliation for defiant behavior is a central finding in battering relationships,[41], [42] and stalking is one retaliatory measure.[43], [44] Less sophisticated batterers tend to use physical violence to "teach her a lesson,"[45] but more sophisticated batterers use more sophisticated means,[46] for instance, on-going litigation which requires substantial financial prowess.

High-Conflict Divorce

Experts who write about high-conflict divorce describe the same findings as the experts who write about stalkers and batterers, but lay blame equally on both parties citing interparental conflict as the problem.[47] In describing interparental conflict, authors cite physical assault, stalking, economic abuse, verbal and psychological abuse, physical coercion and recurrent litigation.[48] "individuals in high-conflict divorces are alternately enraged and deeply emotionally injured by the actions of their ex-spouse."[49]

Analysis

The descriptions of stalkers, batterers and litigants embroiled in high-conflict divorce sound very similar. A two-year time frame is touted as the period of highest risk for women who flee batterers[50] and as the defining time frame for the "high conflict" moniker.[51] The actual behaviors are identical, and only the analyses differ. According to Walker and Meloy, the stalking and battering populations overlap.[52] It seems the high conflict commentators are describing the wealthy individuals in that overlap population because they cite batterer and stalker behaviors. However, the use of Family Court as the forum would require sizable assets, therefore, the individuals who stalk by way of Family Court must be wealthy.

One distinguishing feature between the literature on stalkers and batterers in comparison to that on high-conflict divorce is the use of the word "conflict." A word search of three randomly selected articles illustrates that point. In articles on high-conflict divorce,[53] domestic violence[54] and stalking,[55] the word "conflict" was used 114, zero, and one time respectively. "Conflict" suggests equal culpability. It suggests an equal power balance.[56] However, the specific behaviors cited by the high conflict commentators are behaviors associated with a power differential.[57] They include physical assault, stalking, economic abuse, verbal and psychological abuse, physical coercion and recurrent litigation.[58] There is an inherent difficulty in blaming both parties equally. For example stalkers are not culpable in their own stalking. The high conflict analysis is misapplied.

Fischer, et al.[59] assert that conflict is not a feature of battering relationships. In conceptualizing the family with battering dynamics as a unit, rather than focusing on who has what problem, these complex families may be more clearly understood.[60] In the culture of abusive relationships, as in all relationships, there is a pattern of verbal, physical and symbolic communication.[61]

Family Court litigation is ideally tailored to the wealthy batterer’s agenda because abandonment precipitates the competing needs: desperation to destroy the defiant mate alternating with desperation to preserve the tie.[62], [63] The objective of custody litigation in ‘best interests’ jurisdictions is to destroy the opponent[64] and the process facilitates ongoing contact with the lost mate. The child support schedules are predicated on how one fares in the custody battle,[65]adding fuel to the flame. The featured case is an actual case. There are some unexpected and very interesting dynamics as this fascinating case progresses. The milestones in Linda’s loss of parental rights provide the main theme.

Part II: Linda v. Lyle[66]

Overview

Linda was married to Lyle for 22 years. He was a violent spousal and child abuser. Linda knew that Child Protective Services (CPS) had the authority to put children in foster care when a battered spouse does not leave a child abuser. A volume of CPS reports had accumulated against Lyle. Linda reluctantly chose to file for divorce. To date, the case has litigated for approximately 6 years without respite. There are approximately 130 minute orders, indicating that the case has appeared on the docket on the average 1.8 times per month. Ex parte appearances are frequent, however, they do not generate minute orders, so the exact number is unknown. Linda v. Lyle is a 16 volume file as of this writing.

Linda has been left homeless and her spousal support has been whittled down to $400.00 per month. She has no retirement and no health insurance. Prospects for employment are dim because Linda never worked outside the home. She is in her mid 50’s and must appear in court approximately once per month, sometimes more than twice a week, often with less than 24 hours notice. This situation would make it difficult to keep a work schedule.

The Focus – Loss of Parental Rights

Dr. Lohr, Ph.D. conducted three psychological evaluations in the Linda v. Lyle matter, and her third report is dated January 26, 1999. The first evaluation in 1994 recommended custody with Linda, and visitation with Lyle. Then, in 1997, she recommended physical custody with Lyle, and visitation to Linda. "Litigation between the parents over visitation issues continued, however, even after that second evaluation."

1. Supervised Visitation

In 1997, shortly after the appointment of the guardian ad litem, Ted Rex, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, was assigned as the child’s therapist in spite of Linda’s objection. Linda objected because she felt Rex had a conflict in that he had a prior relationship with Lyle’s sister. Rex was assigned to the case at the guardian ad litem’s request. The child’s original therapist secured public funding for the child’s therapy through the Victims of Crime program, citing the father’s chronic violent abuse as the crime. Instead of that therapist, Rex has seen the child weekly for several years. In an ex parte hearing called by the guardian ad litem, with Linda locked out of the courtroom, Rex testified against Linda.[67] A letter to Linda from her attorney explained what happened in the locked courtroom.[68] Allegations surrounding the child’s behavior over the preceding two months were the basis of the order for supervised visitation. The attorney also recommended deposing Rex. He urged Linda to find $500.00 to pay Rex’s deposition fee. Linda was facing imminent homelessness and had a significant balance due in fees. She declined.

The timing of this unusual hearing suggests a retaliatory motive. The transcript was sealed. This ex parte hearing was held on June 4, 1998 which was a few days after the State Bar of California was reported to be on the brink of bankruptcy after a funding veto by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1997.[69] The guardian ad litem’s billing statement shows three responses to the State Bar’s investigation of Linda’s complaint against him in March 1998,[70] two months before this sudden change in her access to her child. The guardian ad litem was also assigned to the case in spite of Linda’s objection because she had interviewed him and elected not to hire him because he has a prior discipline for embezzlement of clients’ funds.[71] The family was ordered to submit to three psychological evaluations conducted by Lohr, whose office was across the hall from the guardian ad litem’s office.

Analysis

There are a number of irregularities apparent in this hearing. The state must provide notice and prove unfitness to a clear and convincing standard when interfering with a parent’s opportunity to know their child to this degree because the imposition of a supervision requirement is a substantial interference.[72], [73] An ex parte hearing, which offers very short notice, would be appropriate only if the child were at risk for harm.[74] Because of the history, the family had an assigned worker at CPS. That worker denied the existence of any CPS reports against Linda. Social workers are mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect, in which case, Rex violated the Penal Code if his testimony alleged abuse or neglect.[75] If he did not make that allegation, there is no authority that would justify the order unless Linda interfered with Lyle’s access to the child. Lyle was the custodial parent, not Linda. Furthermore, if Linda were simply interfering with Lyle’s access to the child, there would be no need for secrecy.

The facts suggest that the supervised visitation order may have been retaliatory because the basis for the order was the report of the "the changes in the child’s behavior over the last two months."[76] Linda had complained to the State Bar about the guardian ad litem and he had responded to the State Bar investigation 3 times in March, 1998.[77] His last response was approximately 2 months before this ex parte hearing where supervised visitation was ordered for a litigant about whom there was no CPS report, where the other party had sufficient history of child abuse to warrant treatment for the child under the Victims of Crime program. The guardian ad litem frequently blacked-out portions of the bills he sent to Linda, including time expended responding to a CPS investigation of Lyle.[78] The entries about the State Bar letters were just notations. He did not bill for the time. He wanted her to know he was responding to the State Bar about her complaint. Inasmuch, these entries may resemble the symbolic threats of future harm that are typical of batterers when confronted with ‘defiant’ behavior by their mate.[79] When the batterer’s authority and control is challenged, there are consequences.[80]Stalkers commonly use bizarre symbolic gestures, and when they do, their victims have trouble convincing others that her reports are true.[81] That is the case here. The overridingsecrecy of the allegations was protected with the extreme measures of locking Linda out of the court room and sealing the transcript, but the specified time frame of the alleged problems was made clear. Additionally, it is unlikely Linda’s report of this event would be taken seriously by anyone because her report would sound too bizarre to be believable.

2. Linda’s Motion for Modification of Custody

Lyle became more resistant to Linda seeing their child and his refusal to cooperate generated a string of police reports that documented his pattern of frustrating visitation.[82] Eventually, he was arrested for refusing to comply with the visitation order. The supervised monitors wrote declarations about the attempted visits. Initially, Linda was ordered to use the monitors on the list from Family Court. She chose whichever monitor was available, and met the child at a restaurant for a brief, stilted visit. There was a stark divide among the monitors’ reports. Most blamed Lyle and one blamed Linda for the problems.[83] During this time, Linda was ordered into a "reunification plan" with the psychologist who had conducted the previous evaluations, Dr. Lohr.

Linda filed a motion in pro per for modification of custody based on Lyle’s refusal to allow frequent and continuing contact citing the numerous police reports and Lyle’s arrest as evidence of changed circumstances. She alleged collusion among the guardian ad litem and the mental health professionals. Her exhibits included numerous letters from the guardian ad litem. One letter claimed the child liked a particular monitor, Ms. T.C.. After Ms. T.C. wrote a declaration for Linda detailing Lyle’s frustration of visitation, the guardian ad litem wrote another letter claiming he and psychologist Lohr were in agreement that Ms. P.M. should be the monitor because the child liked Ms. P.M.

While the motion was pending, the guardian ad litem was granted his ex parte request that the supervised visitation be conducted at RS, a supervised visitation service. Linda’s custody motion was heard in two hearings after numerous continuances by the guardian ad litem and the Respondent’s counsel. For the first hearing on Linda’s motion, she subpoenaed a specific employee of RS, J.S., who had stated "It is obvious that Lyle is trying to alienate you from (the child)." Two days after he was served, Linda called to tell him what she planned to ask him on the stand. He no longer worked at RS. Linda claims the supervisor, Ms. C., refused to reveal J.S.’s phone number unless Linda paid $100.00. When Linda finally contacted J.S., she reported he claimed "(his) attorney" said he was not required to appear "because two boxes were checked on the subpoena instead of one."[84] J.S. did not appear. Ms. C. appeared claiming the custodian of records had been subpoenaed. The court decided that Linda’s copy of the subpoena was not valid and the copy produced by Ms. C. was valid. [85]

Analysis

The guardian ad litem, assigned to represent the minor, appears to be representing Lyle. The letters from the guardian ad litem show he preferred the supervised monitor who made a favorable report about Lyle. The guardian ad litem solicited the court ex parte for an order to use RS for supervised visitation two days after Lyle was arrested. When Ms. C. from RS appeared, instead of J.S., the court acknowledged that Ms. C. had a subpoena with two boxes checked, and that Linda’s copy was "a completely different subpoena as far as who it is directing to do what."[86] Both subpoenas were signed by J.S. The subpoena that the court accepted was the one offered by Ms. C. of RS. Employing common sense, it seems more likely that Linda’s copy would be the valid copy because she is the party who served the subpoena, but the court’s wisdom found the opposite to be true. It is very clear how Linda could conclude that there was a problem with collusion, especially when the decision turned on how many boxes were checked because those were the words and phrases used by J.S. when he claimed he did not have to appear. Stahl,[87] an expert on custody evaluations, cites the use of similar or identical words and phrases by the children and the alienating parent as a cardinal sign of severe Parent Alienation Syndrome. After this hearing, which was continued to May 28, 1999, Linda was issued a permanent no contact order. She has not seen nor heard from her child since. It is apparent that Linda is being alienated from her child. The identity of the perpetrator of the alienation is less clear.

3. Dr. Lohr’s Third Custody Evaluation

Lohr was ordered by the court to implement a reunification plan, but instead she submitted a report captioned "Custody Evaluation" dated January 22, 1999. Lohr’s report claimed that the child did not want to have any contact with his mother because she "gave him that puppy dog look." She also noted "(The teen) also felt that several of the supervisors had not protected him from things his mother had said or done which made him very uncomfortable." Lohr documented Lyle’s arrest and claimed the child reported that "his mother took pleasure in the policemen’s treatment of his father(the child) does not trust his mother and wants relief from the stressful contacts with her. It is clear that (the child) is very angry and worn out from five years of stress over the ongoing tension."

Linda saw Lohr twice under the guise of participating in a "reunification plan." Lohr insisted repeatedly that there was only one monitor the child wanted.[88] Lohr’s report portrayed Linda as paranoid because Linda thinks Lyle is alienating the child from her.[89] She opined "I find no evidence that Lyle has alienated the child from his mother(Linda) presents as obsessed with the mission of regaining her son"

Analysis

Lohr’s opinion looks very much like she is projecting blame for Lyle’s behavior onto Linda and minimizing the magnitude of Lyle’s bad acts. These are the typical behaviors of stalkers[90] and batterers.[91] The string of police reports that culminated in Lyle’s arrest suggest that Lyle is alienating the child from Linda because they were made in response to his frustration of Linda’s visitation.[92] The majority of the supervised monitors’ declarations support that analysis. Linda’s perception that some of the professionals have not been honest is based on the evidence. Lohr’s report portrays Linda as paranoid. Paranoia, however, does not preclude the possibility of pursuit. Lohr knew Lyle was arrested, but it cannot be ascertained whether she saw the monitors’ declarations or knew about the numerous police reports. Because Lyle is an abandoned batterer, he is likely to be obsessed.[93] Lohr finds Linda to be obsessed. If Linda is obsessed with gaining access to her child, her obsession, arguably, is within normal limits because it is normal for parents to want to know their children. The obsessions of abandoned abusers[94] and stalkers[95] are pathological, but the finding of pathology is projected onto Linda. Lohr has taken on the role of the batterer or the stalker. [96], [97]

The diagnosis of Parent Alienation Syndrome is made when one parent, usually the custodial parent, psychologically manipulates a child to turn the child against the other parent, usually the non-custodial parent.[98] It is notable that Lohr and the ‘preferred’ supervised monitor used the same language to report the child’s reason for not wanting to see his mother: puppy dog eyes. She and the ‘preferred’ monitor make reference to protecting the child from anything Linda might say or do that might make the teen uncomfortable. As noted above, Stahl[99] claims that when conducting custody evaluations, severe cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome are likely in families where the alienating parent and the children use "nearly identical" words and phrases to explain their complaints about the alienated parent. This pattern repeats itself in these vignettes as to the subpoena issue and here in the language used by the ‘preferred’ monitor and Dr. Lohr. If common sense dictates, the use of identical or similar words and phrases could simply reflect the telling of the truth, as in corroborating testimony. Stahl does not acknowledge that and offers no advice as to how to distinguish one situation from the other.

Finally, there seems to be a pattern of justifying any recommendation by claiming the recommendation is based on the child’s preference. In the "reunification" session, Lohr insisted repeatedly that the boy only liked one monitor, and it would be incumbent on any good parent to accommodate that wish. In Lohr’s report she said "there was no indication that (Linda) could perceive her contact with (the boy) from his perspective nor that she cared how (he) felt about the monitors." Ms. L.P. was one of the monitors whose declaration was consistent with the police reports and, therefore, was unfavorable to Lyle. In a letter from the guardian ad litem dated November 19, 1998: "It is Dr. Lohr’s request that a supervisor other than Ms. L.P. supervise the visitation Dr. Lohr reports Ms. P.M. is very appropriate for the task. Dr. Lohr reports that Ms. L.P. has not been appropriate as a supervisor based upon comments made by (the teen) to Dr. Lohr." However, Lohr’s report stated her first visit with the child was December, 1998, which suggests she had not yet met with him when the guardian ad litem wrote the letter in November.

4. Judicial Discretion

The law affords wide discretion to the court in custody matters.[100] A law journal article reported that the Commissioner who presided over this case exercises her discretion in cases of protracted litigation by assigning sole custody to the party who is causing the problem.[101] Seemingly, the Commissioner’s objective is to quell litigation. However, in this case, Linda’s permanent no contact order has not eliminated the litigation. She is summoned to court incessantly, often on an ex parte basis. The court entertains these repetitive appearances. On June 8, 2000 in an ex parte hearing, the guardian ad litem asked the court to order Lyle to pay Linda’s share of his fees. He suggested that the court could then allow Lyle to appear before the court and get an order to modify his $400.00 per month spousal support order to offset his payment of Linda’s share of the guardian ad litem’s fees. The guardian ad litem argued that this would be reasonable because he elected to ignore the minor’s counsel statute. Instead, he used a legion of mental health professionals who made many reports and appearances.[102] The findings after hearing show that Lyle had $566,651.00 in attorney’s fees.[103] Fees outstanding for the guardian ad litem were $34,607.00.[104] The court further found that Linda was at fault for the protracted litigation because she filed one motion for custody, and therefore, the court granted the guardian ad litem’s motion.

Analysis

The court has taken the role of the batterer/stalker in that it is projecting blame onto Linda for events over which she had no control.[105], [106] The court’s findings projected blame on Linda for the protracted litigation in contrast to the facts. The law journal article indicates that the Commissioner may have known custody would ultimately go to Lyle but failed to implement her plan early before so much expense had been generated. If the Commissioner’s objective is quelling litigation, it did not work in this case. It is hard to imagine an approach more likely to incite litigation than to award sole custody to the party causing the problem because most parents are highly motivated to know their children and would therefore be likely to fight an unfair, arguably illegal order. Additionally, the court allowed the guardian ad litem to ignore the minor’s counsel statute, tacitly sanctioning the increased litigation he created.[107] However, the court found that the two appearances pursuant to Linda’s attempt to gain access to her child frustrated the policy of law to promote settlement.[108] Moreover, there is an external appearance that the child may have been used as a commodity in light of the fact that substantial fees were generated in the course of incrementally eliminating Linda from the child’s life.

The order of the court also suggests a retaliatory motive. There is a typographical error because the court made reference to actions taken by (Linda) after October 22, 2000 which frustrated the policy of law to encourage settlement, however, the order was issued in August, 2000.[109] Linda filed her custody action in January, 1999. However, Linda declared bankruptcy in late October of 1998. The court found justice in allowing Lyle to pay the $400.00 per month in spousal support to the guardian ad litem, instead of paying Linda, if Lyle so chooses. This order looks like the symbolic promise of consequences for defiant behavior that is common in battering relationships.[110] By filing bankruptcy, Linda exposed the case to ‘outsiders’ in the Federal Bankruptcy Court. Batterers typically expect the battered mate to keep the family’s secrets.[111]

This motion by the guardian ad litem takes the power transfer analysis to a higher level than seen previously. The transfer of power to the professionals is real. Lyle is destroying himself and Linda financially because he cannot free himself from his obsession.[112] However, the guardian ad litem got an order that may preclude his payment of a lump sum out of the bankruptcy, for which he is a priority because he is a court appointed attorney. Instead, he will get $400.00 per month. His balance due is $34,607.00. His motion, which was granted, has a negative impact on him economically, but it destroys Linda financially. The guardian ad litem, who milked Lyle’s pathological personality to his economic advantage appears to have become overcome by his own obsession to harm Linda for her defiance of his authority in complaining to the State Bar. The appearance of this new development mimics contagion.

Lyle’s Role

An obsessed individual would be easy to bait.[113], [114], [115], [116] The court appointed a Special Master to assist with Discovery. Linda objected because Lyle had a prior relationship with the attorney, Mr. Henpecker. The court overruled her objection after Lyle claimed "I don’t know who he is, no, ma’am." In the same hearing, the court admonished Lyle "Are you happy spending all this money on attorney’s fees, Lyle?" Lyle responded "I can’t stop it." The court: "You’re not happy doing it, though. But if you want to spend your equity in your house on litigation, then there’s not much the court can do about it other than to appoint a Special Master to try to get to the bottom of the discovery problem." Lyle is the owner of a corporation. Linda was a homemaker. The Discovery Master, Henpecker, deposed Linda, but did not depose Lyle. Henpecker was paid a retainer of $2,000.00 out of community funds.

Analysis

Dutton[117] and Meloy[118] recognize obsessive thinking in the batterer and the stalker respectively. Lyle said he could not stop the litigation. He is not in control, suggesting that the litigation process is a function of obsessive thinking.[119] The court taunted him because he was not happy spending his money on litigation. Considering the fact that Lyle’s thoughts are unwelcome and uncontrollable, the court’s comments are rather cruel. Lyle has taken on the role of the battered person. Then, Lyle was given a symbolic advantage which constitutes power over Linda in overruling her objection. Whether deliberate or fortuitous, Lyle was baited to continue litigating. If studies show that this is indeed how litigation is sustained, then, arguably, the children of divorce are not pawns at all.[120] They are bait.[121] The distinguishing feature is the locus of control.

Overall Analysis

As seen in Linda v. Lyle, protracted litigation preserves the tie. The best interest standard creates an Ideal forum in which to destroy the opponent.[122] However, what is less clear is who, exactly, is perpetrating the abuse. Because Linda is destitute, her power in court is limited or absent because in any litigation, money is power.[123] Therefore, the high conflict analysis does not apply because there is a power differential.[124] Furthermore, she is a pro per litigant facing two attorneys. Yet, all involved blame Linda. In unison they recite the mantra common to batterers and stalkers: "It’s all her fault."[125], [126] This would serve to gratify[127] the delusions common to batterers and stalkers immensely because it projects blame on Linda and minimizes Lyle’s role in the events.[128] Lyle’s projection of blame on Linda is a predictable feature of the batterer’s personality, especially when abandoned.[129]

However, it is more difficult to explain the blame projected on Linda from other sources. The court blamed her for the protracted litigation because she attempted to reestablish a relationship with her child. The custody evaluator and the therapist blamed Linda. The supervised monitors who failed to blame Linda were removed. The custody evaluator claimed the child blamed Linda.

However, in a CPS report dated January 9, 1998, the reporter describes a somber child who said "I want to see my mom. I haven’t seen her in awhile." The report includes this: "(The child) stated he had thought he would get to see his mother more often ‘that’s what my lawyer told me but it’s not true.’" If this child told anyone he did not want to see his mother, perhaps it is because children of high conflict divorce, like battered women,[130] say whatever they need to say to keep the peace. [131]

Looking at the totality of Linda v. Lyle, this case is a 16 volume example of iatrogenic intervention in a domestic violence case. Furthermore, it may be that Lyle held power in the beginning when his obsessive thinking served a defensive purpose.[132] If money is power, a substantial amount of his power has been transferred to the professionals. In assigning the Discovery Master, the order was justified "to get to the bottom of the discovery problem." The language mimics the words used by Jordan, et al.[133] in discussing two stalkers in the movies ("reel stalker") who justified their escalating stalking behavior because they were "trying to get to the bottom of a mystery." However, in real life, the words were spoken not by the stalker, but by the court. The constellation of findings in Linda v. Lyle suggest pathology that is external to the litigants which does not support the high conflict assumptions. Moreover, predicating intervention on the premise that both parties are equally culpable demands ongoing assessment and adjudication.[134] Therefore, conflict is proportional to revenue for the professionals who use that analysis.[135]

Part III: The Safeguards

Americans may believe they enjoy substantial consumer protection. However, looking at the professionals involved in Linda v. Lyle, it is apparent that there is essentially no regulation whatsoever. When Linda complained to the State Bar about the guardian ad litem, she felt she suffered the retaliatory theft of her child. However, even if the State Bar does act on her renewed complaint, the process of disciplining an attorney is protracted and offers no interim protection. For example, the last time the guardian ad litem was disciplined,[136] which was in 1992, it was for embezzling clients’ funds in 1984, 1986 and 1987. Moreover, his penalty was a public reproval, which is a mere slap on the hand. Linda’s complaint alleged collusion. In light of the fact that the actual reason for the supervised visitation is secret, she may be right. The child will be an adult before the State Bar can make that determination.

The mental health professionals are immune to civil liability because they are conferred with quasi-judicial immunity.[137]Linda complained to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS). Her complaint was that Rex violated the Penal Code in that he did not make a CPS report. The BBS responded "you should address any concerns regarding his opinion with the court."[138] His opinion was not the subject of her complaint.

The Board of Psychology (BOP) provides a Consumer Complaint Information form to prospective complainants. It explains that the BOP has no authority over licensees appointed by the court because "the family court system contains a number of checks and balances."[139] However, the system of "checks and balances" is between, not within, the branches of government and the purpose is to guarantee separation of powers to prevent tyranny. [140]

The Commission on Judicial Performance regulates the judiciary in California.[141] From 1988 to 1997, there were 9728 complaints. The penalties for disregard of the law include issuing an advisory letter (378 issued) or a public (27 issued) or private admonishment (86 issued).[142] In the Family Court arena, this is not adequate protection because the licensing boards have ceded executive branch authority to the judiciary. If the bench can also ignore the law, thereby eliminating the legislative branch’s balance of power, what is left defines tyranny: all power in one branch. [143]

Part IV: Conclusion

There is an argument that Linda is being stalked. She is the target of a constellation of behaviors that are unwelcome and intrusive that instill fear and concern. Based on one narrative, no proof exists that this type of stalking accounts for all protracted litigation. However, some problems are clear.

Professionals must be regulated to protect consumers. An immediate remedy to the lack of regulation is imperative. Additionally, regardless of the etiology of protracted litigation, a change in the funding structure may promote self-regulation by the courts.

A funding structure based on the managed health care model might be effective. In the health care model, populations are capitated[144] which means the provider of care is paid a fixed fee per member per month.[145] To apply the model to family court funding, the capitation could be based on the divorce rate. If the courts were funded per divorce per year, and it was incumbent upon the court to manage the funds efficiently, decisions that foster litigation would negatively impact the judges’ compensation, thus promoting self-regulation. [146]

The divorce process shares fundamental similarities to the traditional indemnity insurance that the managed care programs replaced. Those features include 1) all decisions about family court intervention are made by a group of professionals who enjoy autonomy and wide discretion;[147] 2) the revenue to those professionals is directly proportional to the interventions they deem appropriate;[148] 3) access is bimodal in that the wealthy enjoy free access and programs exist for the indigent, like Legal Aid . [149] However, working poor and the middle class have limited access or no access at all.[150] Currently, in Family Court, a litigant like Linda can be financially destroyed very quickly by a wealthy adversary.[151]

A comprehensive resolution cannot be formulated until the problem is identified. Studies that examine these cases for the presence of the known traits of batterers and stalkers may illuminate the actual mechanisms integral to intractable litigation.

"it is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance." Franz Kafka, The Trial[152], [153], [154]

[1] -See generally Thomas Schact, Prevention Strategies to Protect Professionals and Families Involved in High Conflict Divorce, 22 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 565 (2000); David Doolittle &Robin Deutsch, Children and High Conflict Divorce: Theory, Research, and Intervention, in The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions 425 (Ed. Robert M. Galatzer-Levy &Louis Kraus, 1999); H. Patrick Stern, et al., Battered Child Syndrome: Is It a Paradigm for a Child of Embattled Divorce? 22 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 335 (2000).

[2] -See generally Merritt McKeon, The Impact of Domestic Violence on Child Custody, 19 Whittier L. Rev. 459 (1998); James Ptacek, The Tactics and Strategies of Men Who Batter, in Violence Between Intimate Partners; Patterns, Causes, and Effects 117 (Albert P. Cardarelli, Ed., 1997); Lenore E. Walker &J. ReReid Meloy, Stalking and Domestic Violence, in The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives 139-161 (J. ReReid Meloy, ed., 1998).

[3] -See Ptacek, Supra note 1 at 122. Noting the ritualized patterns in domestic violence. Arguably, Family Court litigation is as ritualized as organized religion.

[4] -See Walker &Meloy Supra note 2 at 156. (Citing DavDavid Sonkin, Domestic Violence: The Perpetrator Assessment Handbook (1997)) Citing frivolous litigation as a tactic in perpetrating abuse.

[5] -See Mary Curran-Downey, Taking Tots Back Home, The San Diego Union-Tribune, April 1, 1996 at B-1. Reporting about the District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit, but failed to mention the case was a domestic violence case. Mother was in compliance with the visitation order, and father refused to return the child. Mother did nothing wrong. But the report included this quote: "This isn’t a case of whether or not the child is going to be murdered," said Ed Sousek, criminal investigator for the District Attorney’s Office. "This is a battle between the parents, and the kids are the pawns." This analysis is flawed because one party was not cooperative, and one party was cooperative. That does not describe a battle, which assumes equal culpability.

[6] Darrah Westrup, Applying Functional Analysis to Stalking Behavior, in The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives 276 (J. ReReid Meloy, ed., 1998).

[7] David Hyman, Lies, Damned Lies, and Narratives, 73 Ind. L. J. 797 (1998) (quoting Edith Greene, A Love-Hate Relationship, 18 Just. Sys. J. 99, 100 (1995) emphasis original.

[8] Westrup, Supra note 6 at 276.

[9] Walker &Meloy Supra note 2 at 139-159.

[10] Donald G. Dutton, The Domestic Assault of Women; Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives 190 (UBC Press, 1995).

[11] Doolittle &Deutsch, Supra note 1 at 425.

[12] Kristine K. Kienlen, Antecedents of Stalking, in The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives 56 (J. Reid Meloy, ed., 1998).

[13] Donald Dutton &Susan Golant, The Batterer; A Psychological Profile 113-116 (1995).

[14] Kienlen, Supra note 12 at 56.

[15] Id.

[16] Reid Meloy, Psychology of Stalking, in The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives 19 (J. Reid Meloy, ed., 1998).

[17] Donald Dutton, The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships 143 (1998).

[18] Kienlen, Supra note 12 at 56.

[19] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 19.

[20] Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome 57 (1979).

[21] Dutton, Supra note 18 at 56.

[22] Walker &Meloy, Supra note 2 at 139-59.

[23] Dutton, Supra note 17 at 116.

[24] Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 86-90.

[25] -See Karla Fischer, et al., The Culture of Battering and the Role of Mediation in Domestic Violence Cases, in Domestic Violence Law; A comprehensive Overview of Cases and Sources 89 (Nancy K.D. Lemon, ed., 1996).

[26] -See Walker &Meloy, Supra note 2 at 142. Citing the fact that shunned batterers may hire others to monitor or harass the abandoning mate.

[27] Id. at 142-45.

[28] Id. at 141.

[29] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 13.

[30] -See Donald Dutton, The Abusive Personality 55 (1998). Citing rumination, or "playing the bitch tape" in batterers.

[31] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 13.

[32] -See Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 14-17.

[33] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 13.

[34] Id. at 6.

[35] Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 104-105.

[36] Carol E Jordan, et al., Stalking: Cultural, Clinical And Legal Considerations, 38 Brandeis L.J. 513 (2000).

[37] -See Doris M. Hall, Victims of Stalking, in The Psychology of Stalking; Clinical and Forensic Perspectives 132-33 (J. Reid Meloy, ed.,1998). Referring to symbolic behavior as "gestures."

[38] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 88.

[39] Id. at 86.

[40] Hall, Supra note 37 at 133.

[41] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 90-95.

[42] Ptacek, Supra note 2 at 112-123.

[43] Hall, Supra note 37 at 121.

[44] -See also Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear 198 (1997).

[45] -See Walker, Supra note 20 at 37.

[46] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 91.

[47] Schact, Supra note 1 at 56.

[48] See generally, Supra note 1.

[49] Doolittle &Deutsch, Supra note 1 at 429.

[50] Walker &Meloy, Supra note 2 at 141.

[51] Doolittle &Deutsch, Supra note 1 at 425.

[52] Walker &Meloy, Supra note 2 at 139-161.

[53] Schact, Supra note 1 at 565.

[54] The Harvard Law Review Association, Developments In The Law — Legal Responses To Domestic Violence: VI. Battered Women And Child Custody Decisionmaking, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1597 (1993).

[55] Jordan, et al., Supra note 36 at 513.

[56] -See Doolittle &Deutsch, Supra note 1 at 425. Identifying the reason for high-conflict divorce as the failure of the two parents to come to a resolution. The assumption of an equal power balance is implicit and can be illustrated by applying that analysis to a situation that has an inherent power imbalance. For instance, an elderly woman and her armed assailant would not be described as failing to come to a resolution.

[57] See Dutton, Supra note 10 at 190.

[58] -See generally Supra note 1.

[59] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 87-88.

[60] Id.

[61] Id.

[62] Kienlen, Supra note 12 at 56. Describing stalkers.

[63] Dutton, Supra note 17 at 131-34. Describing batterers.

[64] William L. Tabac, Give Them a Sword: Representing a Parent in a Child Custody Case, 28 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 267(1996).

[65] Cal. Fam. Code § 4055(b)(D) (Deering 1994).

[66] All case material (declarations, letters, police reports, evaluations, audio recording and transcripts) on file with the author. The names have been changed.

[67] -But see Philip M. Stahl, Conducting Child Custody Evaluations 14 (1994). In discussing the role of the child’s therapist "she needs to be clear that she will be providing treatment to the child, not providing information to be used in a custody dispute."

[68] Letter dated June 5, 1998: "As you know, yesterday we had a closed hearing in which testimony was received from Rex. The hearing was brought by (the guardian ad litem) for the purpose of receiving a recommendation from the therapist to address the purported change in (the child’s) behavior over the last two months. While I am still prohibited from disclosing the testimony to you as it was agreed to remain confidential, I can tell you that the testimony was unfavorable to you and the recommendations of Rex were to essentially decrease and limit your contact with (your child)."

[69] Bob Egelko, Governor Says Plan Will Help State Bar: Low Funds Leave Group Few Choices, The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30, 1998 at A-3.

[70] Billing entries: 3/2/98 Transcribe letter to State Bar. 3/10/98 transcribe and mail second letter to State Bar re the case. 3/19/98 Transcribe letter to State bar. (Linda’s Decl. Ex. k, 1-23-99)

[71] In re (The guardian ad litem) case # 87 0 14493, filed February 13, 1990. State Bar Court, Los Angeles, CA. Public reproval issued in May 1992.

[72] See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1982) (elevating the standard of proof of unfitness to clear and convincing if the state seeks to impose upon parental autonomy). While the state does assume more authority in divorce, ordering supervised visitation in a secret ex partehearing exceeds that authority. See infra note 74.

[73] 2 Ronald D. Rotunda &John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure 104 (1999).

[74] San Diego Superior Court Rules, Division V: Family Law, Chapter 3 Ex Parte Matters, Rule 3.15 available in www.sddt.com.

[75] Cal. Penal Code § 11165.8 (West 2000).

[76] Letter dated June 5, 1998, Supra note 68.

[77] Billing entries, Supra note 70.

[78] Billing statement dated January 30, 1998 had blacked out entries. In a hearing, Lyle’s attorney gave Linda an unadulterated copy of the bill. The underlined portions are the blacked out portions: "1/15/98 Telephone conversation with (Lyle’s) atty re: CPS investigator and report, and OSC date. Preparation of memo to staff re: CPS investigation." (Linda’s Decl. Ex. K, 1-23-99)

[79] Dutton, Supra note 17 at 51, 54.

[80] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 92-95.

[81] Hall, Supra note 37 at 133.

[82] A sample of police reports in the case file are dated 11/29/98, 1/6/99: Linda ppaid the monitor, then Lyle never showed up. 12/7/98 "Ms. L.P. (supervised monitor) said she went to Lyle’s vehicle to get the boy and Lyle asked her why the monitor was not there. He told her she was not supposed to be doing the visitation because (the child) did not want her to do it. Ms. L.P. said (the boy) was in the truck with Lyle and (the boy) got a puzzled look on his face when Lyle said (the boy) did not want her to be the monitor. Ms. L. P. said Lyle then drove away with the child." The officer’s follow up entry was that Lyle had not returned any of his calls. (Linda’s Decl. Ex. E, 1-23-99)

[83] The monitor who blamed Linda (Ms. P.M.) included this passage in her declaration: "Right before the first visit, (the boy) shared with me that he did not like visiting with his mother. When I asked him why, he told me he hated it when she looked at him with puppy-dog eyes. I told (him) to stay close to me, and if she says anything that makes him feel uncomfortable, let me know."

[84] This report was given to the author on the same day that Linda had this conversation with J.S.

[85] The trial transcript includes this passage: (4-15-99 p. 52, line 27) THE COURT: But the problem is, the subpoena that was served, it was served on apparently someone named J.S. and it was a subpoena to RS, ordered to appear in person, and then there’s another box checked on there that said appear in person and produce records, and the one that (Linda is) providing me with, which is also signed by J.S., is a completely different subpoena as far as who it’s directing to do what. So, Ms. C. is properly appearing on behalf of RS.

[86] Id.

[87] Philip Stahl, Complex Issues in Child Custody Evaluations 4 (1999).

[88] This session was recorded with Lohr’s permission. Original recording on file with the author.

[89] From Dr. Lohr’s January 26, 1999 custody evaluation: "(Linda) accuses the father of alienating the child from her and blames the attorneys and this examiner for her loss of custody of her son. She stated that the child had been removed from her custody and her visitation restricted for reasons that had never been explained to her. She stated that all the professionals in this matter, the attorneys, (therapist) Rex and this examiner are liars.In all of my contacts with Linda from October – December 1998 she seemed to be out of touch with the realities of the current situation."

[90] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 13.

[91] Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 104-105.

[92] Police reports, Supra note 82.

[93] Dutton, Supra note 17 at 55.

[94] Id.

[95] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 19.

[96] Id., at 6.

[97] Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 104-105.

[98] Stahl, Supra note 87 at 104-05.

[99] Id.

[100] Tabac, Supra note 64 at 275.

[101] Marlene Stanger, (The Name of This Commissioner), San Diego Journal of Law, December, 1997 at 1.

[102] Transcript on file with the author. (June 8, 2000 p. 27, l 6-16, p. 28, line 3). GUARDIAN AD LITEM: "She has no funds. Minor’s counsel should be paid. In this case to go from an 80% time share with mom to 100% time share with dad and all the various hearings we have had I disagree with the minor’s counsel statute where minor’s counsel give reports, so what I did was (he describes all the therapists and interventions employed to make that change and names the many experts who testified and how many times they testified). It was an extraordinary case. It was devastating in its harm to (the child), but there is now a protective order"

[103] -See Briggs Adams, Altman Survey Says Law Firms Are Rebounding, Chicago Lawyer Volume 18, Number 8, August 1995 at 71. Citing the median annual income for Family Law attorneys as $141,000.00. The court does not detail during what time frame the $566,651.00 accumulated. Assuming the fees accrued over the entire 6 years of litigation, Respondent’s attorney would have earned nearly $95,000.00 per year on just this one case.

[104] The court does not offer details about the balance due to guardian ad litem, but he appeared in an effort to get the one half owed by Linda. If $34,607.00 represents one half, his total bill is $69,214.00. He was assigned guardian ad litem in February, 1997, and Linda has had a no contact order since May, 1999 and there have been no matters before the court concerning the child since then. That is 27 months of representation, or $2,563.00 monthly.

[105] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 6.

[106] Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 104-105.

[107] Transcript of hearing, Supra note 102.

[108] The court reserved judgment, then, in August, 2000 issued these findings in regard to the June 8, 2000 hearing: "The actions taken by the Petitioner (Linda), after October 22, 2000 (sic), in contesting the issue of custody, frustrated the policy of the law to promote settlement and thereby increased the cost of litigation.A party shall have the right of reimbursement and indemnification against the other party as to one-half of the fees and costs awarded herein that are actually paid to Minor’s counsel."

[109] Id.

[110] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 92-94.

[111] Id. at 88.

[112] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 19.

[113] -See Dutton, Supra note 30 at 36. Citing "intermittent reward schedules" as the most effective in shaping learned behavior.

[114] -See also Westrup, Supra note 2 at 282. Citing reinforcement (positive or negative) as a tool in strengthening behavior and promoting the likelihood that the same behavior will occur in the future.

[115] -See also Meloy, Supra note 16 at 13. "Obsessions are behaviorally maintained because they are positively reinforced (in stalking, for example, intermittent contact with the victim results from a relentless pursuit)"

[116] -See also Dutton & Golant, Supra note 13 at 57. Citing the lure of intermittent gratification, as in slot machines.

[117] Dutton, Supra note 30 at 55.

[118] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 19.

[119] Id. at 13.

[120] -See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 841 (2d, 1974). "Pawn: one of the chessmen of least value." The control is equally distributed, and limited to the players.

[121] -See Id. at 84. "Bait: something used in luring, esp. to a hook or trap." Here, one or more has control and one or more others do not.

[122] Tabac, Supra note 64 at 281.

[123] -See Linda J. Ravdin &Kelly J. Capps, Alternative Pricing of Legal Services in a Domestic Relations Practice: Choices and Ethical Considerations, 33 FAMLQ 416. Citing the added expense of litigation when there is an extreme imbalance of power between the spouses.

[124] Dutton, Supra note 10 at 190.

[125] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 6.

[126] Dutton &Gollant, Supra note 13 at 104-105.

[127] Supra notes 113-116.

[128] Supra notes 125, 126.

[129] Id.

[130] Fischer, et al., Supra note 23 at 92.

[131] Doolittle &Deutsch, Supra note 1 at 433.

[132] Meloy, Supra note 16 at 13.

[133] Jordan, et al., Supra note 36 at 520.

[134] Stahl, Supra note 87 at 96.

[135] -See Linda J. Ravdin &Kelly J. Capps, Supra note 123 at 388. Citing the conflict of interest between the client’s interest and the attorney’s interest inherent in the hourly fee schedule. "Quick Resolution v. Lengthy Representation." This conflict would apply to all professionals who bill hourly for services in divorce matters.

[136] In re (guardian ad litem), Supra note 71.

[137] Stahl, Supra note 87 at 190.

[138] See Hornung v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (2000). Holding that the the Superior Court did not have the authority to inquire into the decision making process of a quasi-judicial officer citing U.S. v. Morgan 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941). Holding that the Secretary of Agriculture could not be called as a witness and questioned "regarding the process by which he reached (his) conclusions. Just as a judge cannot be subjected to such scrutiny." If this rule of law applies in Family Court, arguably, the custody evaluators have more power than the judges because they would not submit to any scrutiny of any kind.

[139] Consumer Complaint Information available through the Medical Board of California, 1426 Howe Ave. Suite 54, Sacramento, CA 95825-3236.

[140] Karen O’Connor &Larry j. Sabato, American Government; Continuity and Change 56-57 (3rd ed., 1997).

[141] Robert C. Bonner, et al., State of California Commission on Judicial Performance; 1997 Annual Report (1997).

[142] Id. 81.

[143] Black’s Law Dictionary 1689 (4th ed. 1968).

[144] Carroll Estes, et al., The Medical-Industrial Complex, in Health Policy and Nursing: Crisis and Reform in the U.S. Health Care Delivery System 57 (Charlene Harrington &Carroll L. Estes, eds., 1994).

[145] Id.

[146] The scope of this note reaches only so far as to point out the similarities between health care under the traditional indemnity insurance and Family Court litigation. The details of this potential funding structure have not be explored.

[147] Carroll Estes, Introduction, in Health Policy and Nursing: Crisis and Reform in the U.S. Health Care Delivery System xi-xiv (Charlene Harrington &Carroll L. Estes, eds., 1994).

[148] Id. Citing increased restraints applied to physicians in their decision-making.

[149] -See Karen Davis, Inequality and Access to Health Care, in Health Policy and Nursing: Crisis and Reform in the U.S. Health Care Delivery System 359-371 (Charlene Harrington &Carroll L. Estes, eds., 1994).

[150] Id.

[151] See Ravdin &Capps Supra note 123 at 416. Citing the added expense of litigation when there is an extreme imbalance of power between the spouses.

[152] Franz Kafka, The Trial 62 (Willa &Edwin Muir and E.M. Butler, trans., 21st printing, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1978).

[153] Dictionary of Literature, Brockhampton Reference 119 (Geddes &Grosset Ltd, New Lanark, Scotland, 1995). Noting that Kafka’s characters are often trapped in bureaucratic totalitarianism.

[154] See also Stahl Supra note 67 at 143. Explaining that the custody evaluation, which relegates the unlucky parent to the role of visitor, perhaps at best, is released only to the attorneys and not to the litigants because "it is a violation of confIdentiality for the parents to have a copy of the report."

WordPress Tags: High,Conflict,Divorce,Court,Empowerment,Wealthy,Abuser,Litigation,Linda,Lyle,Case,Study,Sutherland,Table,Contents,Author,Notes,Citation,Introduction,Definition,Terms,Part,Batterers,Stalkers,Analysis,Overview,Focus,Loss,Parental,Rights,Role,Overall,Conclusion,Fourth,Diego,Dedication,children,Damien,Lisa,Massachusetts,Journal,coverage,Blame,cases,Domestic,agenda,assertion,dominion,interpretation,features,relationships,behavior,article,manifestation,literature,anecdote,data,purpose,narrative,forum,separation,consumer,protection,proposal,Westrup,constellation,Walker,Meloy,violence,woman,life,differential,relationship,Here,tools,Doolittle,Deutsch,attachment,Fearful,self,image,individuals,pursuit,rejection,abandonment,Anger,coercion,significance,secrecy,Obsessive,context,victim,Jordan,stalker,escalation,bottom,symbols,consequences,reports,Retaliation,lesson,instance,findings,actions,spouse,descriptions,period,moniker,population,comparison,word,zero,example,Fischer,unit,culture,communication,needs,desperation,custody,interests,opponent,theme,Child,Protective,Services,respite,orders,times,retirement,health,insurance,Prospects,employment,situation,Lohr,January,evaluation,Visitation,appointment,guardian,Clinical,Social,Worker,therapist,spite,objection,therapy,Victims,Crime,father,Instead,letter,attorney,basis,deposition,fees,motive,transcript,June,State,California,brink,bankruptcy,Pete,Wilson,statement,investigation,complaint,March,embezzlement,clients,office,hall,parent,degree,imposition,supervision,requirement,interference,history,existence,workers,reporters,Penal,Code,testimony,allegation,response,litigant,treatment,threats,measures,room,problems,event,Motion,Modification,refusal,restaurant,Most,collusion,declaration,frustration,agreement,Respondent,employee,supervisor,custodian,records,Both,wisdom,decision,words,Stahl,Alienation,Syndrome,perpetrator,Third,relief,contacts,tension,guise,mission,opinion,magnitude,perception,Paranoia,obsession,diagnosis,language,reference,truth,advice,recommendation,preference,session,indication,perspective,November,task,comments,December,Judicial,Discretion,Commissioner,payment,statute,legion,events,expense,policy,settlement,Moreover,appearance,fact,error,October,August,action,justice,Federal,impact,advantage,defiance,development,contagion,Special,Master,Discovery,Henpecker,money,owner,corporation,retainer,Dutton,person,Whether,unison,mantra,projection,evaluator,reporter,haven,lawyer,peace,intervention,premise,demands,assessment,adjudication,Americans,regulation,theft,determination,Board,Behavioral,Sciences,subject,Psychology,Information,system,branches,government,tyranny,Commission,Performance,judiciary,From,admonishment,arena,bench,argument,consumers,courts,provider,member,judges,compensation,autonomy,Legal,adversary,traits,innocence,ignorance,Franz,Kafka,Trial,Thomas,Schact,Prevention,Protect,Little,Rock,David,Robin,Theory,Research,Scientific,Robert,Galatzer,Levy,Louis,Kraus,Patrick,Stern,Paradigm,Merritt,McKeon,Whittier,James,Ptacek,Tactics,Batter,Intimate,Partners,Effects,Albert,Cardarelli,ReReid,Forensic,Supra,religion,DavDavid,Sonkin,Handbook,tactic,Mary,Curran,Downey,Back,Home,Union,Tribune,April,District,Abduction,Mother,compliance,Sousek,investigator,kids,Darrah,Functional,Hyman,Lies,Edith,Greene,Love,Hate,Just,emphasis,Donald,Assault,Women,Psychological,Criminal,Kristine,Kienlen,Antecedents,Reid,Susan,Golant,Batterer,Profile,Abusive,Control,Gollant,Karla,Mediation,Nancy,Lemon,rumination,Carol,Cultural,Brandeis,Doris,Gavin,Becker,Gift,Fear,Harvard,Review,Association,Harv,failure,assumption,imbalance,assailant,William,Tabac,Give,Sword,sect,Philip,Egelko,Governor,Plan,Help,Funds,Leave,Group,Transcribe,Decl,February,Angeles,Public,Stanley,Illinois,Ronald,Rotunda,John,Nowak,Treatise,Constitutional,Substance,Procedure,Superior,Rules,Division,Chapter,Parte,Rule,West,conversation,Preparation,memo,vehicle,truck,officer,Complex,permission,Original,examiner,Police,Marlene,Stanger,Name,LITEM,Minor,Briggs,Adams,Altman,Survey,Chicago,Volume,Number,median,income,effort,representation,judgment,Petitioner,cost,reimbursement,reinforcement,tool,results,gratification,machines,Webster,Collegiate,Dictionary,Pawn,players,Bait,hook,Ravdin,Capps,Alternative,Relations,Practice,Ethical,FAMLQ,client,Quick,Resolution,Lengthy,Hornung,Morgan,Secretary,Agriculture,scrutiny,Medical,Howe,Suite,Sacramento,Karen,Connor,Larry,Sabato,American,Change,Bonner,Annual,Report,Black,Carroll,Estes,Industrial,Crisis,Reform,Care,Delivery,Charlene,Harrington,scope,restraints,Davis,Willa,Edwin,Muir,Butler,Knopf,York,Brockhampton,Geddes,Grosset,Lanark,Scotland,characters,totalitarianism,visitor,violation,Comparisons,delusions,protagonists,authors,analyses,commentators,articles,jurisdictions,appearances,evaluations,Allegations,responses,portions,declarations,supervisors,obsessions,complaints,outsiders,assumptions,decisions,interventions,mechanisms,Strategies,Developments,transcripts,recommendations,therapists,spouses,conclusions,physicians,parents,abusers,behaviors,itself,dynamics,sexual,interparental,litigants,populations,three,spousal,month,courtroom,months,custodial,reunification,psychologist,boxes,subpoena,puppy,pathological,pathology,himself,attorneys,reproval,quasi

BEWARE! IF YOUR CHILD IS AN “INDEPENDENT THINKER” THEY MAY HAVE “PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDER”

No Responses »
Jun 302010

Courtesy of RightsForMothers

CourtWhore I finally found the text of what Dr. William Bernet submitted for consideration for inclusion in the DSM-V, the diagnostic bible used by ethical psychologists/psychiatrists and Court Whores alike.   Dr. Bernet and some of the magical “50 professionals” (who all make a significant portion of their income promoting this) were recently at the Denver AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the father’s rights-leaning association for judges and court whores) conference and engaged in debate with Dr. Peter Jaffe and others about the so-called “parental alienation disorder.”  The text below came from that conference.

As one with multiple scientific degrees, I was very interested in seeing the proposal.  I found it to be more of a sales pitch instead of one scientifically driven.  What I found most laughable was on the diagnostic criteria it included “independent thinker phenomenon.”  Yes, it ACTUALLY says this towards the end.   How far out can these court whores reach to bizarro world?  What is scary is that if the DSM-V committee buys this drivel, the court whores and lawyers will be unleashed to destroy children and their families.

This proposal barely mentions that children may be come afraid of a parent because of the actions of that parent.  This includes seeing a parent abuse and beat the other parent, or maybe the child themselves.  The child may be sexually abused by a parent, therefore may not want to be alone with that parent.  Research has shown that the number one reason children refuse to visit a parent is because of the behavior of that parent.

The DSM-V has not been adopted at this point, nor is there any agreement that the following diagnosis should be added.


Proposed Text for Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-V

DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES

The essential feature of parental alienation disorder is that a child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict divorce – allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification. The primary behavioral symptom is the child’s resistance or refusal to have contact with the alienated parent (Criterion A).

The behaviors in the child that characterize parental alienation disorder include a persistent campaign of denigration against the alienated parent and weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations for the child’s criticism of the alienated parent (Criterion B).

The following clinical features frequently occur in parental alienation disorder, especially when the child’s symptoms reach a level that is moderate or severe (Criterion C). Lack of ambivalence refers to the child’s belief that the alienated parent is all bad and the preferred parent is all good. The independent-thinker phenomenon means that the child proudly states the decision to reject the alienated parent is his own, not influenced by the preferred parent. Reflexive support of the preferred parent against the alienated parent refers to the pattern of the child’s immediately and automatically taking the preferred parent’s side in a disagreement. The child may exhibit a disregard for the feelings of the alienated parent and an absence of guilt over exploitation of the alienated parent. The child may manifest borrowed scenarios, that is, rehearsed statements that are identical to those made by the preferred parent. Also, the child’s animosity toward the alienated parent may spread to that parent’s extended family.

The diagnosis of parental alienation disorder should not be used if the child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is justifiable, for example, if the child was neglected or abused by that parent (Criterion D).
ASSOCIATED FEATURES

Parental alienation disorder may be mild, moderate, or severe. When theparental alienation disorder is mild, the child may briefly resist contact with the alienated parent, but does have contact and enjoys a good relationship with the alienated parent once they are together.

When the parental alienation disorder is mild, the child may have a strong, healthy relationship with both parents, even though the child recites criticisms of the alienated parent.

When the parental alienation disorder is moderate, the child may persistently resist

contact with the alienated parent and will continue to complain and criticize the alienated parent during the contact. The child is likely to have a mildly to moderately pathological relationship with the preferred parent.

When the parental alienation disorder is severe, the child strongly and persistently resists contact and may hide or run away to avoid seeing the alienated parent. The child’s behavior is driven by a firmly held, false belief that the alienated parent is evil, dangerous, or worthless.  The child is likely to have a strong, severely pathological relationship with the preferred parent, perhaps sharing a paranoid worldview.

While the diagnosis of parental alienation disorder refers to the child, the preferred parent and other persons the child is dependent on may manifest the following attitudes and behaviors, which frequently are the major cause of the disorder: persistent criticisms of the rejected parent’s personal qualities and parenting activities; statements that influence the child to fear, dislike, and criticize the alienated parent; and various maneuvers to exclude the rejected parent from the child’s life. The behavior of the preferred parent may include complaints to the police and child protection agencies with allegations about the rejected parent.

Parental alienation disorder may be the basis for false allegations of sexual abuse against the alienated parent. The preferred parent may be litigious to the point of abusing the legal system. The preferred parent may violate court orders that are not to his or her liking. Specific psychological problems – narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, traumatic childhood experiences, and paranoid traits – may be identified in these individuals.  Also, the rejected parent may manifest the following attitudes and behaviors, which may be a minor or contributory cause of the disorder: lack of warm, involved parenting; deficient parenting skills; and lack of time dedicated to parenting activities. However, the intensity and duration of the child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is far out of proportion to the relatively minor weaknesses in the rejected parent’s parenting skills.

Although parental alienation disorder most often arises in the context of a child custody dispute between two parents, it can arise in other types of conflicts over child custody, such as a dispute between a parent and stepparent or between a parent and a grandparent. Sometimes, other family members – such as stepparents or grandparents – contribute to the creation of parental alienation disorder. On occasion, other individuals – such as therapists and child protection workers – contribute to the creation of parental alienation disorder by encouraging or supporting the child’s refusal to have contact with the alienated parent. Also, parental alienation disorder does not necessarily appear in the context of divorce litigation, but may occur in intact families or years following the divorce.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

It is common for children to resist or avoid contact with the noncustodial parent after the parents separate or divorce. There are several possible explanations for a child’s active rejection of contact. Parental alienation disorder is an important, but not the only, reason that children refuse contact.

In the course of normal development children will become polarized with one parent and then the other depending on the child’s developmental stage and events in the child’s life. When parents disagree, it is normal for children to experience loyalty conflicts. These transitory variationsin a child’s relationship with his or her parents do not meet criteria for parental alienation disorder because they do not constitute “a persistent rejection or denigration of a parent that reaches the level of a campaign.”

If the child actually was abused, neglected, or disliked by the noncustodial parent or the current boyfriend or girlfriend of that parent, the child’s animosity may be justified and it is understandable that the child would not want to visit the rejected parent’s household. If abuse were the reason for the child’s refusal, the diagnosis would be physical abuse of child or sexual abuse of child, not parental alienation disorder. This is important to keep in mind because an abusive, rejected parent may misuse the concept of parental alienation disorder in order to falsely blame the child’s refusal of contact on the parent that the child prefers. Inshared psychotic disorder, a delusional parent may influence a child to believe that the other parent is an evil person who must be feared and avoided. Inparental alienation disorder, the alienating parent may have very strong opinions about the alienated parent, but is not usually considered out of touch with reality.

When parents separate or divorce, a child with separation anxiety disorder may become even more worried and anxious about being away from the primary caretaker. In separation anxiety disorder, the child is preoccupied with unrealistic fears that something will happen to the primary caretaker, while the child with parental alienation disorder is preoccupied with unrealistic beliefs that the alienated parent is dangerous.

It is conceivable that a child with specific phobia, situational type, might have an unreasonable fear of a parent or some aspect of the parent’s household. A child with a specific phobia is unlikely to engage in a persistent campaign of denigration against the feared object, while the campaign of denigration is a central feature of parental alienation disorder.

When parents separate or divorce, a child with oppositional defiant disordermay become even more symptomatic – angry, resentful, stubborn – and not want to participate in the process of transitioning from one parent to the other. Inoppositional defiant disorder, the child is likely to be oppositional with both parents in a variety of contexts, while the child with parental alienation disorderis likely to focus his or her negativism on the proposed contact with the alienated parent and also to engage in the campaign of denigration of that parent.

When parents separate or divorce, a child may develop an adjustment disorderas a reaction to the various stressors related to the divorce including discord between the parents, the loss of a relationship with a parent, and the disruption of moving to a new neighborhood and school. A child with an adjustment disordermay have a variety of nonspecific symptoms including depression, anxious mood, and disruptive behaviors, while the child with parental alienation disordermanifests a specific cluster of symptoms including the campaign of denigration and weak, frivolous rationalizations for the child’s persistent criticism of the alienated parent.

Parent-child relational problem (a V-code) is the appropriate diagnosis if the focus of clinical attention is on the relationship between a child and his or her divorced parents, but the symptoms do not meet the criteria for a mental disorder. For example, a rebellious adolescent may not have a specific mental disorder, but may temporarily refuse to have contact with one parent even though both parents have encouraged him to do so and a court has ordered it. On the other hand,parental alienation disorder should be the diagnosis if the child’s symptoms are persistent enough and severe enough to meet the criteria for that disorder.

DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDER

A. The child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict divorce – allies himself or herself strongly with one parent and rejects a relationship with the other, alienated parent without legitimate justification. The child resists or refuses contact or parenting time with the alienated parent.

B. The child manifests the following behaviors:

  • a persistent rejection or denigration of a parent that reaches the level of a
  • campaign
  • weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations for the child’s persistent criticism of the rejected parent

C. The child manifests two or more of the following six attitudes and behaviors:

(1) lack of ambivalence

(2) independent-thinker phenomenon

(3) reflexive support of one parent against the other

(4) absence of guilt over exploitation of the rejected parent

(5) presence of borrowed scenarios

(6) spread of the animosity to the extended family of the rejected parent.

D. The duration of the disturbance is at least 2 months.

E. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social academic (occupational), or other important areas of functioning.

F. The child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is without legitimate justification. That is, parental alienation disorder is not diagnosed if the rejected parent maltreated the child.

WordPress Tags: BEWARE,CHILD,INDEPENDENT,THINKER,PARENTAL,ALIENATION,DISORDER,RightsForMothers,AMERICAN,PSYCHIATRIC,ASSOCIATION,PSYCHOLOGICAL,CUSTODY,BATTLE,CORRUPT,BASTARDS,EVALUATORS,DOMESTIC,VIOLENCE,PETER,JAFFE,RICHARD,GARDNER,WILLIAM,BERNET,NONCUSTODIAL,SYNDROME,PSYCHOLOGISTS,text,inclusion,Court,Whores,portion,income,Denver,AFCC,Conciliation,Courts,father,rights,judges,conference,proposal,phenomenon,world,committee,drivel,children,parent,actions,Research,behavior,agreement,diagnosis,DIAGNOSTIC,FEATURES,allies,rejects,relationship,justification,symptom,resistance,refusal,Criterion,denigration,criticism,Lack,belief,decision,Reflexive,disagreement,feelings,absence,guilt,exploitation,Also,example,persons,qualities,activities,maneuvers,life,protection,basis,system,orders,Specific,problems,borderline,traits,individuals,duration,proportion,Although,context,grandparent,Sometimes,creation,workers,litigation,DIFFERENTIAL,rejection,development,events,concept,person,separation,caretaker,fears,beliefs,phobia,aspect,adjustment,reaction,discord,disruption,depression,mood,code,attention,disturbance,impairment,FATHERS,EVALUATIONS,psychiatrists,degrees,sales,criteria,lawyers,symptoms,scenarios,statements,criticisms,attitudes,complaints,agencies,allegations,skills,members,therapists,explanations,opinions,contexts,areas,parents,himself,herself,behaviors,rationalizations,ambivalence,refers,pathological,sexual,oppositional

The Role of Good Fathers

1 Response »
Jun 152010

By Barry Goldstein

On Father’s Day it is traditional to praise the role of fathers and speak of “fathers’ rights.”  This is an altogether good and proper activity, but today I would instead like to discuss fathers’ responsibilities and the role of good fathers in ending domestic violence.   Domestic violence is usually viewed as a women’s issue, but as Joe Torre has said, it is really a man’s issue.

Good fathers want to make sure their daughters grow up safe from the risk of rape and assault.  They want to provide an example so their sons will never abuse their partners.  Simply refraining from assaulting, threatening or intimidating their partner is not enough.  Good fathers need to speak out against sexism because sexism is the cause of domestic violence.

When we hear someone tell a sexist joke, make comments suggesting the value of women has to do with her appearance or body parts, engage in blame the victim approaches or minimize the significance of domestic violence, good fathers can speak out and complain the remarks are offensive.  Words matter because they help create an atmosphere where the mistreatment of women is acceptable.  If a woman is only a (fill in the slur), it isn’t so serious if a man hurts her.  This attitude places our daughters, wives, sisters and mothers in jeopardy.

Recently, the news has included dozens of tragedies across the country in which men have killed their children, partner and others before killing themselves.  Some journalists have tried to make sense of this pattern of murder-suicide by looking at the economy, mental health issues, guns and disappointments.  In many of these cases there was a history of domestic violence and custody disputes.  Unfortunately few journalists have training in domestic violence and this has contributed to their failure to understand domestic violence issues.

Men and women do suffer depression and tragically too many commit suicide.  Why is it that 94% of the murder-suicides are committed by men?  If someone decides to end their life because they think it has no purpose or value, what gives them the right to decide this for their wife and children?  There is a long history of husbands owning and controlling their wives.  Laws have changed, but the belief remains widespread.  Many men believe their partners have no right to leave them.  This is why 70% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left.  Similarly, abusive fathers have developed a tactic of seeking custody to punish women for leaving or pressuring them to return. Sadly the custody court system has been slow to recognize this tactic resulting in thousands of children being sent to live with abusive fathers.  Abusers like to use the term “fathers’ rights” and pretend to speak for all fathers as they do enormous harm to children and all of society.  It is time for good fathers to speak out, support protective mothers and make it clear the abusers do not speak for us.

Children who witness domestic violence are far more likely than other children to subsequently engage in dysfunctional behavior that places themselves and others in jeopardy.  This is why up-to-date research recommends abusers should not receive custody, but when battered mothers attempt to protect their children they are accused of alienation.  Society pays a high price in higher crime, losses to the economy, medical expenses and lost potential when courts grant custody to abusers.  The loss of potential and other expenses will ultimately be paid by our daughters and sons.  This is why good fathers must speak up.

Domestic violence has been a public issue for only thirty years.  As a result judges and many of the professionals they rely on are using myths, stereotypes, outdated beliefs, unscientific theories and bias instead of up-to-date research.  Too often the courts are defensive about their mistakes and discredited practices.  Good fathers can speak out to friends, family and public officials about this crisis.  We can ask journalists to start investigating the pattern of mistakes in domestic violence custody cases.  The male supremacists who dominate “fathers’ rights” groups will call us male bashers, but we can wear these attacks as a badge of honor.  Good fathers don’t let anything keep us from protecting our daughters and sons.

Barry Goldstein is co-chair of the child custody task force for the National Organization of Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) Mr. Goldstein is the co-editor of the recently published DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY .

HOW DO WE KNOW CUSTODY COURTS ARE SENDING CHILDREN TO LIVE WITH ABUSERS?

No Responses »
Jun 152010

 

child-abuse

 

by Barry Goldstein, NOMAS Child Custody Task Group

Mothers and domestic violence advocates have been complaining for many years about problems in the custody court system that have resulted in large numbers of children being sent to live with abusive fathers while safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children.  Courts have tended to dismiss the complaints by referring to the mothers as “disgruntled litigants.”  As more concern about the problem has been expressed and more research performed, the mothers’ complaints have been confirmed.  A new book co-edited by Dr. Maureen T. Hannah and Barry Goldstein, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY  is published and end any doubts that there is a pattern of mistakes made in the custody court system.  These mistakes have caused thousands of cases to be mishandled and placed the lives and well being of battered women and their children in jeopardy.  The book includes chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the United States and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates.  Although these experts come from different disciplines and approached the issue from different directions, there is a remarkable consensus about the problem and the solution.  The up-to-date research and information now available makes it clear that the present practices can no longer be justified and the custody court system must create the necessary reforms to protect the safety of children and protective mothers in domestic violence custody cases.  This article will discuss ten reasons we know the custody court system is broken and must be reformed.

  1. Mothers’ Complaints:  The problem this article seeks to discuss are cases in which a mother who has been the primary caregiver and makes allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse loses custody to the alleged abuser and receives supervised visitation or no contact with her children.  These cases have increased since federal laws designed to increase enforcement of child support orders were passed.  Male supremacist groups have encouraged abusive fathers to seek custody as a way to avoid paying child support, to pressure his partner to stay or punish her for leaving.  The courts and the often inadequately trained professionals they rely on, glad to see the involvement of fathers in children’s lives often fail to recognize the tactic and motivation.  Courts tend to look at each case separately and so fail to see the patterns of mistakes in these cases.  Demonizing their victim is a common strategy employed by abusers so a court could believe there was something profoundly wrong with an individual mother to justify the extreme outcome.  When experts look at the pattern of these cases it is evident that the unusual circumstances needed to justify a particular outcome cannot be as common as the results would suggest.  Women and children make deliberately false allegations of abuse between one and two percent of the time, but the court decisions support the myth that such deliberate false allegations are common.  Furthermore, domestic violence allegations are painful and embarrassing to make and require the victims to speak about uncomfortable issues and questions.  Research demonstrates that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse make women less likely to obtain custody.  We can’t know that an individual case was improperly decided without careful review of the case, but we know the frequency of outcomes that give custody to alleged abusers cannot possibly be based on objective facts.

2. Available Research:  The modern movement against domestic violence is only about thirty years old and there was little research available when it started.  We now have extensive research to demonstrate common mistakes courts and the often-unqualified professionals they rely on use in domestic violence custody cases.  Studies show that while evaluators believe they are considering domestic violence in their investigation of the family, in fact most fail to do so.  We have many studies proving widespread gender bias against women in the approaches used by the courts.  Evaluators regularly use psychological testing that has little or no relevance to the issues before the court and is gender biased.  Psychologists testifying before the courts rarely inform the judges that their results are based upon probabilities so that factors in the case that would reduce those probabilities can be considered.  Most important to the present topic is research that considers the accuracy of the actual court decisions.  Most custody cases (over 95%) are settled more or less amicably.  The problem is with the minority of terrible cases that continue to trial and beyond.  Courts often think of them as “high conflict” cases, but in reality these are mostly domestic violence cases.  Research studies vary somewhat on the percentage of these cases that involve abusive fathers, but all agree the majority of such cases involve domestic violence.  I believe the studies that found 90% of these contested custody cases are caused by abusive fathers because unqualified professionals frequently miss domestic violence.  In any event, contested custody cases should be being decided overwhelmingly in favor of protective mothers because most of the fathers are abusive, but 70% of the cases result in custody or joint custody to the father.  This does not tell us an individual case was wrongly decided, but does demonstrate that a large percentage of cases are being decided in a way that is harmful for the children.

3. Battered Mothers Testimony Project and Research:  Several states including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and New York City have done studies based on questionnaires filled out by protective mothers.  These surveys have demonstrated widespread problems in the custody court system, many common mistakes and outcomes that fail to protect battered women and their children.  This is admittedly not scientific research as the participants are volunteers rather than randomly selected (much of the “research” cited by male supremacist groups comes from interviews with alleged abusers, but is often treated as if it were valid research).  Sociologists, Sharon Araji and Rebecca L. Bosek went several steps further for their chapter in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.  They performed a similar study in Alaska and then compared the results from the various states that interviewed protective mothers.  The authors found the responses similar across the several state surveys.  They then compared the results of the surveys filled out by protective mothers to scientific research performed by a variety of researchers using accepted scientific methods.  Significantly the findings from the protective mothers are strongly supported by the scientific research.  In other words, the complaints by protective mothers that have been so often dismissed as coming from “disgruntled litigants” actually have substantial validity.

4. Courageous Kids:  If a court system wanted to determine the validity and value of psychological evaluations, it would look for research that examined how the recommendations and approaches used by the evaluators worked out in the lives of the children.  Without such research there is no way to determine if the time, money and results for evaluations are useful.  In fact there is no such research and I would certainly recommend obtaining such research if evaluations were to continue to be used in child custody cases.  The closest we have to such research is the Courageous Kids Network.  The Courageous Kids are young adults who were forced to live with abusers by the decisions of the custody court.  They are now old enough to have escaped their abusers and are speaking out about their experiences.  The stories are painful to hear because they had to survive such awful abuse, but life affirming as they overcame the obstacles to support each other and help change the broken system.  These heroes have spoken at judicial trainings, legislative hearings and domestic violence conferences.  Their presentations are effective because it is all too easy to discredit protective mothers, but hard to discredit the children for whom the courts and the professionals are supposedly trying to help.  Remember these children were forced to live with and be influenced by the abuser.  In most cases they had to endure “therapy” designed to support the abuser and discredit the protective mother.  There are many psychological, safety and other reasons to discourage such children from coming forward and speaking out.  The fact so many Courageous Kids have spoken out demonstrates the courts are getting large numbers of cases tragically wrong.

5. Review of Bad Cases:  The authors of the 25 chapters in the book have carefully reviewed hundreds if not thousands of these cases.  In their book, FROM MADNESS TO MUTINY, Dr. Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher reviewed over 1000 cases.  The Truth Commission listened to the testimony of 16 women and reviewed records from their cases.  Many other experts have studied domestic violence cases where the alleged abuser received custody and the protective mother received little or no contact with her children.  In these cases we have found widespread mistakes, bad practices, use of myths and stereotypes, the failure to use up-to-date research, gender bias and outcomes that place children at risk.  The legal system works on the assumption that once a case is decided or facts determined that the findings are established and any further consideration should be based upon the assumption the court decided the case properly.  This assumption will lead to misinformation and inaccurate research because there is strong evidence that most contested domestic violence custody cases and certainly those that result in custody to the alleged abuser are wrongly decided.  We are particularly concerned with the growing court practice of retaliating against protective mothers and professionals trying to help them for exposing court mistakes in these cases.  Frequently a mother’s refusal to believe an abuser is safe after the court fails to recognize his abuse is used to justify severe and extreme limitations on her access to her children without regard to the harm such rulings have on the children.

6. Parental Alienation Syndrome:  PAS is a bogus theory created based on the personal biases of Dr. Richard Gardner.  His books were self-published and never peer reviewed.  It is used only in domestic violence custody cases to prevent or shorten investigations of the father’s abuse.  PAS assumes that if a child expresses negative feelings about the father or doesn’t want visitation, the only possible explanation is that the mother alienated the child and the solution is to force the child to live with the abuser and have at most supervised visitation with the protective mother who has been the primary attachment figure for the child.  PAS is not recognized by any reputable professional organization and does not appear in DSM IV, which contains recognized diagnosis.  Dr. Paul Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association wrote a chapter for the book in which he demonstrates the invalidity of PAS.  Dr. Fink points out that Richard Gardner made numerous statements complaining that society takes child sexual abuse too seriously and that sex between adults and children can be appropriate.  This explains why PAS is so often used to give custody to fathers who have sexually abused their children.  Dr. Fink points out that psychologists are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS in evaluations.  They are, in effect diagnosing something that does not exist.  Thousands of the cases in which alleged abusers won custody was based upon the discredited PAS or PAS by a different name.  Any case in which “evidence” of PAS was allowed was likely wrongly decided.

7. Gender Bias:  The Truth Commission recommended that rather than training professionals with general domestic violence information, all professionals should have training in Gender Bias, Recognizing Domestic Violence and the Effects of Domestic Violence on Children.  This is because they found that many of the mistakes made in these cases were caused by a lack of understanding of these basic concepts.  At least 40 states and many other districts and communities have created court-sponsored gender bias committees.  They have found widespread gender bias and particularly in domestic violence custody cases.  Among the common problems were blaming victims for their abuser’s behavior, burdening women with higher standards of proof and giving fathers more credibility than mothers.  Other research, including the chapter in the book by Molly Dragiewicz has made similar findings.  In one New York case the court gave custody to an abuser and denied the protective mother any contact with the children after the evaluator used and the judge supported a certainty standard for the mother and probability standard for the father.  Few litigants could win a case when faced with a certainty standard.  At least 15-20 different judges were asked to review this clear example of gender bias (the different standards were stated in the evaluator’s report and repeatedly challenged in the transcript), but every judge failed to correct this obvious error.  Lynn Hecht Schafran wrote a brilliant article “Evaluating the Evaluators” that illustrates the problem.  The article describes a new psychologist asked to perform an evaluation on a young family.  She went to the father’s apartment and found it a complete mess with no food in the refrigerator.  She wrote the father lives in a typical bachelor apartment.  She went to the mother’s apartment and found it to be somewhat messy, but not as bad as the father’s.  She had food in the refrigerator, but not as much as preferable.  The evaluator wrote the mother lives in a messy apartment with inadequate food.  The evaluator had a supervisor because she was new and the supervisor asked if she saw what she had done.  The evaluator could not believe she had engaged in gender bias and quickly corrected the report.  The article is valuable because it demonstrates that professionals acting in good faith (including women) can easily engage in gender bias without realizing it because of the sexism and stereotypes so prevalent in our society.  How can anyone reasonably believe the courts are reaching fair decisions in domestic violence custody cases when gender bias is so common?

8. Failure to Recognize Domestic Violence:  Many of the mistakes custody courts make have to do with failing to recognize domestic violence.  In fairness some of the problem is caused because victims or their attorneys fail to present the necessary evidence.  Unqualified professionals often discount allegations of abuse based upon information that represents a normal and reasonable response to his abuse.  In the book, Judge Mike Brigner writes about training judges in domestic violence.  They often ask him how to respond to all the cases where women are lying about domestic violence.  When he asks what they mean, they cite cases where women go back to their abuser, withdraw petitions for a protective order, fail to file police complaints or don’t seek medical care.  In reality there are safety and other explanations for women’s response to domestic violence and none of these examples should be used to assume her complaints are false.  At the same time they use information of limited value to discount domestic violence, professionals fail to use helpful and relevant information to understand the pattern of domestic violence tactics.  Too often the professionals are interested only in physical abuse.  They fail to consider a variety of controlling and coercive tactics.  They don’t understand the significance of a woman’s fear of her partner.  Domestic violence advocates are the only professionals that work full time on domestic violence issues.  The advocates receive more training and have more knowledge of domestic violence then the professionals relied on by the courts.  Domestic violence agencies have very limited resources so they are forced to screen clients before providing services.  Accordingly when a woman is receiving services from a domestic violence agency, it is a strong indication that she is a battered woman, but many professionals fail to consider this information.  Although seeking custody to pressure a mother to return or punish her for leaving is a common abuser tactic, few courts consider why a father with limited involvement with the children prior to separation suddenly demands full custody.  Similarly unqualified professionals often fail to consider evidence that a man believes his partner has no right to leave is a strong indication of his motivation in seeking custody.  How can courts be expected to decide domestic violence custody cases appropriately if they don’t know what to look for when determining the validity of domestic violence allegations?

9. Effect of Domestic Violence on Children:  Every state has passed laws designed to promote greater consideration of the effects of domestic violence on children.  Some states require domestic violence to be considered in making custody and visitation decisions and others create a presumption against custody for abusers (although often the laws or the courts require a level of proof or create other restrictions that limit the effectiveness of these laws).  Prior to these laws, when a protective mother asked to limit the father’s contact with the children because of domestic violence, the judge would ask some version of “Does he also abuse the child?”  If the answer was no, the court treated the father as if he was just as appropriate for custody and visitation as the mother.  The change in laws was based on overwhelming research that children witnessing domestic violence were harmed as much as children directly abused.  The research found these children to be at substantially greater risk of a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors when they were older.  In other words, domestic violence is a serious form of child abuse.  We have found, however that courts frequently place greater reliance on other custody factors that have far less consequences to the safety and well being of children.  In fairness, the courts are not solely to blame as legislatures have passed laws like “friendly parent” factors and failed to make domestic violence and safety the primary factors in custody determination.  There is no research that “alienating” statements or attitudes by one parent to the children has the kind of serious long-term harm of domestic violence and yet many of the cases reviewed focus far more attention on alleged alienation.  When mothers respond normally to their partner’s abuse with fear or attempts to protect the children, courts frequently treat this as the most important issue in deciding custody.  This is a common example of what was discussed in gender bias reports in that the mother is held responsible for her reaction to the father’s abuse instead of holding the father responsible for his abuse.  This type of mistake is at the heart of the common mistakes made by custody courts and does not serve the best interests of the children.  If children are having problems as a result of the father’s abuse, unqualified professionals often blame the divorce and separation instead of his abuse.  They often recommend cooperation and interaction between abuser and victim that is the opposite of what is healthy for children, but often benefit the fathers’ cases.  When children appear to be doing well, inadequately trained professionals mistakenly assume this means the abuse allegations are false.  Some children respond to abuse by trying to be perfect and take on adult responsibilities.  Many years later the harm of the father’s abuse comes out in debilitating ways.  Similarly children will often behave well with abusers and act out with their mothers because they know she is the safe parent.  This is often misunderstood and courts reach the false conclusion that the father is the better parent.  As long as the courts fail to understand the long-term harm to children of placing them with abusers, the courts will continue to make decisions that ruin children’s lives.

10. Extreme Results:  If a court were to give custody to a protective mother and limit the father to supervised visitation because of his domestic violence, it would be following the recommendations of up-to-date research.  In other words there is a scientific basis for such an outcome.  The researchers weigh the harm of restricting the children’s contact with their father and the harm the father is likely to cause with unrestricted visitation and the message sent to the children by awarding normal visitation with someone they know abused their mother.   Instead what we are seeing is alleged abusers receiving custody and protective mothers having supervised or no visitation.  Obviously, in these cases the courts are assuming the mother’s allegations of abuse are false.  They justify the visitation restrictions by their concern the mother will continue to believe she was abused and say negative things about the father.  Where is the research that the harm to the children of hearing such statements is greater than the harm of being denied a normal relationship with their mother?  Even in intact families the children often hear negative comments about the other parent.  In other words, these extreme court decisions are based upon the belief systems and biases of court professionals and not up-to-date research.  Many children have been denied any contact with their mothers in these cases.  Ironically fathers are often granted custody based on the belief they are the friendlier parent and will promote the relationship between the mother and children, but he proceeds to terminate all contact once he has control.  Many courts that jumped all over mothers for requesting the court restrict the father’s access have done nothing in the face of the father preventing visitation or other contact between mother and children.  Rapists and even murderers frequently receive some supervised visitation and yet mothers who sought to protect their children from an abuser are completely cut off from their children.  The extreme outcomes faced by protective mothers are unsupported by any research, but demonstrate serious flaws in the custody system.

Now That We Know the Custody Court System Is Broken

Now is not the time for blame or attacks.  As the Schafran article demonstrates, it is all too easy for good and caring people to fail to understand and recognize gender bias and domestic violence.  In the book, Judge Hornsby writes that in his 19th year on the bench he finally understood the proper way to handle requests for protective orders.  The judge’s humility, integrity and openness should serve as a model to the legal community as it responds to the clear information and research that the present court practices are mistreating protective mothers and their children.  I was recently at a domestic violence conference in Hawaii where a court official was asked a question implying serious problems in the court system.  She responded by saying if someone didn’t like a decision they could appeal.  To her credit she later acknowledged that many people don’t have the money for such an appeal.  This official fell into the trap of responding defensively to criticism.  The challenge for the custody court system is to be open to the up-to-date research even though it finds the courts have made widespread mistakes in its handling of domestic violence custody cases.  The medical community faced a similar situation in responding to research that found avoidable mistakes were responsible for 100,000 deaths each year in our nation’s hospitals.  For years, fear of lawsuits, discipline and damaged reputation caused the medical profession to ignore, deny and seek to place blame on others.  Finally they realized this was a losing strategy.  Doctors, nurses and hospitals have now come together to correct the problems with more openness and accountability.  Lives have already been saved from implementation of this approach and the campaign to prevent such avoidable errors.  Rather than harm the medical community’s reputation, this campaign has increased the respect for the medical community.  I believe if the legal community makes a similar effort to apply the latest research and create a campaign to avoid the kinds of tragic mistakes that have ruined the lives of so many women and children, the campaign will improve the reputation of the legal system.  The promotion of the safety of battered mothers and their children is not and should not be considered a partisan issue.

Every state and every court system has rules and laws against domestic violence.  Although some fringe male supremacist groups object to these laws, society has spoken and there is no longer any legitimate dispute about whether domestic violence should be tolerated.  If a community had a rash of arson fires and the courts and legislature wanted to figure out how to respond they would seek the expertise of the experts.  The experts are the firefighting community because they know best how to recognize arson, prevent it and respond to arson.  No one would ever accuse the firefighters of being partisan because they are always against arson.  In responding to domestic violence the experts are the domestic violence community.  They are the only profession working full time on domestic violence issues and know how to recognize domestic violence, the best ways to prevent it and the harm it causes.  Too often the courts have failed to take advantage of this community resource because they viewed domestic violence advocates as partisans.  The validity for this claim ended when society determined it would no longer tolerate domestic violence and passed laws to enforce this determination.  The crimes of arson and domestic violence are treated differently because arson has always been a crime and domestic violence is a relatively new crime and most firefighters are men and most domestic violence advocates are women.  In this still sexist society what women say is not treated with the respect and value that what men say is.  The domestic violence community is an important and valuable resource that the court system can benefit from as it applies the up-to-date research to practices that are now discredited.  The legal system must use this research to launch a re-evaluation of its response to domestic violence custody cases so that custody courts become a safe place for battered mothers and their children.  We are ready to work with them to help accomplish society’s goal of ending domestic violence.

Barry Goldstein is the author of SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY.  He has been an instructor and supervisor in a NY Model Batterer Program for 10 years.  He was an attorney representing victims of domestic violence for 30 years.  He now provides workshops, judicial and other trainings regarding domestic violence particularly related to custody issues.  He also serves as a consultant and expert witness.  His new book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, co edited with Dr. Maureen T. Hannah will be published early in 2010.  For more information, visit his web site at Barrygoldstein.net

What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?

No Responses »
Jun 152010

ProtectOurChildren 

originally presented at What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota from the Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues*of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism

Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition,2001) c/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751 503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX) , straton@pdx.edu

What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?  by Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

I want to express my deep gratitude to Ellen Pence, Madeline Dupre, Jim Soderberg and the others from the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. The State of Minnesota should be proud that, quite literally, the world looks to this program for guidance on understanding and ending domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge how much I continually learn from Barbara Hart, of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I will first critically examine the criterion at the base of all custody laws today, "What is in the best interests of the children?" I will the talk about children’s choice in these matters. Then I will examine the actual effects of wife-battering on children, and develop an alternative paradigm for custody based on those effects. From this I will examine the question, "Is it ever appropriate to ever give a batterer custody of a child?"

In the process, I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. I know that it is popular these days to de-gender family conflict, to talk about "spouse abuse" and "family violence" rather than "wife beating" and "rape." I know that we want a society in which men nurture children to the same extent that women do.

I know that fathers and mothers should both be capable parents. But if you ask "What about the kids?" I want to give you a serious answer. I cannot seriously entertain the myth that our society really is gender neutral, so to consider "What about the kids?" while pretending such neutrality is to engage in denial and cognitive dissonance. I cannot hope to arrive at an answer that will positively affect reality if my underlying assumptions are based on fantasy.

So I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. As I cite examples, some of you may hear your internal voice saying, "But women do that, too." As this happens I would ask you to be aware that such voices are often the voice of guilt that try to distract us from what we really know about men’s violence so that we need not take responsibility for this violence.

It is true, for example, that some women do batter men. But the number of severe cases of this type is so low when compared with the virtual war of men’s violence against women, that they cannot be seen above the statistical noise. This voice that says "But women do that, too" has as its purpose, not compassion for battered men or lesbians, but a distraction from the noble goal of ending battering of women.

So as you hear this voice today, become consciously aware of it. Let it into your conscious mind for a moment, and then let it drift on. It is just a tape recording that you can always come back to in an hour or two if there is a need. If you find that you just can’t contain this voice, that others must hear this tape recording, please do not hesitate to raise a hand or even to shout it out. We will pause to give it some space.

WHOSE BEST INTERESTS?

I want to begin by instilling in you a healthy skepticism about the "Best interests of the child" criterion that underlies custody laws today. It is important to acknowledge that the term "the best interests of the child" is so vague that some adult must state what constitutes "best interest."

In practice courts rely on social and psychological professionals to make this determination. While such individuals are surely skilled and caring individuals, it must be admitted that they operate out of a set of professional norms that are never openly discussed, and are subject to professional fad.

For instance, Irene Thèry of France notes that today

    "there is a real reversal of traditional models. The stigmatization of remarriage and the prescription of fidelity have given place to the stigmatization of solitude and the prescription of ‘remaking one’s life,’ i.e. finding a new partner." 1

As Martha L. Fineman, of this country, says, "A desire for sole custody has now been labeled ‘pathological’."There are obvious and serious consequences for battered women with the

    "creation of professional norms which would give custody to… the parent most willing to share the child with the other parent." 2

In addition, the "best interests" criterion is flawed because of its unpredictability, which presumably

    "has an impact on the number of cases brought before courts, since there is a stronger reason to have a case tried when the outcome is un- certain… The threat of bringing the case to court, with an uncertain outcome, may easily be used as pressure on the other party in order to obtain advantages in the [out of court] economic settlement,"

e.g. lower child support payments. 3

In this way the "best interests" criterion ironically may lead to the impoverishment of children. This is more serious in cases involving child abuse where the mother’s fear of losing custody to the father is extreme. Finally, Fineman notes that

    "rules that focus on the performance of nurturing or caretaking have been attacked, not because they are explicitly gender biased, but because in operation they will act to favor women who traditionally perform such tasks," 4

though clearly any man can choose to become the primary caretaker. So instead of viewing past behavior as a predictor of future behavior on behalf of the child, the "best interests" criterion looks at present status, such as income or a new partner (a more frequent occurrence for the fathers).

But Sandberg observes that in

    "consequence, the result of treating people equally when their situation is in fact different is a de factoinequality. Fathers have, because of the new legislation, obtained a stronger position in child custody cases than their efforts in the caretaking of children should fairly allow." 5

Joint Custody

Joint Custody is clearly a type of "best interests" criterion. It explicitly assumes that joint custody is in the child’s best interests. There are severe consequences for battered women subjected to joint custody presumptions.

Joint custody forced upon two hostile parents can create a toxic psychological environment for a child. Because 95% of all joint custody awards are for joint legal custody 6 the living arrangements are exactly the same as under a sole-custody/ visitation order. However joint legal custody does expand the right of the non-primary-caretaking parent to impede the ability of the primary-caretaker to make needed and timely decisions.

Some provisions in joint legal custody laws require a minimum visitation period for the noncustodial parent that can be limited only when there is a threat of physical harm to the child. This threat is difficult to prove, especially when the accuser is perceived as a litigant with a vested interest in distortion. And such provisions also do not address psychological and emotional abuse.

The threat of a joint custody decision may be used by the husband to bargain out of court for a reduction in child support payments (trading children for money in a throwback to the 19th century laws in which children were considered to be property of the father). The potential for bartering away the child’s financial resources because of a bad faith request for custody is reinforced by ("friendly parent") provisions that give a preference to the parent requesting joint custody when the alternative of sole custody is considered by the court. Such "friendly parent" provisions also guarantee an abusive father or husband access to the victim. Men who batter their wives may also sexually abuse their children. 7 The more fearful a woman is of the father gaining sole custody, the more willing she may be to submit to joint custody or to a reduction in child support.

Children’s right to choose vs. abuser’s manipulation of a child.

I want to talk about the question of children advocating on their own behalf. As one who would like to see the rights of children recognized and affirmed, I am tempted to say that, yes, a child should have some input into a decision about with whom they will live.

Yet in the present case we have a man who, though he beats his wife, is often very charismatic to the rest of the world, and perhaps to his kids. And even if he beats his kids as well, it is known that intermittent affection can be a stronger binding agent than consistent affection. We also have a man who has demonstrated his power over another human being through brutality.

It is known that older children will sometimes join in the abuse of their mother. Since it is the older children to whom we might be tempted to accede some measure of choice, I find this mirroring of the father’s brutality disquieting. I do not ask you to take one side or the other of this question, but to be cautious until someone more wise than I can resolve the knot for you.

The Primary Caretaker Rule

My preference for the primary caretaker criterion will be obvious as I speak today. In Sandberg’s summary: This criterion

    "would hardly lead to worse decisions than ‘the best interests of the child’, considering all the uncertainty it implies."

    "It should only exceptionally result in a worse solution than if the other parent was chosen… That parent has demonstrated a willingness to take care of the child and has practice doing the job. There is also reason to believe that the child is emotionally more attached to her or him.

    Besides, during the marriage the parties after all set up the caretaker arrangement together, and would hardly have done this while thinking that the actual primary caretaker was less fit than the other parent."8

For today’s discussion, I will point out that since men are nearly always the batterers in domestic violence and women are nearly always the primary caretakers for the children, adoption of the primary caretaker criterion for custody would enormously relieve both the courts and advocates for battered women of much of their work around custody decisions.

    Murdering one’s wife

Before leaving this section, I want to note just how far the "best interest" criterion can be stretched. A Florida court in 1987 acknowledged 9 that a

    "man’s violent and irrational behavior included throwing his wife to the ground, beating her when she was four months pregnant, and threatening to kill her, her father, and himself,… [yet] the court accepted a psychologist’s conclusion that the man’s ‘past violence was related to the deterioration of his relationship with [his wife],’ and was presumably unrelated to his fitness as a parent." 10

Incredibly,

    "[c]ourts often are precluded from considering the actual abusive act of killing the other parent" 11

in custody decisions. Moreover, in one case 12 that explicitly considered the domestic violence factor as mandated by Illinois statute, a father who had killed the mother of his children was given not only visitation but custody.

The appeals court in 1989 noted that

    "a single criminal conviction, without more, will not support a finding of unfitness based on depravity."

If I may be somewhat flippant, they apparently require multiple murders before they are willing to terminate a man’s control over his children.

Moreover, it stated, neither Illinois courts nor the state legislature

    "has seen fit to set forth a rule of law that the killing of one parent by the other in the presence of the children no matter what the circumstances is sufficient to deprive that parent of his or her children on the basis of unfitness."

As with Minnesota law, Illinois only had to consider domestic violence as one of many factors. In contrast we have a case in West Virginia 13

    "in which a mother was accused of firing a rifle at her ex-husband when he came to visit their child. Although the evidence did not prove conclusively that the incident actually occurred, the court found the woman to be an unfit mother because she had ‘demonstrated [a] tendency to be violent… when she was upset but not in any way threatened.’ " 14

Their extreme cognitive dissonance indicates that courts are clearly loathe to deprive men of a "right" of access to and control over their children, though the same cannot be said of such "rights" for women.

The paradigm in which these jurists are trying to stuff reality is leftover from the 19th century notions of men’s ownership of both children and women. If the "best interests" criterion can encompass such bizarre rationalization, it is time we moved on to a new paradigm of relationship between men and women and children.

A new paradigm

Since I have cast doubt on the gender-neutrality of professionals’ norms in relation to the best interests of children criterion, I will not impose my own norm-base arguments for what constitutes "best interests." I will instead focus on an alternative criterion for custody of children exposed to domestic violence; what constitutes demonstrable harm. In particular, I will next argue that it causes demon-strable harm for a child to be given into the power and control of an abuser.

CUSTODY BY AN ABUSER

CREATES DEMONSTRABLE HARM

Our choice, as a society, to give parents control over children is predicated on the idea that parents’ love for their children will cause them to act in the child’s best interests (there’s that phrase again). Yet a man who violates his love for his wife by assaulting her is demonstrating that his actions are not in consonance with his avowals of love. In fact, those who are most remorseful are the ones to whom we might be tempted to give custody, and these are the men whose actions and love are in greatest dissonance. What basis, then, do we have for presuming that he will act in his children’s best interest simply because he loves them? None.

So the sensible thing to do is to look at his actions to see what effect they really do have.

    The overlap between wife beating and abuse of children

The most obvious place to begin this examination is to determine how often men who batter their wives and partners abuse their children. We start by noting that 25 to 63% of domestic violence victims are pregnant when beaten. 15

While you may say that it is the woman, not the fetus, who is the target here, there is in any case total disregard for the welfare of the child-to-be. Lenore Walker and coworkers 16, 17 found that 53% of the batterers associated with their study had sexually or physically abused their children as well. In a longitudinal study of battered children of battered wives, Jean Giles-Sims found that 63% of the men who abused their wives also abused their children. 18

Rosenbaum and O’Leary 19 found that 82% of men who observed in- ter-parental spouse abuse were themselves victims of child abuse. In the most extensive study to date, of 1000 battered women, Bowker and coworkers found that 70% of the children were also abused. 20 They also noted that daughters of abused women are six and one-half times more likely to be sexually abused as girls from non-abused families. Thus 14% of girls in abusive homes will be sexually abused by a family member. 21

Furthermore, Bowker found that as the severity of the wife abuse increased, so did the severity of the child abuse. While it is true that women will spank children, Bergman et al. determined that men are ten and one-half times more likely than women to inflict serious harm. They found that every known perpetrator of the death of a child in their study was a father or father surrogate. 22

There should now be no question in your minds that access to children by abusive men constitutes serious probable harm to children. Given the serious consequences of physical and sexual abuse to children, which of you is willing to play roulette with a given child’s life, hoping that he or she will be one of the 30% or so not physically or sexually abused?

Prevalence of children who witness abuse

Let us consider for a moment that a 70% probability of physical or sexual abuse is deemed an insufficient barrier to deprive a man access to, and control over, a child. To put it most favorably,

    "But we would be depriving 30% of fathers who have never abused children the love and affection to which they are entitled by"

… ah, by… well, let’s set aside for the moment the issue of entitlement. What are the consequences for the children in violent homes who witness their fathers abusing their mothers?23

Studies of battered women’s reports of child witnesses range from 68% 24 (to 76%, 25 to 80%26) to 87%.27

    "However, from interviews with children [Jaffe, Wolf and Wilson found] that almost all can describe detailed accounts of violent behavior that their mother or father never realized they had witnessed." 28

Wallerstein and Blakeslee report that even if there is only one violent incident, children will remember it. 29

Behavioral and health effects on children who witness abuse

Pagelow has observed

    "children as young as one year begin to regress into states later diagnosed as ‘mental retardation’ when they were exposed to parental hostilities that never went beyond the verbal abuse level." 30

It is important to note for the question of contact with the abuser that the symptoms of retardation quickly disappeared after the parents separated. If even verbal abuse can be so traumatic, consider the cases in which women are sexually brutalized in front of their children. 31

If we look at children who have chronically witnessed abuse we find reactions similar to the reactions of children who have been physically abused;

    "disruptions of normal developmental patterns that result in disturbed patterns of cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral adjustment… Infants who witness violence are often characterized by poor health, poor sleeping habits, and excessive screaming (all of which may contribute to further violence toward their mother)." 32

    "Among preschoolers, [Davidson 33 and Alessi and Hearn 34] found signs of terror, as evidenced by the children’s yelling, irritable behavior, hiding, shaking, and stuttering." 32

They often experience insomnia, sleepwalking, nightmares, and bed wetting. They suffer psychosomatic problems such as headaches, stomach aches, diarrhea, ulcers, asthma, 31 as well as regression to earlier stages of functioning. 33

Adolescent boys exposed to domestic violence may use aggression as a predominant form of problem solving, may project blame onto others, and may exhibit a high degree of anxiety. Girls are more likely be withdrawn and turn blame inward. 33

    "Sadly, both boys and girls have been known to participate in the beating of their mother after having witnessed such behavior over many years." 33

Jaffe and co-authors state in sum that

    "clinical and empirical data… suggest that children exposed to wife abuse may be similar to those children described as suffering from Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." 35

    Effects on children’s relationships when they witness abuse

Children exposed to wife abuse 36 often have

    "difficulties with school, including poor academic performance, school phobia, and difficulties in concentration… They are constantly fighting with peers, rebelling against instruction and authority, and [are] unwilling to do school work. 37" 38

Children who live in abusive homes are at higher risk of juvenile delinquency, including crimes such as burglary, arson, prostitution, running away, drug use, and assaults. 39

Heath and coworkers compared 48 inmates incarcerated for violent crimes and 45 nonviolent incarcerated males and found exposure to television violence at ages 8-12 and maternal or paternal abuse was highly related to violent crime. 40

Lewis et al. found that 79% of violent children in institutions reported that they had witnessed extreme violence between their parents, whereas only 20% of the nonviolent offenders did so. 41

Longitudinal studies 42 have shown that on-going marital violence in childhood was significantly predictive of perpetration of serious crimes in adulthood – assault, attempted rape, attempted murder, kidnapping, and completed murder.

    The next generation of batterers

Studies show that boys who witness their fathers beating their mothers are three times more likely to abuse their own wives. Sons of the most violent families have a wife beating rate that is 1000 times larger than of sons of non-violent parents. 43

This finding is not only significant from the point of view of a society that wants to protect its future members from violence. If we look at the transition from child to abuser with greatest compassion, it is a testimonial to the very great trauma that these boys endure.

Which of us would trade places with them. Of course there must be some (at least imagined) benefits these abusers gain from their behavior because there is no data suggesting that girls who witness abuse grow up to be abusers.

Finally, we noted earlier that daughters of abused women are six and one-half times more likely to be sexually abused as girls from non-abused families. Not all of this behavior is likely to be attributable to direct actions of the father or father figure. 44

    "Just as there is a high statistical incidence of boys who witness their fathers battering their mothers growing up to become batterers themselves, so there is a high incidence of fathers and brothers [perpetrating sexual abuse against] female children in those families where the father is a batterer." 45

BUT AREN’T THINGS DIFFERENT

AFTER THE PARENTS SEPARATE?

In almost three-fourths of spouse-on-spouse assaults, the perpetrator and survivor were separated or divorced at the time of the incident. 46

More then 1/4 of the women killed by a man with whom they had resided were separated or divorced at the time they were killed, according to one study in Philadelphia and Chicago. 29% of the women were attempting to end the relationship when they were killed. 47

In one study of spousal homicide, over half of the male defendants were separated from their victims. 48

Also, let me stress that the effects of witnessing violence on children are more severe the longer the exposure continues. 49

Pett 50 found that the most important predictor of a child’s social adjustment in recovery from violence was the quality of the relationship with the custodial parent, a relationship severely hampered by ongoing conflict.

    Retaliation by Kidnapping

After separation,

    "batterers frequently abduct children as a way to retaliate against their mothers. Each year, more than 350,000 children are kidnapped in this country, most of them by fathers. More than half of these abductions occur in the context of domestic violence. 51

    The impact of abduction by an abusive parent can be severe. Studies 52 have shown that this event alone can result in a Post-traumatic stress disorder." 53

    SO YOU ARE GOING TO

    TAKE AWAY A FATHER’S RIGHTS?

I want to pause and acknowledge that I have just taken you through a morass of horrible statistics surrounding the effects of wife beating on children. Having passed through, scratched and shaken but alive, it will seem incredible to you that, by and large, courts in this country have declared wife beating to be unrelated to a man’s relationship to his child — no less than declaring a man’s murder of the children’s mother as irrelevant.

In my role as an advocate for children, I ask you, how can you give custody of children to an abusive man when you now know what effects that choice will have on those children?

There are those who will have you focus on this issue from the perspective contained in the phrase

    "But that would be taking away a man’s rights!"

One could certainly play the game from this perspective and insist that if a man has a right to access and control his children, he loses it the minute he abuses a woman. There is precedent. A man who commits any other violent crime can lose his "right" to vote and to run for public office. This is a part our system of deterrents to crime. Minnesota showed the world that arresting batterers decreases the recidivism rate. Don’t you think that if fathers knew that they would automatically lose custody of their children if they brutalize their wife, they would stop this abuse? If they didn’t stop even though they knew of this consequence, what does that say about their concern for their children and for their relationship with their children?

But I don’t even want to begin from a diversionary discussion of taking rights from men. I want to begin from the demonstrable fact that children exposed to woman abuse are harmed by the experience. As Michelle Etlin says,

    "When a child comes into a hospital with gangrene, we don’t ask about how amputating the leg will affect his father’s right to play baseball with him. We operate to save the child’s life." 54

Children of abusive men are at high risk, are we going to cut the disease from their life or are we going to worry about the rights of the disease?

    BUT DON’T CHILDREN NEED THEIR FATHERS?

But aren’t we also depriving children of their father if we deny them custody and possibly visitation? In answer, there can be no denying that children of abusive men may feel love for them and feel pain at separation, but an amputation is expected to be a painful but necessary act to avert foreseeable harm.

What are the long-term consequences? A study done in 1987 by Furstenberg, Morgan, and Allison, 55 found that children who had not seen their father in 5 years did significantly better than those who had spent 1 through 13 days with their father in the previous year. Another study by Zill 56 found that the well-being of children following divorce is not related to father-child contact.

I must qualify this assertion by noting that wherever the father rather than a mother is the primary caregiver for the children, there would likely be severe consequences to terminating the relationship. 49 As much as we might wish it, such a role is seldom adopted by men today.

    BUT WHAT ABOUT VISITATION?

You will note that my remarks imply that demonstrable harm to children has as its rational consequence not just termination of custody, not just requiring supervised visitation, but termination of visitation. I want to acknowledge that this is really what I mean to say.

[If a child wishes to visit with the father, an affirmative attitude toward children's rights would lead one to allow this contact, even knowing the harm it may cause, and even knowing that further contact on the part of a male child might increase his indoctrination into abusive behavior himself. However, knowing of abuser's abilities to manipulate children's attitudes it would be prudent to enforce a cooling-off period of 6 months or so, after which time the child might find that he or she is happier without visitation.

I also want to acknowledge that it is a political reality of today that visitation between an abusive father and his children will not often be severed, even when the child is unwilling to go. In particular, although a judge would be in the right to establish a "no-visitation" policy in an ex parte hearing for an order of protection for the abused mother, it is unlikely that a permanent "no-visitation" order based solely on the statistical likelihood of harm to the child would survive appeal.

It follows that we must develop protocols for determining actual harm to the children in question during the time between the ex parte hearing and the final custody decision. In any case, if we are to order visitation despite the realities of probable demonstrable harm to children, it is essential that we consciously acknowledge that we are disregarding the rational conclusion that follows from the harm.]

Of course if the abuser ever really changes his beliefs in male supremacy and ends all psychological and physical abuse, it may be a productive healing experience for a child to hear his apology. It is conceivable that a positive relationship could follow from this. Unfortunately, very few men ever really make the necessary changes. 57

Barring such a radical conversion, even supervised visitation will harm children. Lenore Walker summarizes the plight of children who witness wife battering eloquently:

    Children who live in a battering relationship experience the most insidious form of child abuse. Whether or not they are physically abused is less important than the psychological scars they bear from watching their fathers beat their mothers. They learn to become part of a dishonest conspiracy of silence. They learn to lie to prevent inappropriate behavior, and they learn to suspend fulfillment of their needs rather than risk another confrontation. They do extend a lot of energy avoiding problems. They live in a world of make-believe. 58

Consider the supervised visit in light of her remarks. Consider first the 14% of girls in abusive homes who have been sexually abused by a family member. 21 I would like to quote from Michelle Etlin: 59

    What, then, can be expected from supervised visitation with a molester who does not admit what he has done, and thus wants his victim’s revelations to be disbelieved? First of all, supervised visitation sets up a paradigm for the child to follow. In the past, contact between the abuser and victim was unsupervised, and the abuser did something he made the child feel part of. The primary thought in a child’s mind when she is being molested is — how should she act? Then she must carefully design how she should actevery single minute after being molested, because she never feels normal and natural again.Mark these words: nothing, nothing, ever feels normal and natural again for a child who has been molested. So, when a supervised visit occurs, the supervisor is seen as a powerful, authoritative figure defining – not how the abuser should act but how the child must act.

    This is the case because a child is not accustomed to anyone defining adult behavior… — she’s used to adults defining children’s behavior. Therefore, a visitation supervisor is perceived by a child as someone who lets her know what interactions are acceptable and valid — for her. Since the supervisor does not discuss the parent’s abusive actions with him and the child, the child learns they are not to be discussed. Since the supervisor does not display outrage and anger toward the adult, the child learns they are not acceptable.

    Since the supervisor covers over the reality of this enforced access, and pretends things are normal, the child’s reality is altered and her need to "pretend normal" is insidiously reinforced. Since the supervisor facilitates the availability of the child for the pleasant pastime of the adult, the child’s belief in her own status as a commodity — as a prostitute, really — is sealed.

    * * *

    Supervised visits with a molester also set up a clear preference for the pretend good visit interaction and the fake smile, something that causes rapid psychological deterioration in any child who has already suffered child sexual abuse. During visits, the supervisor acts as if nothing had happened wrong between father and child, and as if the father loves the child and the extra person is there to enforce a certain kind of protocol upon, and to bless, the interaction. The protocol is cool, dishonest, fraudulent and deadly. The supervisor invariably acts in a polite and accommodating manner to the father, setting an example for the child as to what is socially acceptable in the circumstances.

    What this does to the child’s fragile psyche is to remove permission from the child to be angry, withdrawn, afraid or honest about her feelings. She is supposed to, and does, act as if the offense had not occurred — returning her to the condition she suffered during the abuse.

    At worst, every supervised visit is an emotional replay of the dissociative feelings of being molested; at best, every supervised visit tells the child, very clearly:

    ACCOMMODATE THE ABUSE! You are to pretend nothing happened because Daddy pretends nothing happened and even this stranger who has authority agrees that we all pretend nothing happened. This is the correct way for everyone to behave.

    Yes, supervised visitation, in its own subtle psycho-tyrannical manner, is more invalidating to the child victim than any other form of coercion.

Not all children we are considering today have been sexually abused by their father, but the principle of accommodation of the father’s abuse through the act of providing a neutral supervisor carries over into visits with any of the kids from violent homes. At the very least, supervised visitation should not be automatically assumed.

CONCLUSION

Let me sum up what I have shared with you. I have criticized the "best interests of the child" criterion as being so vague that it requires us to rely upon the opinions of adults as to what "best interest" means. And the norms behind these opinions are seldom acknowledged, and thus not refutable. I then showed that courts who apply this criterion have disregarded the severe effects of domestic violence on children, even to the extent of saying that killing a child’s mother is not a sufficiently depraved act so as to deny a man custody. If it is possible for a custodial criterion to allow such twisted result to result from a jurists value system, that criterion itself is severely flawed.

We then looked at the flaws inherent in presuming joint custody to be in children’s best interests. I then described the primary caretaker criterion and showed that for violent families it will almost automatically remove a child from harm’s way.

Finally I presented an alternative criterion based on demonstrable and foreseeable harm to children, and applied it to cases of domestic violence.

We found that some 70% of men who batter will also abuse their children, with 1/5 of these children being subjected to sexual abuse.

We found that virtually all children witness or are aware of domestic abuse, even those children who do not experience it themselves. It was demonstrated that the psychological and somatic effects of chronically witnessing abuse are very similar to the effects of being physically abused, a Post-traumatic stress disorder.

We found that children who witness wife beating have difficulty in school and are much more prone to juvenile delinquency and, ultimately, violent crime than children from non-abusive families. They have poor relationships with peers and siblings, learn to despise their mother for her abuse, and learn to emulate their father in his expressions of aggression.

We found that the longer the abuse witnessed, the more severe the resultant disorder. Given that assaults on women actually increase after separation and divorce, we would expect that children have more traumas associated with this phase.

I was able to find only one rational conclusion from this cascade of phenomena; that a cessation of contact with the abuser is the only way to minimize demonstrable and foreseeable harm to these children.

When I look at the possibilities this society has to offer the word today, and the generations unborn, I mourn the tragedy of generation upon generation of children who are brutalized themselves, or psychologically scarred as they witness their mothers being brutalized by their fathers.

How can these children, who will become adults, ever find the mental peace with which to create the miracle of justice and prosperity that is the eventual destiny of a conscious and loving species, if they are entangled in fears and anxieties from childhood?

How can we hope to bring true civilization into our lives when each day children are taught aggression and brutality as the means to power?

How can we face future generations of our kind and say that we knew about the abuse and did nothing to help?

Join with me; take your place at the front of our march toward freedom; let it never be said that our generation was too afraid of male violence to stand up for the lives and hearts of children.

REFERENCES

1 Child Custody and the Politics of Gender, Carol Smart and Selma Sevenhuijsen (Eds.) (Routledge, New York, 1989), p.90.

2 Ibid., p.43

3 Kirstin Sanberg (Norway) in Ibid., p.105.

4 Ibid., p 34.

5 Ibid., p 109.

6 Levy & Chambers, The Folly of Joint Custody, 3 Fam. Adv. 6, 10 (Summer 1981).

7 Diana Russell’s random sample of 930 females from the natural population of women in San Francisco found a rate of 4.5%, and Gail Wyatt’s study of 248 women in Los Angeles, also statistically sound, found a rate of 8.1% [The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women (Basic Books, 1986), p. 72].

8 Supra note 1, p.115 and 114, respectively, emphasis mine.

9 Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).

10 Naomi R. Cahn, Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Child Custody Decisions, Vanderbilt Law Review 44 , 1041-1097 (1991), p.1073. This article is an excellent resource on these issues.

11 Ibid., p 1080.

12 In re Lutgen, 177 Ill. App. 3d 954, 532 N.E.2d 976 (1988), appeal denied, 125 Ill. 2d 565, 537 N.E.2d 811 (1989).

13 Collins v. Collins, 297 S.E.2d 901, 902 (W. Va 1982).

14 Naomi R. Cahn, supra note 10, p 1073, citation No. 174..

15 Helton, McFarlane, and Anderson, Battered and Pregnant: A Prevalence Study, American J. of Public Health 77, 1337 (1987).

16 Lenore E. Walker, Roberta K. Thyfault, and Angela Browne, Beyond the Batterer’s Ken: Battered Women, Vermont Law Review 7, 1 (1982).

17 Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome (1984), p. 27, 59.

18 Jean Giles-Sims, A Longitudinal Study of battered Children of Battered Wives, Family Relations 34 , 205 (1985).

19 Alan Rosenbaum and K. Daniel O’Leary, Children: The Unintended Victims of Marital Violence, Amer. J. Orthopsychiatry 51, 692 (1981).

20 Bowker, Arbitell, and McFerron, On the Relationship Between Wife Beating and Child Abuse, in Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, K. Yllo and M. Bograd, eds. (1988), p. 158, 162.

21 14% = 16% x [6.5/(6.5+1)] where the 16% figure is the rate of familial sexual victimization of all girls before age 18 as given by Diana Russell’s statistically sound survey, The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women (Basic Books, 1986), pp. 60-61.

22 Abraham B. Bergman, Rosanne M. Larsen, and Beth A. Mueller, Changing Spectrum of Child Abuse, Pediatrics 77, 113 (1986).

23 R. E. Dobash and R. P. Dobash, Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy(1979), p. 112; M. Bard, The Study and Modification of Intra-familial Violence, in The Control of Aggression, J. Singer, ed. (Academic Press, 1971).

24 L. G. Leighton, Spousal Abuse in Toronto: Research Report on the Response of the Criminal Justice System (Report No. 1989- 02) Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada (1989), 68% of 2,910 cases.

25 Mildred D. Pagelow, Children in Violent Families: Direct and Indirect Victims, in Young Children and Their Families, Shirley Hill and B. J. Barnes, eds. (Lexington Books, 1982), p. 55.

26 D. Sinclair, Understanding Wife Assault: A Training Manual for Counselors and Advocates(Ontario Government Bookstore, Toronto, 1985).

27 L. Walker, supra note 17, p.59.

28 Peter G. Jaffe, David A. Wolf, and Susan K. Wilson, Children of Battered Women (Sage, 1990), p. 21. See also M. S. Rosenberg, Inter-generational Family Violence: A Critique and Implications for Witnessing Children. Paper presented to the 92nd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto (1984).

29 J. Wallerstein and S. Blakeslee, Second Chances 121 (1989).

30 M. Pagelow supra note 25, p. 53.

31 Elaine Hilberman and Kit Munson, Sixty Battered Women, Victimology 2 , 460 (1977- 78).

32 Jaffe et al. supra note 28, p. 39-41.

33 T. Davidson, Conjugal Crime: Understanding and Changing the Wife Beating Pattern(Hawthorn, New York, 1978)

34 J. J. Alessi and K. Hearn Group Treatment of Children in Shelters for Battered Women, inBattered Women and their Families, A. R. Roberts, ed. (Springer, New York, 1984).

35 Jaffe et al. supra note 28, p. 72.

36 H. M. Hughes, Research With Children in Shelters: Implications for Clinical Services, Children Today (1986) pp. 21-25.

37 E. J. McKay, Children of Battered Women. Paper presented at the Third National Family Violence Researcher’s Conference, Durham, NC (1987).

38 Jaffe et al., supra note 28, p. 50.

39 Lenore E. Walker, Eliminating Sexism to End Battering Relationships. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Toronto (1984) pp. 2-3.

40 C. Heath, C. Kruttschnitt, and D. Ward, Television and Violent Criminal Behavior: Beyond the Bobo Doll, Violence and Victims 1, 177-190 (1986).

41 D. O. Lewis, S. S. Shanok, J. H. Pincus, and G. H. Glaser Violent Juvenile Delinquents: Psychiatric, Neurological, Psychological, and Abuse Factors. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 18, 307-319 (1979).

42 J. McCord, A Forty Year Perspective on Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect, Child Abuse and Neglect 7, 265-270 (1983).

43 Stark and Flitcraft, Woman-battering, Child Abuse and Social Heredity: What is the Relationship?, in Marital Violence, N. Johnson, ed. (1985).

44 Russell, supra note 7, found that 4.5% of all women had been sexually abused by their father (biological, step-, foster, or adoptive). She also found that 2.0% of all women had been sexually abused by their brother (biological or half), p. 217. These rates are lower bounds on sexual abuse by batterers and batterer’s sons, respectively, with 14% being the upper bound on the sexual abuse rate for "either batterer or son," as given in supra note 21.

45 Lenore E. Walker, Terrifying Love (Harper & Row, 1989), p. 152.

46 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Reports to the Nation on Crime and Justice, October 1983, p. 21.

47 N. A. Cazenave and M. A. Zahn, "Women, Murder sand Male Domination: Police Re- ports of Domestic Homicide in Chicago and Philadelphia." in Intimate Violence: Inter- disciplinary Perspectives, E. C. Viano (ed.) (Hemisphere, Washington, 1992), pp.83-97.

48 Bernard, G.W., Vera, H., Vera M.I., and Newman, G., Till Death Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10 (1982).

49 Jaffe et al., supra note 28.

50 M. Pett, Correlates of Children’s Social Adjustment Following Divorce, J. of Divorce 5, 25-39 (1982).

51 G. Grieg and R. Heger, When Parents Kidnap (1992).

52 Neil Senior, Toba Gladstone, and Barry Nurcomb, Childsnatching: A Case Report, J. of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 21, 579-583 (1982); Terr, Psychic Trauma in Children and Adolescents, Psychiatric Clinics of North America 8, 815- 835 (1985); Palmer and Palmer,The Painful Phenomena of Child Snatching, Social Case- work 65, 330-336 (1984); and Susan E. Spangler, Snatching Legislative Power: The Justice Department’s Refusal to Enforce the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 73, 1176-1203 (1982).

53 Barbara J. Hart and Margaret Klaw, Brief Amici Curiae in Valentini v. Montgomery, No 1615 Pittsburgh 1991.

54 Michelle Etlin, Mother’s Day Ralley for Childre’s Rights, Washington, D.C., 1992.

55 Frank F. Furstenberg, S. Philip Morgan, and Paul D. Allison, Am. Soc. Rev. 52, 695 (1987).

56 Nicholas Zill, in The Impact of Divorce, Single-parenting, and Stepparenting on Children, E. M. Hetherington and J. Arasteh (eds.) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).

57 Tolman and Bennet, A Review of Quantitative Research on Men Who Batter, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5 , 107 (1990); Edelson and Grusznski, Treating Men Who Batter: Four Years of Outcome Data from Domestic Abuse Project, Journal of Social Service Research 12 (1988); and Hamberger and Hastings, Skills Training for Treatment of Spouse Abusers: An Outcome Study, Journal of Family Violence 3 (1988).

58 Lenore E. Walker, Battered Women (1979), p. 46.

59 Michelle Etlin, What is Visitation, Journal of the Child Custody Task Group of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (San Francisco) 4, 14 (1992).

NOMAS Task Group on Child Custody Issues

Jack Straton C/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751 Ph: 503-725-5844 fax: 503-725-5977 E-mail: straton@pdx.edu

The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) P.O. Box 455, Louisville, CO 80027 Ph:303-666-7043

International Bullying With Kids As Pawns: Is This What Child Abduction Looks Like? Another Mother Demonized by the American Media

No Responses »
Jun 012010

 

By Randi James

This story has as many twists in it as the David Goldman and Bruna Bianchi Story. Interestingly, it also has a couple of similarities. First, these cases involve the family courts in the State of New Jersey. Second, the wives have not been able to speak for themselves, so we have the father being represented by the media.

Let’s break down the stories as reported in the United States. Please make note of the language that is utilized and the structure of that language:

In a March 6, 2010 NBC New York article entitled, NJ Dad Fights for His Children After Wife Flees to Korea:

"I suspect they are in Korea but i’m not sure," says Mendoza.

He says his wife took the children, then disappeared into her native country of South Korea

The father (Mendoza) doesn’t really know where his kids are but says that his wife (Shim) took the kids (from where) and hid out.

Shim allegedly convinced Mendoza to move to a town south of Seoul. He says they were hurting financially so he returned to America to wait for his family that never showed up.

The father was convinced to move to Korea but the monetary payout wasn’t what he was seeking. He went back to the U.S. to wait? So in the meantime, what was he doing? Did his wife say she wanted to return to the U.S.? Did she say that she would?

Shim tells the court and Korean authorities a much different story.

"Mrs. Shim, the mother, was told by her 5-year-old son there was some type of sexual abuse by the father to the 2-year-old daughter," said Shim’s attorney Christine Bae.

Mendoza denies the charge, asking why, if she believed it, his wife fled rather than show up in court to gain legal custody of the children.

The father denies the charge? Or the allegation? And why would the mother flee? She was in Korea, wouldn’t the question be why would the father flee, especially in that Korea is non-signatory to the Hague Convention? Why not pursue his children in Korea?

Mendoza says his wife has allowed him to chat with his kids once a month through Skype, but he’s had no contact since his wife’s arrest.

Once a month since when?

In a March 7, 2010 in a New York Post article entitled, Musician mom held in kidnap: New hope for desperate NJ dad:

A globetrotting concert violinist who absconded with her son and daughter in South Korea last year was arrested in Guam last week, sparking hope for a New Jersey father who has waged a ferocious court battle to get his children back.

Globetrotting? The father is also a musician who has traveled the world.

Absconded with…in…? The mother did not abscond with her children TO South Korea–which would mean that she left somewhere (presumably New Jersey) with the kids and fled to South Korea. She fled IN South Korea.

Shim was busted Wednesday as she arrived at the airport in Guam, a US territory.

Busted? A little dramatic, no? It would be reasoned that this woman knew Guam was a US territory and thus travel there would pose a risk, if she felt she had something to risk.

Shim’s arrest is the latest turn in Mendoza’s custody battle, which has been mired in global politics and red tape because Korea does not observe the Hague Convention governing international custody battles.

Is the red tape because of the Hague Convention, or something else?

The nightmare began in February 2009 for Mendoza, 47, when at Shim’s request he took a temporary teaching position she had arranged for him at Suwon University in South Korea. Shim told him she wanted to expose their children to her country’s culture.

And so we have here that the father agreed to move to South Korea.

And a month into the trip, Mendoza realized his salary was only half of what his wife had promised. So in April, he flew back to the United States, hoping to earn enough money to move his family back to New Jersey.

And then the father decides to return to the United States, without his wife and children, for economic reasons.

Two days after he arrived home, his wife called him, saying he had molested their daughter and shouldn’t return to Korea, Mendoza’s web site says.

And here we have allegations of sexual abuse involving the father.

Shim vowed to raise the children on her own and said she had taken over his Korean teaching position.

The mother takes the job that the father held–the same job that seemingly didn’t pay him enough money.

The devoted dad flew back to Korea in May and found that the apartment where the family had lived was cleared out.

Mendoza visited the US Embassy in Seoul to report that his wife had kidnapped their kids, he says. He was also questioned by Korean police about the abuse allegations, but was released without being charged.

Nothing mentioned about what the Korean officials said about the mother and children.

Mendoza took his fight to New Jersey courts, where, Brandt said, a judge awarded him full custody of the children.

Father returns to the U.S. and is awarded full custody of the children in absence of the mother and children in that New Jersey courtroom. What did the father say to the judge? What evidence did he provide? How was the mother noticed of the hearing? Did she have enough time to respond? If you make a kidnapping accusation in a New Jersey courtroom are you automatically given full custody of your children without any investigation into the matter?

In a March 12 article entitled, Dumont father battling wife in international custody case; kids are in South Korea:

Now, authorities are preparing to bring Shim to New Jersey to face charges that she kept their son and daughter in South Korea without Mendoza’s consent. Bergen County prosecutors have also charged Shim with interfering with custody, a second-degree charge that carries up to 10 years in prison.

When is consent or lack of consent established? What is the time frame? And how is this proven?

But not long ago, Shim told Mendoza that she wanted to move to Korea for a time, having lost interest in the conservatory and having become impatient with life in the Western world, he said. Mendoza said he reluctantly agreed to live there for a year.

The father agreed…for a period of one year. This would mean that the father violated the agreement when he moved back to New Jersey.

Mendoza worked as a music teacher and Shim worked part time while taking care of the children, and she seemed happier than she had been in Dumont, he said.

Soon, however, Mendoza found out that his pay was half of what he had expected, he said.

Realizing that he was not making enough to support a family of four, and fearing that a prolonged absence from the United States would jeopardize his teaching jobs here, he decided to return briefly and lay the foundation for a permanent move back to the U.S., he said.

The mother was happy in Korea despite what the father depicts as an income issue. The father was concerned with money and status in the U.S. Was this a marital agreement or a unilateral move on a hope and wish that his wife would follow suit?

Mendoza’s attorney, Galit Moskowitz, …Scott Laterra, another attorney for Mendoza…

The father has two attorneys.

…Shim filed a criminal complaint a few days before Mendoza left Korea, and then told him about it after he arrived in the United States.

This would mean that the child(ren) alleged sexual abuse before the father even left Korea, but that the Korean authorities had not yet contacted him.

Last week, Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Carver issued an order finding Shim in contempt of court and issued a warrant for her arrest.

Remember his name.

Bae said the children are now with their maternal grandmother in South Korea, and stressed that Mendoza knows exactly where they are.

The children’s whereabouts are known? This sounds like a NCMEC case /snark.

Mendoza said he has been able to talk to the children once in a while over the phone but has lost touch for the past three weeks.

Previously he said he talks to them via Skype on a monthly basis. If the mother is in prison/jail, how does he expect her to continue to facilitate this?

In a May 28 article entitled, Violinist to remain in jail until kids returned: judge:

A globetrotting violinist who was arrested in Guam months ago after she absconded with her two young children in South Korea will remain behind bars until the children are returned home, a Bergen County judge said today.

"She remains arrested under my orders," said Judge Alexander H Carver, of Si Nae-Shim, who did not appear in court.

He reiterated that she would not be released until the children are brought home.

The mother has not even appeared in court yet. The judge doesn’t want to hear her, he only wants to see the kids returned to New Jersey. The mother has not spoken, therefore she has not been heard. How can the kids be ordered to return to the U.S. based upon the decision of one judge and one party–the father? Why not order the father to return to Korea? What gives New Jersey and the United States all of this power? Remember his name, again, Bergen County Judge Alexander H. Carver.

Will the U.S. will bully South Korea based on this case, just as they did Brazil (using economic sanctions)? Will father’s rights continue to trump children’s best interests? Will father’s rights groups try to bully South Korea just as they are doing to Japan (regarding the Savioe case)? Will South Korea bow down to the United States Hague Convention? Or will the hypocrisy of the United States and their treatment of women and children finally be exposed on an international level?

Parental Alienation Syndrome (my ass)

WordPress Tags: International,Kids,Child,Abduction,Another,Mother,American,Randi,James,David,Goldman,Bruna,Bianchi,Story,cases,courts,State,Jersey,Second,father,language,March,York,article,Children,Wife,Korea,Mendoza,South,Shim,Seoul,America,payout,meantime,Korean,authorities,daughter,attorney,Christine,custody,allegation,signatory,Hague,Convention,Skype,Once,Post,Musician,concert,violinist,Guam,world,airport,territory,woman,politics,February,Suwon,expose,culture,salary,April,money,apartment,Embassy,Brandt,absence,accusation,investigation,Dumont,Bergen,degree,prison,conservatory,life,Western,period,agreement,music,teacher,Soon,foundation,income,status,Galit,Moskowitz,Scott,Laterra,complaint,Last,Superior,Court,Judge,Alexander,Carver,contempt,Remember,whereabouts,NCMEC,talks,basis,orders,decision,Brazil,rights,interests,Japan,Savioe,hypocrisy,treatment,allegations,doesn,sexual,month,week,courtroom

Abused Women in Maryland Aren’t Lying

No Responses »
May 202010

by Elizabeth Black ·Ms.Magazine

This spring, the Maryland legislature killed a bill that would have brought Maryland’s restraining order policies into line with every other state in the union. Remarkably, in Maryland, a stalking victim seeking help is required to prove her case with “clear and convincing” evidence, a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the universal standard for civil dispute.

There can be only one reason for this absurd requirement: that the Maryland legislators who voted for the bill, listed here, believe that women who testify that they’ve been abused are less credible than men who deny being abusers. That’s not a level playing field, and it’s an absolutely unacceptable attitude for a legislator to hold.

But it’s no mystery where they’re getting this idea. Father’s and men’s rights activists have long promoted the myth that false allegations of domestic violence are rampant, especially in custody cases, and that women frequently file for protective orders in order to gain an upper hand in court. The group Fathers and Families in particular has promoted fathers’ rights propaganda around the country, and has directly targeted legislators. When Maryland Rep. Luis Simmons stated in an interview that he believed it only fair to expunge records of those who had been given a Temporary Restraining Order that didn’t lead to a final order (because a judge dismissed or denied it), Fathers and Families encouraged its supporters to contact Simmons to applaud his statement.

In fact, bona fide false allegations of domestic violence are rare. Dr. Michael Flood wrote in his paper “Fact Sheet #2: The Myth Of Women False Accusation Of Domestic Violence And Misuse Of Protective Orders” that most abused women are reluctant to take out restraining orders:

The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation … Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort … Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

It is only when women experience more severe forms of violence, such as choking, beating, or being shot at, that they are more likely to take out a protective order.

As experts Rita Smith and Pamela Coukos of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence wrote in an article for the peer-reviewed Judges Journal:

Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful consideration of evidence in domestic or family violence when determining custody, allegations of domestic violence and/or child sexual abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are not always taken seriously. These allegations often are wrongly perceived as false because they are asserted in a contentious environment and because of the widespread myth that parents fabricate domestic violence and child abuse allegations in order to gain an advantage in court. When combined with the misuse of psychological syndrome evidence, the perception that a parent has fabricated the allegations often results in unfair retribution against the reporting protective parent.

Furthermore, obtaining a restraining order does not guarantee that an abused woman will be able to gain custody of her children or see her abuse taken seriously. According to Attorney Elizabeth Kates, citing Zorza, Dore, and Rosen:

Research does not substantiate this popular myth [that women frequently lie about domestic violence]. However, research does substantiate that there is no tactical advantage to making domestic violence claims. Fathers are more likely to get visitation when domestic violence is alleged, even in states with custody presumptions enacted to protect battered women. Abusive fathers are more likely to obtain primary custody when domestic violence is present, alleged or not.

More evidence that women don’t lie comes from a 1994 study of a Massachusetts database tracking restraining orders (RO’s):

[T]he high frequency with which RO’s are issued might lead some skeptics to assume that these orders are granted too easily for minor offenses and almost any man is at risk of being a defendant. The data from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men against whom RO’s have been used are clearly not a random draw from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often reflective of violent behavior toward others.

Thus, it simply isn’t true that women are likely to lodge false charges of child abuse or battering against their spouses in an effort to manipulate or retaliate–the rate of false reports in these circumstances is no greater than for other crimes.

This research and testimony needs to get out there to combat men’s and father’s rights group propaganda, so legislators are not influenced by untruths. To do anything less places an unfair burden of proof on abused women.

Ms.Magazine: How Family Courts Punish Abused Women

No Responses »
May 202010

by R. Dianne Bartlow ·

“The dirtiest little secret in America” is that family courts, in deciding custody, often wreak devastation upon mothers and children.

So argue Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein, editors of the new anthology Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody, which brings to light what many familiar with the family court system have long known: Designed to dispense justice, the system has become instead “an instrument of oppression,” particularly in cases involving domestic violence.

To find a chilling example of what the editors mean, we need look no further than the recent murder of infant Wyatt Garcia,reported in the Daily Beast:

Wyatt Garcia was born in April 2009. Nine months later, he was shot and killed by his father, who then turned the gun on himself.

It might have turned out differently—if a family-court judge had listened to Wyatt’s mother.

Wyatt’s mother, Katie Tagle, had previously filed three motions in family court for an order of protection against the baby’s father, Stephen Garcia, alleging that he had physically assaulted her and harassed her and her family. Garcia was apparently jealous that she was dating again. In the last motion, Tagle charged that Garcia “had threatened to kill her and their baby.”

The San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Robert Lemkau chose to believe Garcia’s denials over the evidence supplied by Tagle–which included emails, text messages, and voice messages, according to the Daily Beast. Tagle says she was treated like a “criminal” and “complaining woman.”

One goal of Hannah and Goldstein’s book is to convince judges, attorneys, and others who work in the court system that all forms of abusive behavior, whether physical, verbal, financial or legal, cause harm to women and children. On the legal side, men who abuse their female intimate partners have successfully used strategies such as false accusations, harassment, manipulation, and intimidation to win custody while often driving their victims into poverty. According to contributing author and lawyer Joan Zorza:

Abusive men not only harass their victims, many harass their partners’ lawyers and manipulate those in and connected with the court system who are supposed to insure that children are placed with their better parent in a safe, nurturing environment.

This makes it all the stranger that about half of the time batterers win custody in family courts. They are actually more likely to win custody than men who do not abuse their partners, according to Zorza. Over the past nine months, 75 children have been murdered by abusive fathers who used custody battles to get even with the mothers, according to the Daily Beast.

Yet Katie Tagle’s dismissive treatment by family courts is all-too-familiar. While there has been a growing awareness over the last 30 years of the harm domestic violence causes, courts are more and more ignoring women’s allegations of domestic violence and holding them responsible for their own abuse. This is largely due to courts’ reliance upon mental health experts who have inadequate training in intimate violence or child sexual abuse and who are easily manipulated by batterers.

Gender bias plays a large role in this backlash, according to the editors:

Compared to men, women are disbelieved more often, held to much higher standards, and judged far more punitively for failings such as drinking, use of drugs, adultery, or hostility to their partners. …Such behaviors are readily seen as grounds for giving the father custody.

Hannah and Goldstein hope to also expose two particularly harmful court practices that have evolved over the last several decades: Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), and “friendly parent” statutes. PAS provides a handy–and utterly without basis–refutation to incest and abuse claims by blaming mothers for any hostility that the children feel towards their fathers, maintaining that children love and respect their fathers unless a “poisonous” mother has convinced them otherwise. Even alleged incest and violence are not deemed reason enough for children to independently turn against their fathers.

Since PAS has been deemed by the American Psychological Association to have no scientific backing, at least 32 states have incorporated the milder sounding “friendly parent” concept into their custody laws. This gives custody to the parent who will encourage the child to have more contact and a better relationship with the other parent. Often mothers are hurt by the friendly parent concept, since they can be deemed “unfriendly” for saying anything against the father, including alleging abuse. Zorza says that, ironically enough:

The unfriendly behavior of noncustodial parents (usually the father), such as not paying child support, physically or verbally abusing the mother, or stalking her, is not considered as meeting the definition of unfriendly.

With such an approach, Zorza says, family violence is discounted, and abusers are empowered while battered women are disempowered. Ultimately, children are harmed.

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody will be instructive for policymakers, those working in the family justice system, and members of the media–which the authors say has by-and-large failed to expose custody court scandals. But it is a must-read for any mother involved in a child custody battle, and especially for mothers trying get free from an abusive relationship.

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each Line Represents a Trip to Court. This is a KANSAS CASE! The Claudine Dombrowski Case.

No Responses »
May 182010

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence There is a crisis in our nation’s family courts. Judges are awarding child custody to abusers and pedophiles and punishing the safe parent who tries to … As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine’s history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here
www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

200 SE 7th Street, Topeka, KS  66603, (785) 233-8200

http://www.shawneecourt.org/doe/search.jsp?caseNumber=96D+000217&location

Case Number: 96D 000217

Div 13 – Hon. David B. Debenham . . .Ext. 4203

Petitioner:

RICHARDSON,HAL,,

Attorney:

HOFFMAN,DONALD,R,

Respondent:

DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,,

Attorney:

DUNCAN,ROBERT,E,II,

Division:

13

Next Activity:

H on 05/26/2010 at 1:30 PM

03/04/1996

-

Petition filed on 03/04/96

03/04/1996

-

Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. #1 Motion for Ex-Parte Interlocutory Orders filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON

03/04/1996

-

Summons issued personal service as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI issued to special process server.

03/04/1996

-

$61.50 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (61.50 DM Docket Fee)

03/04/1996

-

Temporary Restraining Order filed. – TRC

03/05/1996

-

Summons returned, personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 03/04/96 .

03/07/1996

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 04/02/96 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

03/07/1996

-

#2 Motion filed and entered by ALAN F ALDERSON for TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT. #3 Motion filed and entered by ALAN F ALDERSON for TEMPORARY CUSTODY

03/07/1996

-

Answer filed. Answering DEFENDANT CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. Answering attorney ALAN F ALDERSON. Worksheet T – Temporary Maintenance RESPONDENT’S Child Support Worksheet as of 3/4/96.

03/07/1996

-

DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDANT

03/19/1996

-

Domestic Relations Affidavit OF HAL RICHARDSON.

03/19/1996

-

Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Application for Temporary Maintenance and Child Support filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

03/25/1996

-

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS FILED BY ALAN ALDERSON.

03/27/1996

-

AFFIDAVIT IN CONTEMPT FILED. ACCUSATION IN CONTEMPT & MOTION TO SEVER CONTACT & REQUIRE THERAPY FILED BY ALAN ALDERSON.

04/02/1996

-

Petitioner appears in person and by D.Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by A.Alderson. Mr. Hoffman says temporary custody is not disputed, although visitation schedule is being worked on. Order of Conciliation signed. Motions continued re: temporary support and accusation in contempt for agreed order or to be reset upon request of parties. JWL

04/02/1996

-

ORDER FOR CONCILIATION – JWL

04/02/1996

-

Notice of service of Discovery filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/30/1996

-

### MOTION FILED BY ALAN F ALDERSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDANT

05/01/1996

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY NANCY E FREUND ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

05/09/1996

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 06/06/96 at 11:00AM. in division 01.

05/10/1996

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney ALAN F ALDERSON filed. – JWL

05/10/1996

-

#4 Motion filed and entered by NANCY E FREUND for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE.

05/17/1996

-

EMERGENCY CONFERENCE AT THE REQUEST OF MR. HOFFMAN. Re- porter, Martha Young. Petitioner appears by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears by Nancy Freund. Sheri Keller for Court Services. Telephone conference with Bernie Nobo, MSW, and all parties. Determined Respondent’s move would not be physical jeopardizing to minor. Court Services to work on exchange for visitation (child is 17 months old). Other terms on the record. Nancy Freund to prepare journal entry. Case continued to 6/6/96. JWL

05/21/1996

-

#5 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY.

05/28/1996

-

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY FILED BY NANCY E FREUND.

06/04/1996

-

Per phone call from Shirley in Don Hoffman’s office, and verified with Julie in Nancy Freund’s office, case to be taken off docket until reports from Dr. Maxfield are re- ceived. Cancel 6/6/96 hearing. DBC

06/05/1996

-

### MOTION FILED BY NANCY E FREUND TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDANT

06/07/1996

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY JOHN J AMBROSIO ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

06/17/1996

-

ORDER FILED BY NANCY E. FREUND JWL

06/17/1996

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney NANCY E. FREUND filed. – JWL

07/02/1996

-

SET – Status Docket on 09/04/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

07/02/1996

-

Notice sent.

07/24/1996

-

Notice of service of Discovery filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN

08/28/1996

-

#6 Motion filed and entered by JOHN J AMBROSIO for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET CHILD SUPPORT. Filmed 08/29/96.

09/04/1996

-

RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.

09/04/1996

-

SET – Status Docket on 10/02/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

09/04/1996

-

Notice sent.

09/04/1996

-

STATUS: Petitioner appears by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears by John Ambrosio. Case continued to 10/2/96 status docket, 9:00am, awaiting a report from Dr. Maxwell. LGK/pro tem

09/09/1996

-

DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDANT Filmed 09/10/96.

09/11/1996

-

SET – Pre-trial on 10/23/96 at 03:15PM. in division 01.

09/11/1996

-

Notice sent.

10/18/1996

-

AMENDED DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

10/22/1996

-

PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN. Filmed 10/23/96.

10/23/1996

-

SUMMONS AND CONTINUANCE NOTICE FILED BY DIST. COURT TRUSTEE

10/24/1996

-

PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.

11/01/1996

-

SET – Status Docket on 12/04/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

11/01/1996

-

Notice sent.

11/04/1996

-

Phone conference with John Ambrosio with Don Hoffman in chambers. Scott McKenzie to be appointed GAL with $250.00 from each party up front, within 20 days. Court to prepare order. JWL

11/05/1996

-

PRETRIAL ORDER. JWL

11/05/1996

-

LETTER TO MR. HOFFMAN AND MR. AMBROSIO FROM JUDGE LEUENBERGER REGARDING THE PRETRIAL ORDER.

11/06/1996

-

ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SCOTT MCKENZIE, – JWL

11/12/1996

-

SET – Court Trial on 01/30/97 at 01:45PM. in division 01.

11/12/1996

-

Notice sent.

11/14/1996

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

11/15/1996

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 12/13/96 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/02/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified. Filmed 01/06/97.

01/06/1997

-

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW FILED BY SCOTT D. MCKINZIE. (FOR GAL)

01/07/1997

-

ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TO DONALD R HOFFMAN – JWL

01/14/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(JOHN FIORE) Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(LARNED STATE HOSPITAL)

01/15/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/23/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/15/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/21/97 05:00P.M. as to LARNED STATE HOSPITAL issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/15/1997

-

Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 01/10/97 .

01/16/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (8 SUBPOENAS)

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. $10.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. $10.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/24/97 05:00P.M. as to STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/17/1997

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, SCOTT MCKENZIE, filed. – JWL

01/17/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/27/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

01/17/1997

-

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN. Filmed 01/21/97.

01/21/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BRENDA DIVER 01/20/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to SHERRI KELLER 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW 01/17/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 01/18/97 .

01/21/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 01/18/97 .

01/21/1997

-

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY JOHN J AMBROSIO. Filmed 01/22/97.

01/22/1997

-

#7 Motion filed and entered by MERRILL J BEFORT HICKLIN for STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.

01/29/1997

-

#8 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE VISITATION SCHEDULE PENDING TRIAL.

01/30/1997

-

SET – Court Trial on 04/17/97 at 01:45PM. in division 01.

01/30/1997

-

Notice sent.

01/30/1997

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 02/21/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

01/30/1997

-

Notice sent.

01/30/1997

-

Scheduling Conference: Chamber conference with Donald Hoffman, John Ambrosio, and Scott McKenzie, GAL. Case continued to 4/17/97 at 1:45pm. Court to call Maxfield’s office for written report, if any available notify attorneys Parties to work out interim visitation. Motion for visitation continued to 2/21/97. Motion of SRS moot, they should prepare order, court to call. JWL

02/04/1997

-

MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY MERRILL J. HICKLIN BEFORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE KANSAS DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. Filmed 02/05/97.

02/07/1997

-

AGREED ORDER. JWL

02/11/1997

-

Call from Kathy in Ambrosio’s office. Said based on fax from Hoffman’s office, visitation issue settled by agreed order and no need for 2/21/97 hearing. DBC

02/13/1997

-

AGREED ORDER FILED – JWL

02/21/1997

-

Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to LARNED STATE HOSPITAL 02/14/97 .

02/25/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from LARNED STATE HOSPITAL filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

02/26/1997

-

Subpoena recalled – as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 02/26/97

02/26/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

02/26/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 03/20/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

03/07/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

03/10/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

03/11/1997

-

ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY TO DONALD R HOFFMAN – JWL

03/14/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service FAX AS PER JOHN FIORE INSTRUCTIONS as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 02/28/97 Filmed 03/17/97.

04/01/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(5 PRAECIPES)

04/01/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/01/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

04/03/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with spouse – WITH HIS RECEPTIONIST – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD 04/02/97 .

04/03/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 04/01/97 .

04/03/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to SHERRI KELLER 04/01/97 .

04/03/1997

-

Notice of Service for Discovery Requests Filed by Donald R. Hoffman. Amended Witness & Exhibit List Filed by Donald R. Hoffman.

04/15/1997

-

FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN.

04/17/1997

-

FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.

04/17/1997

-

CT: Petitioner appears in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by John Ambrosio. GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Court conducts a final and brief pretrial conference in chambers with both parties and all counsel, on the record. Parties given an opportun- ity to confer. Parties announce an agreed settlement, as per j.e. Outline of agreement on the record by Petitioner’s counsel. Respondent and her attorney left prior to outline of settlement on the record. Petitioner offered jurisdic- tional and grounds evidence. Divorce granted on grounds of incompatibility subject to final j.e. GAL announced his bill. GAL to continue appointment subject to terms in j.e. Journal entry to be prepared within 10 working days. JWL

04/18/1997

-

### MOTION FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

04/18/1997

-

LETTER TO JOHN AMBROSIO FROM CLAUDINE M. DOMBROWSKI.

04/21/1997

-

REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI #9 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CORRECT MINOR CHILD’S NAME IN ALL COURT DOCUMENTS #10 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CHANGE COURT SERVICES OFFICER

04/21/1997

-

#11 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER #12 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM #13 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR TEMPORARY CHILD SUPPORT

04/21/1997

-

#14 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY #15 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD #16 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AS TO RELOCATION AS TO RESPONDENT AND MINOR CHILD

04/21/1997

-

#17 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURPORTING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD OF NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE #18 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD

04/23/1997

-

SET – Hearing on 05/19/97 at 08:45AM. in division 01.

04/23/1997

-

Notice sent.

05/09/1997

-

#20 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CONTINUANCE Filmed 05/12/97.

05/09/1997

-

#21 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING PETITIONER’S VISITATION AND SHARED CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD Filmed 05/12/97.

05/19/1997

-

#22 Motion filed and entered by SCOTT D MCKENZIE FOR ORDER OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

05/19/1997

-

#23 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER DIRECTING MINOR CHILD OF PARTIES BE RETURNED TO PETITIONER PENDING TRAIL OF INSTANT CASE

05/19/1997

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 06/12/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

05/19/1997

-

GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Court Services appears by Sheri Keller. Petitioner appears in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears not but by John Ambrosio and Mike Broemmel for Anika Kweli. John Ambrosio’s motion to withdraw sustained. Scheduling conference: all motions set for 1 1/2 hours on 6/16/97. Respondent to file any matters in support by 5/29/97. Petitioner has until 6/9/97 to reply. GAL reply thereafter. Supporting affidavit for allegation of Indian Child motion. Trial set for 9/16/97 at 9:00am, full day. GAL has emergency motion set for 5/20/97 at 1:30pm. Visitation issue and Respondent not present for scheduling conference. JWL

05/20/1997

-

H: Petitioner appears in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent and minor child appears in person and Respondent by Anika Kweli. GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Evidence and motion heard. Ruling as per record. Motion denied, but temporary visitation modified. Order to be forwarded by 5/22/97. JWL

05/21/1997

-

SET – Hearing on 06/16/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.

05/21/1997

-

Notice sent.

05/21/1997

-

SET – Court Trial on 09/16/97 at 09:00AM. in division 01.

05/21/1997

-

Notice sent.

05/22/1997

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, JOHN J AMBROSIO, filed. – JWL

05/22/1997

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 06/26/97 at 09:30AM. in division 01.

05/22/1997

-

#24 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ATTORNEY FEES

05/28/1997

-

Call to Mr. Hoffman’s office, okay to sign Temporary Child Custody and Support Orders, a copy was faxed to him pre- viously. DBC

05/28/1997

-

Temporary Custody and Support Orders filed by AINKA C KWELI. CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI to pay $119.00 beginning 05/20/97. – JWL

05/29/1997

-

#25 Motion filed and entered by SCOTT D MCKENZIE FOR ASSESSMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES

05/29/1997

-

### MOTION FILED BY SCOTT D MCKENZIE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM

05/29/1997

-

#26 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CLARIFY PRE-TRIAL ORDER

05/29/1997

-

#27 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT

06/02/1997

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, SCOTT D MCKENZIE, filed. – JWL

06/03/1997

-

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY BEFORE JUDGE LEUENBERGER 05/20/97

06/16/1997

-

$120.00 Cash recd from RICHARDSON,HAL,, (120.00 DM Payment)

06/16/1997

-

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Petitioner appears in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by Ainka Kweli. Scott McKenzie, former GAL, appears in person. Motions filed since 5/20/97: Petitioner’s Motion for attorneys fees, GAL’s motion for attorneys fees, Respondent motion to clarify pretrial order, Respondent’s Motion for Citation in Contempt. GAL fees allowed, divided one-half to each party. Other motions under advisement. JWL

06/17/1997

-

AMENDED TEMPORARY CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT ORDERS FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI. JWL

06/23/1997

-

Inter Office Memo

06/24/1997

-

PAY OUT 120.00 ON 96D217 PER OBLIGATION LOADED PER IOM 6/23/97

06/25/1997

-

LETTER DECISION FILED. JWL (CONCERNING ATTY.FEES) Filmed 06/27/97.

07/07/1997

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY SCOTT D.MCKENZIE. JWL (CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES) Filmed 07/08/97.

08/15/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. (NINE PRAECIPES) Filmed 08/18/97.

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to JENNY SHAW Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to ATT CORPORATION Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/18/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE Requested by AINKA C KWELI

08/20/1997

-

Transcript of HEARING, held 061697 filed.

08/25/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to JENNY SHAW certified mail #P755979344 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997

-

Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – Received by: SECRETARY – as to SHERRI KELLER 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to ATT CORPORATION certified mail #P755979347 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT certified mail #P755979349 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT certified mail #P755979350 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE certified mail #P755979351 08/21/97 .

08/25/1997

-

Transcript of HEARING, held 040297 filed. Filmed 08/26/97.

08/26/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from JENNY SHAW filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.

08/27/1997

-

Subpoena returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SGT. THOMPSON – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT 08/25/97 .

08/27/1997

-

Subpoena returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SGT. THOMPSON – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT 08/25/97 .

08/27/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from SHERRI KELLER filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.

08/27/1997

-

LETTER FROM SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT REGARDING OBJECTION TO TWO SUBPOENA’S FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

08/29/1997

-

AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY SCOTT D MCKENZIE

08/29/1997

-

#28 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT.

08/29/1997

-

#29 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CITATION IN CONTEMPT. #30 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CITATION IN CONTEMPT.

08/29/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. Filmed 09/02/97.

09/02/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/05/97 05:00P.M. as to S.A.R.P Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/02/1997

-

SET – Court Trial on 09/18/97 at 01:30PM. in division 12.

09/02/1997

-

Notice sent.

09/02/1997

-

Upon motion of Respondent to recuse, Judge Leuenberger recuses and case is transferred to Div 12. Administrative Assistant called both attorneys to advise trial changed to 9/18/97 and 9/19/97 beginning at 1:30 p.m. both days, from 9/16/97. JWL

09/02/1997

-

Reassigned to division 12 from division 1. OJA reason for transfer 2.

09/02/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified. Filmed 09/09/97.

09/03/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE certified mail #P755979346 08/28/97 .

09/03/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from ATT CORPORATION filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified. Filmed 09/09/97.

09/04/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (5 PRAECIPES FILED)

09/04/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/04/1997

-

Subpoena issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/05/1997

-

#31 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E KEESHAN for SHAWNEE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO STAY OR QUASH SUBPOENA.

09/08/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to S.A.R.P certified mail #P755983645 09/04/97 .

09/08/1997

-

Filed by Fax AMENDED WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY AINKA C KWELI.

09/08/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(4 SUBPOENA’S)

09/09/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 09/05/97 .

09/09/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to JENNY SHAW issued to special process server. $15.40 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/09/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to STEVEN E HARVEY issued to special process server. $17.15 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/10/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signee unknown – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW certified mail #P755984919 09/08/97 .

09/10/1997

-

Affidavit of Business Records from TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.

09/10/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 09/09/97 .

09/10/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 09/09/97 .

09/10/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to STEVEN E HARVEY 09/09/97 .

09/11/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD certified mail #P755984921 09/09/97 .

09/11/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SEC. – as to SHERRI KELLER 09/09/97 .

09/11/1997

-

Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by addressee – as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE certified mail #P755984924 09/08/97

09/11/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to JENNY SHAW 09/10/97 .

09/11/1997

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BRENDA DIVER 09/10/97 .

09/15/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

09/15/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to OFFICER BUTELL issued to special process server. $12.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/16/1997

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. (FOUR PRAECIPES)

09/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to DR GRACE MORRISON $215.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to GERI THOMPSON $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to MARY KELLY $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to HAL RICHARDSON III $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI

09/16/1997

-

#32 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IN LIMINE. Filed by Fax

09/16/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with resident agent – LEFT WITH SGT MILLER – as to OFFICER BUTELL 09/16/97 .

09/17/1997

-

AMENDED WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY AINKA C KWELI

09/17/1997

-

FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED Filmed 09/18/97.

09/17/1997

-

FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY AINKA C KWELI Filmed 09/19/97.

09/18/1997

-

#33 Combined Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND MEMORANDUM TO PRODUCE BUSINESS RECORDS AND RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS. Filed by Fax

09/18/1997

-

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN

09/19/1997

-

ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE MENTAL HEALTH TO AINKA C KWELI – JPB Filmed 09/22/97.

09/22/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to MARY KELLY 09/18/97 .

09/23/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to DR GRACE MORRISON certified mail #P755988036 09/20/97 .

09/24/1997

-

Filed by Fax #34 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR LEAVE.

09/25/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signed by addressee – as to GERI THOMPSON certified mail #P755988037 09/22/97 .

09/26/1997

-

SET – Telephone Conference on 10/03/97 at 11:00AM. in division 12.

09/26/1997

-

Notice sent.

09/29/1997

-

FINAL ARGUMENT FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN.

09/29/1997

-

Filed by Fax RESPONDENT’S CLOSING SUMMATION AND ARGUMENT FILED BY AINKA C KWELI.

10/14/1997

-

Subpoena duces tecum returned certified mail requested , no service, no reason given – as to HAL RICHARDSON III 10/13/97

10/28/1997

-

Journal entry granting divorce, property division, custody child support. RFAD JPB

10/28/1997

-

RFAD; 10/28/97

10/29/1997

-

JOURNAL ENTRY OF DIVORCE FILED – JPB Child Support Worksheet

11/03/1997

-

Filed by Fax #35 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. Notice of Appeal filed by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, to the APPELLATE Court.

11/03/1997

-

SET – Motion Docket on 11/20/97 at 10:00AM. in division 12.

11/07/1997

-

#36 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON JOINING IN RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR STAY AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT.

11/12/1997

-

SET – Motion Docket on 11/24/97 at 03:00PM. in division 12.

11/12/1997

-

Notice sent.

11/24/1997

-

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI Filed by Fax

11/24/1997

-

Entry of appearance filed by GARY N GORUP. ENTERING HIS AP- PEARANCE AS ATTORNEY FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. FILED BY FAX.

11/25/1997

-

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN. Filmed 12/02/97.

12/01/1997

-

Journal Entry filed. JPB

12/08/1997

-

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY GEARY N GORUP Filmed 12/09/97.

12/29/1997

-

NOTICE FROM THE APPELLATE COURT, MOTION BY APPELLANT, CLAUDINE DOMROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL GRANTED.

01/05/1998

-

Card from the Clerk of the APPELLATE Court; they have received and filed the Notice of Appeal – Case No. 97-80304-A Filmed 01/16/98.

01/16/1998

-

Completed Table of Contents and mailed to attorneys; DONALD HOFFMAN AND GEARY GORUP

03/04/1998

-

Filed by Fax – INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM. Filmed 03/09/98.

03/17/1998

-

Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE

03/17/1998

-

Filmed 03/17/98.

03/17/1998

-

Garnishment order issued certified mail to STATE OF KANSAS IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

03/24/1998

-

Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to STATE OF KANSAS certified mail #P756185657 03/20/98 .

04/07/1998

-

BUSINESS RECORDS OF JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 03/07/97

04/07/1998

-

BUSINESS RECORDS OF LARNED STATE HOSPITAL DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 02/20/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 03/10/97

04/13/1998

-

SUPREME COURT RULE NO. 3.02 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONS TO RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY GEARY N GORUP. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY GEARY N GORUP.

04/15/1998

-

DEMAND FOR ESTIMATED COST OF TRANSCRIPT FILED BY ESTHER L THOMPSON.

04/21/1998

-

RECEIVED COPY OF LETTER REQUESTING TRANSCRIPT, CHECK SENT TO COURT REPORTER.

04/23/1998

-

LETTER FROM ESTHER L THOMPSON, COURT REPORTER RECEIVED HER ESTIMATED COST FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSCRIPT AND IS DUE ON 05/29/98 AND ANTICIPATE FILING THIS TRANSCRIPT BEFORE THIS DATE FILED.

05/04/1998

-

Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 03/08/98 & ENDING 03/21/98) Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 03/22/98 & ENDING 04/04/98) Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 04/05/98 & ENDING 04/18/98)

05/04/1998

-

RECEIVED EXHIBITS REQUESTED BY GEARY N. GORUP FROM THE COURT REPORTER. (3,A,B,& C)

05/04/1998

-

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED BY ESTHER L. THOMPSON TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD ON 18TH & 19TH OF SEPTEMBER 97.

05/04/1998

-

TRANSCRIPT OF VOLUME II OF PROTIONS OF COURT TRIAL HELD ON 18T & 19TH DAYS OF SEPTEMBER 1997.

05/06/1998

-

Order to pay in and pay out filed. STATE OF KANSAS to pay in $169.38 Clerk to pay SCOTT D MCKENZIE. -JPB

05/06/1998

-

Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE

05/06/1998

-

Filmed 05/07/98.

05/07/1998

-

Garnishment order issued certified mail to STATE OF KANSAS IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

05/07/1998

-

Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE

05/07/1998

-

Filmed 05/08/98.

05/07/1998

-

Garnishment order issued certified mail to COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to HAL RICHARDSON

05/12/1998

-

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND DISMISSAL OF GARNISHMENTS FILED BY SCOTT MCKENZIE. CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO STATE OF KANSAS

05/13/1998

-

Answer of Garnishee COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST returned and filed. Holding $.00 Copy to attorney.(UNABLE TO FIND ACCOUNT)

05/14/1998

-

Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to STATE OF KANSAS certified mail #P756103038 05/11/98 .

05/14/1998

-

Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST certified mail #P756063503 05/12/98 .

05/18/1998

-

Received from the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, a request to transmit the Record on Appeal to Clerk of the Appellate Courts.

05/18/1998

-

HAND CARRIED RECORD ON APPEAL TO THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT 05/20/98.

12/30/1998

-

Mandate from the APPELLATE Court filed. Judgment of District Court, AFFIRMED. MEMORANDUM attached.

01/05/1999

-

LETTER TO HARRY MOORE FROM GEARY N GORUP DATED 12/31/98 THAT KANSAS SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED PETITION FOR REVIEW.

01/05/1999

-

BUSINESS RECORDS OF SHERRI KELLER DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 08/27/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/10/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF AT & T DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/03/97

01/05/1999

-

BUSINESS RECORDS OF JENNY SHAW DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 08/26/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/02/97

01/29/1999

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY REBECCA A KING ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. Filmed 02/01/99.

02/09/1999

-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY REBECCA A KING. Filmed 02/11/99.

03/02/1999

-

#37 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR STATUS CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT.

03/17/1999

-

SET – Status Conference on 03/30/99 at 09:00AM. in division 12.

03/17/1999

-

Notice sent.

03/23/1999

-

CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER. JPB RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM HARRY MOORE ATTACHED.

03/30/1999

-

Hoffman and petitioner; King for respondent. Agreed case should be referred to case manager for further work before motions. JPB

03/30/1999

-

COPY OF MEMO TO HARRY MOORE FROM JUDGE JAMES BUCHELE.

05/10/1999

-

OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed by REBECCA A KING

05/13/1999

-

CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed by HARRY MOORE ORDER ON CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed – JPB

05/27/1999

-

Transcript of TELEPHONE CALL, held 05/26/99 filed.

05/28/1999

-

#38 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ADVANCE HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS.

05/28/1999

-

ORDER FOR HEARING FILED – JPB ORDER FOR SERVICE FILED – JPB

05/28/1999

-

ORDER FOR HEARING issued as to HAL RICHARDSON personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

05/28/1999

-

ORDER FOR HEARING issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

05/28/1999

-

RETURN OF SERVICE ON ORDER FOR HEARING WAS FAXED TO PAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AS PER JUDGE BUCHELE

06/01/1999

-

ORDER FOR HEARING returned , personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI returned by fax 05/28/99 .

06/03/1999

-

ORDER FOR HEARING returned , personal service – as to HAL RICHARDSON 06/01/99 . Entered by 0211.

06/09/1999

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (2 PRAECIPES)

06/09/1999

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 06/15/99 09:00A.M. as to LENA NATION issued to special process server. $12.50 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

06/09/1999

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 06/15/99 09:00A.M. as to SHAWN NATION issued to special process server. $106.50 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN

06/14/1999

-

Filed by Fax

06/14/1999

-

#39 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY,CHILD SUPPORT,& MODIFICA- TION OF PREVIOUS JOURNAL ENTRY REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO MOVE TO TOPEKA & TO CHANGE THE MINOR CHILD’S SURNAME. Filmed 06/16/99

06/14/1999

-

Child Support Worksheet Filmed 06/16/99.

06/14/1999

-

Filed by Fax

06/14/1999

-

DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT Filmed 06/16/99. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. Filmed 06/16/99 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE JAMES BUCHELE. Filmed 06/16/99

06/15/1999

-

Subpoena returned , personal service – BY LEAVING WITH SHAWN, FATHER OF LENA – as to LENA NATION 06/11/99 Filmed 06/16/99.

06/15/1999

-

Subpoena returned , personal service – as to SHAWN NATION 06/11/99 Filmed 06/16/99.

06/15/1999

-

#40 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE. Filmed 06/22/99

06/16/1999

-

06/15/99 Parties appear with counsel Hoffman and King. Hearing held on issue of enforecement of prior order and order of case manager enforcing the order to move to Shawnee County. Miscellaneous orders stated on the record. King to prepare Journal Entry and submit per Rule 170. JPB

06/21/1999

-

TRANSCRIPT OF INFORMAL HEARING ON MOTION TO RECUSE

06/22/1999

-

MEMORANDUM TO JUDGE BULLOCK FROM JUDGE BUCHELE REGARDING MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED BY REBECCA KING FILED. Filmed 06/23/99.

06/28/1999

-

ORDER TO ENFORCE PRIOR ORDER, ORDER ESTABLISHING SUPERVISED VISITATION, ORDER FOR HEARING ON CHILD SUPPORT, ORDER ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND ORDER AMENDING PRIOR DECISION REGARDING SURNAME FILED. – JPB

06/28/1999

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE BUCHELE TO DONALD HOFFMAN REGARDING HEARING ON 6-15-99 ON VISITATION.

07/01/1999

-

SET – Hearing on 07/09/00 at 11:00AM. in division 12.

07/08/1999

-

Ruling on motion# 40 —Affidavit in Support of Recusal of Respondent DISMISSED by Court per Memorandum Decision and Order filed. JMM

07/08/1999

-

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FILED. – JMM

07/09/1999

-

CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET OF PETITIONER

07/12/1999

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE BUCHELE TO JUDGE BULLOCK REGARDING TRANFER PENDING CASE TO DIFFERENT JUDGE.

07/16/1999

-

AGREED UPON ORDER FOR CHILD SUPPORT FILED BY REBECCA KING. – JPB (attached Child Support Worksheet of Petitioner)

07/21/1999

-

Reassigned to division 2 from division 12. OJA reason for transfer 1.

07/26/1999

-

Notice of Appeal filed by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas.

07/26/1999

-

Filed by Fax

07/26/1999

-

AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)

07/26/1999

-

#41 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 60-262

07/26/1999

-

Filed by Fax

07/26/1999

-

AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)

07/28/1999

-

SET – Motion Docket on 08/12/99 at 10:30AM. in division 02.

08/04/1999

-

Filed by Fax

08/04/1999

-

#42 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S AND FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY.

08/12/1999

-

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

08/12/1999

-

Shawn Hoff, reporter. Pet by Hoffman. Resp by King. Resp’s motion to stay 6-28-99 order under K.S.A. 60-262 denied. Hoffman instructed to prepare J.E. RDA

08/12/1999

-

Filmed 09/21/99

08/13/1999

-

LETTER TO JUDGE ANDERSON FROM HARRY MOORE

08/13/1999

-

LETTER TO REBECCA KING FROM HARRY MOORE

08/13/1999

-

LETTER TO HARRY MOORE FROM REBECCA KING

08/30/1999

-

#43 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD.

08/31/1999

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN

09/01/1999

-

SET – Motion Docket on 09/23/99 at 09:30AM. in division 02.

09/01/1999

-

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTY OF RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR RESP FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

09/02/1999

-

SET – Show Cause on 09/21/99 at 01:30PM. in division 02.

09/02/1999

-

AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY HAL RICHARDSON

09/02/1999

-

#44 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN – RDA

09/02/1999

-

Request for Service filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN RETURN OF SERVICE ON ORDER TO APPEAR WAS FAXED TO BARTON CTY SHERIFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

09/03/1999

-

AFFIDAVIT,MOTION FOR ORDER,ORDER TO APPEAR issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

09/03/1999

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN. – RDA (re: motion for order of stay)

09/03/1999

-

ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN – RDA

09/09/1999

-

RECEIVED CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. SENT TO DCT.

09/09/1999

-

#45 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI for CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT MOTION OF CONTEMPT signed by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

09/10/1999

-

AFFIDAVIT, MOTION FOR ORDER, ORDER TO APPEAR returned personal service requested. Served Claudine Dombrowski on 9/9/99 at 112 W 7th Street.

09/21/1999

-

HEARING: Shawn Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Donald Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. Trial on Pet’s Motion to Show Cause (#44). Motion #44 denied. Pet has failed to prove resp. did not estabish residency in Topeka by Sept. 1, 1999 as required by Court’s June 28, 1999 Order. Resp’s Motion for Attorney Fees denied. Shawn Hoff, reporter. RDA

09/21/1999

-

Ms. King withdraws Motion #43 to Withdraw as Attorney. RDA

09/22/1999

-

AFFIDAVIT,MOTION FOR ORDER,ORDER TO APPEAR returned personal service requested , no service, no reason given – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 09/22/99 . 5100 HOUCK STREETOR 5200; HOUCK STREET; PAWNEE ROCK, KS 67567 -

09/22/1999

-

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT FILED BY REBECCA KING.

09/22/1999

-

RESPONSE MF 100199

09/22/1999

-

OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY REBECCA A KING.

09/22/1999

-

OBJECTION FILMED 100599

09/27/1999

-

NOTICE FROM APPELLATE COURT OF ACTION TAKEN – ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MF 100699

09/27/1999

-

ACTIVITY NOTICE FROM APPELLATE COURT – PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL MF 100699

09/28/1999

-

Transcript of MOTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER held 6-15-99 filed.

09/29/1999

-

Filmed 09/29/99

10/13/1999

-

Card from the Clerk of the APPELLATE Court; they have received and filed the Notice of Appeal – Case No. 99-83905-A Filmed 10/14/99.

10/22/1999

-

Completed Table of Contents and mailed to attorneys; HOFFMAN, KING, BEFORT, & KEESHAN

11/03/1999

-

REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE MANAGER FILED BY REBECCA KING

11/03/1999

-

OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY REBECCA A KING.

11/09/1999

-

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT OF CASE MANAGER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

11/12/1999

-

Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 11/19/99 at 02:30P.M.

11/18/1999

-

REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT & OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER MF 111899

11/24/1999

-

Filmed 12/02/99

11/24/1999

-

JE MF 120299

11/24/1999

-

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FILED. -RDA (RE: REASSIGNMENT OF CASE MANAGER) JOURNAL ENTRY FILED. -RDA (RE: VISITATION)

03/10/2000

-

NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE FROM US POSTAL SERVICE FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. UPDATED COURT RECORD. SENT NOTICE TO DISTRICT COURT TRUSTEE

03/27/2000

-

OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.

03/30/2000

-

RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION FILED BY REBECCA A KING

03/30/2000

-

Filed by Fax

03/30/2000

-

AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FILED BY REBECCA A KING

03/30/2000

-

Filed by Fax

04/06/2000

-

Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 06/08/00 at 09:00A.M.

04/06/2000

-

SET – Hearing on 06/08/00 at 09:00AM. in division 02.

04/11/2000

-

NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO GREAT BEND SHERIFF DEPT.

04/11/2000

-

NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO PAWNEE ROCK POLICE DEPT.

04/11/2000

-

NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.

04/11/2000

-

NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO WESTERN RESOURCES INC.

04/14/2000

-

OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY REBECCA A KING AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)

04/14/2000

-

Filed by Fax

04/17/2000

-

$20.00 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

04/17/2000

-

#46 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY

04/17/2000

-

Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 06/08/00 at 09:00A.M.

04/17/2000

-

AMENDED OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS FILED BY REBECCA A KING AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d))4)

04/26/2000

-

#47 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY. Filed by Fax

04/26/2000

-

#48 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.

05/08/2000

-

SET – Motion Docket on 05/25/00 at 11:00AM. in division 02.

05/08/2000

-

Motion for Pretrial set on docket at request of Ms. King. She will send notice. Vi

05/08/2000

-

Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 05/25/00 at 11:00A.M.

05/11/2000

-

LETTER RULING: (1) Pet’s Motion to Change Residential Custody (Motion #46) dismissed as premature. The issues must first be presented to the Case Manager. (2) Resp’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Change Residential Custody (Motion #47) is denied as moot. (3) Resp’s Motion for Pretrial Conference is denied as moot (4) June 8, 2000 hearing will relate only to Case Manager Objections. RDA

05/12/2000

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD R HOFFMAN & REBECCA A KING DATED 05/12/00

06/08/2000

-

HEARING ON PET’S OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. ORDER: Recommendations adopted in part & denied in part. RULINGS: (1) Mr. Richardson’s visitation expanded – alternating weekends Fri thru Sun, exchange times subject to parties’ agreement or absent agreement, Court will set times for exchange sua sponte; Wed. visits to remain same as Nov. 1999 order; Holiday visits per Guidelines – father parent A; mother parent B. Summer visitation 3 weeks. (2) Tele visits permitted & encouraged; (3) Y-Safe visit monitored exchange terminated, parties to work w/Case Manager to determine alternate exchange location or parties may agree to have direct exchange; (4) July 21, 2000 @ 9 a.m. – Hearing re: enrollment in school residency placement & mother’s request to move. (5) Parties to submit CSW w/in 15 days together with positions on Child Support & unreimbursed medical expenses. (6) Restraining orders modified to permit parents to talk re: child & to permit exchange. (7) Ms. Dombrowsksi directed to release employment informa- tion to Court Services – Mr. Moore to prepare report & distribute report to parties. (8) Court Reporter to prepare transcript of Court’s Order. Costs of transcript assigned equally to parties. RDA

06/09/2000

-

SET – Hearing on 07/21/00 at 09:00AM. in division 02.

06/09/2000

-

Notice sent.

07/06/2000

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – RDA (re: Modifies & Denies the Recommendations of Case Manager Harry Moore contained in the report date 03/21/00 as stated in the Transcript held 060800

07/06/2000

-

Transcript of COURTS RULING, held 06/08/00 filed.

07/21/2000

-

HEARING: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. Hearing re: enrollment in school. Ms. Dombrowski requests to be released from Court’s order to live in Topeka with Rikki. RDA

07/31/2000

-

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER FILED – RDA.

08/07/2000

-

#49 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EMERGENCY HEARING OR EX PARTE MOTION. Filed by fax

08/08/2000

-

#50 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR A NEW TRIAL.

08/08/2000

-

### MOTION FILED BY REBECCA A KING TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

08/09/2000

-

Mandate from the APPELLATE Court filed. Judgment of District Court, AFFIRMED. MEMORANDUM OPINION attached.

08/10/2000

-

SET – Motion Docket on 08/24/00 at 10:30AM. in division 02.

08/14/2000

-

Order to Withdraw as Attorney of Record signed. DEB

08/14/2000

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, REBECCA A KING, filed. – DEB

08/28/2000

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – RDA.

09/05/2000

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY KYLE KAY WINGFIELD ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

09/07/2000

-

Report received from Harry Moore & placed in social file.Vi3

09/11/2000

-

$20.00 recd from WINGFIELD,KYLE,KAY, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

09/11/2000

-

#51 Motion filed and entered by KYLE KAY WINGFIELD for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION.

09/14/2000

-

SET – Motion Docket on 09/28/00 at 09:30AM. in division 02.

09/28/2000

-

MOTION DOCKET: S.Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Kyle Wingfield Case Manager will report to Court within 30 days how Rikki is adjusting to father’s home, school & parenting plan. Motion to Change Custody denied. RDA

12/19/2000

-

ORDER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN – RDA.

12/20/2000

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 01/17/01 at 09:00AM. in division 02.

12/20/2000

-

MH notice sent.

12/27/2000

-

### MOTION FILED BY KYLE KAY WINGFIELD TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

12/28/2000

-

#52 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR EX PARTE’ ORDER TERMINATING RESPONDENT’S CONTACT WITH MINOR CHILD OF PARTIES

12/28/2000

-

OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL BY COUNSEL FILED

12/29/2000

-

ORDER SUSPENDING PARENTING TIME FILED. – RDA

01/11/2001

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

01/18/2001

-

$20.00 Cash recd from ROBINSON,LEONARD,M, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

01/18/2001

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

01/18/2001

-

#53 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI (suspended visitation)

01/19/2001

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, KYLE KAY WINGFIELD, filed. – RDA

01/25/2001

-

CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER TO RETURN CHILD TO HAL RICHARDSON RETURNED BY SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. ORDER NOT SERVED. NO CONTACT AS OF 01/22/01.

02/08/2001

-

LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 01/30/01.

03/07/2001

-

Received call from Hoffman on their motion in which they will send notice. t/c with Robinson. ka

03/07/2001

-

SET – Administrative Hearing Officer Child Support Mot. on 04/02/01 at 02:30PM. in room 311.

03/07/2001

-

Received e-mail from case manager stating child support should be reviewed. lly/aho

03/09/2001

-

#54 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ESTABLISH CHILD SUPPORT

03/09/2001

-

Child Support Worksheet OF FATHER

03/12/2001

-

NOTIFIED MR. HOFFMAN’S OFFICE OF THE NEED FOR A $20.00 MOTION FILING FEE.

03/13/2001

-

$20.00 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

03/13/2001

-

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/02/01 @ 02:30 PM

03/30/2001

-

Filed by Fax: RESPONDENT’S DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT’S SUPPORT WORKSHEET

04/02/2001

-

DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

04/02/2001

-

Child Support: Ruling on Motion #54. Tape 681, 1689-1861. Estimated Cost 12.00. Appearance by Petitioner and with counsel D. Hoffman. Appearance by Respondent and with counse l L. Robinson. AHO recuses herself from this case. Respond ent is married to AHO cousin. Attorney to contact Div 2 for hearing date and time. lly/aho

05/18/2001

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 08/06/01 at 03:00PM. in division 02.

05/18/2001

-

MH notice sent.

05/18/2001

-

LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 05/03/01.

07/13/2001

-

$20.00 Check recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)

07/13/2001

-

#56 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY

07/23/2001

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO LEONARD ROBINSON & DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 07/20/01.

07/25/2001

-

Advised by counsel they have reached an agreement as to child support. Hearing on 8-6-01 deleted. Vi

08/06/2001

-

AGREED ORDER FILED – RDA. MANDATORY SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS FILED. KPC INFORMATION SHEET FILED.

08/22/2001

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 08/21/01.

08/27/2001

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 08/27/01.

09/06/2001

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 09/05/01.

09/07/2001

-

THE ABOVE LETTERS DATED 08/21/01, 08/27/01 AND 09/05/01 HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE CLERK OF THE DIST. COURT’S SAFE

10/19/2001

-

Electronic Request for Income Withholding Order filed by DANNY J VOPAT

10/19/2001

-

Income Withholding Order issued certified mail as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

10/22/2001

-

### MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FILED BY DIST. COURT TRUSTEE

10/29/2001

-

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

11/08/2001

-

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS

11/08/2001

-

(Original Request for Review document kept in the Imaging department, photo did not image well.)

11/13/2001

-

Income Withholding Order returned certified mail requested , no service, unclaimed – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 11/09/01 . PO BOX 984; MANHATTAN, KS 66505 – Entered by 0876.

12/20/2001

-

LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 12/19/01.

12/21/2001

-

SET – Support Docket on 01/22/02 at 08:30AM.

12/21/2001

-

Setting made per attorney request.

12/21/2001

-

Electronic Request for Application for examination of judgment debtor filed by DANNY J VOPAT

12/21/2001

-

Order issued first class mail returnable 01/22/02 08:30A.M. as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

12/28/2001

-

Order returned , first class mail – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 12/27/01 . Entered by 2995.

01/09/2002

-

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION & ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED – RDA.

01/10/2002

-

MOTION & ORDER TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER FILED – RDA.

01/16/2002

-

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER ON CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 30,2001 FILED – RDA.

01/25/2002

-

KPC COURT ORDER ENTRY, COPY OF WEB PAGE

01/25/2002

-

Notice of assignment of support rights filed IV-D AFDC.

01/25/2002

-

PARTICIPANT IS 1O/R-2O/E HAL RICHARDSON.

01/29/2002

-

REQUEST FOR HEARING AND OTHER RELIEF FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON

02/14/2002

-

ORDER FILED – RDA.

02/19/2002

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – RDA.

03/11/2002

-

STATUS CONFERENCE: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Leonard Robinson. Also, attending CM Harry Moore; Dr. Milfred Dale, Court evaluator; Dr. Bonnie Uffman, Resp’s therapist; Rene Netherton, re gal assignment; Resp’s husband, Mr. Yockers; Ms. Stumpf, maternal grandmother. AGREEMENTS & ORDERS: (1) Parties agree Dr. Dale will serve as Court’s evaluator for risk in unsupervised visits w/ Resp. & recommendation for therapy. Resp. to pay expense of evaluation. (2) Harry Moore resigns as CM. Parties to suggest names of successor. (3) Parties to work on PT schedule to be implemented after evaluation & on condition that unsupervised PT approved. RDA

03/22/2002

-

LETTER FROM RENE M NETHERTON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 03/20/02.

03/22/2002

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DR MILFRED DALE DATED 03/22/02.

03/22/2002

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 03/22/02.

04/19/2002

-

LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 04/12/02.

04/19/2002

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 04/19/02.

05/10/2002

-

Conf w/counsel re: parenting time schedule. RDA

07/01/2002

-

LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO DONALD R HOFFMAN DATED 05/22/02.

07/01/2002

-

LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 06/28/02.

07/01/2002

-

LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LEONARD M ROBINSON DATED 06/10/02.

07/15/2002

-

Hearing on Proposed Journal Entry. S. Hoff, reporter. Resp. appears in person & by Leonard Robinson. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. J. E. to be resubmitted with schedule & other provisions as ruled on by Court. Dr. Albott rather than Dr. Dale selected as therapist. RDA

07/16/2002

-

LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 06/28/02.

07/24/2002

-

LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LEONARD M ROBINSON DATED 06/10/02.

07/31/2002

-

Order for Unsupervised Parenting Time signed. deb

08/01/2002

-

ORDER FOR UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME FILED – DEB.

12/30/2002

-

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY, FOR LEONARD M ROBINSON; UP-DATED RECORD

05/14/2003

-

Transfered from Div.02 to Div.03, New Judicial Assignment.

05/23/2003

-

#59 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR AN ORDER FOR WRITTEN REPORT

05/28/2003

-

SET – Motion Docket on 06/12/03 at 10:00AM. in division 03.

06/03/2003

-

#60 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FILED BY DYNTEK

06/04/2003

-

Remove from Motion docket 6/12/03 agreed by attorneys

06/05/2003

-

SET – Support Docket on 07/15/03 at 08:30AM.

06/05/2003

-

#61 MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR AN ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE FILED BY JOAN HAWKINS

06/05/2003

-

CITATION IN CONTEMPT (FAILURE TO PAY) FILED BY JOAN HAWKINS – JMS

06/05/2003

-

Request for Service

06/05/2003

-

MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & CITATION IN CONTEMPT issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.

06/10/2003

-

$25.00 Cashier Check recd from ROBINSON,LEONARD,M, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)

06/10/2003

-

#62 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY

06/11/2003

-

SET – Motion Docket on 06/26/03 at 10:00AM. in division 03.

06/12/2003

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

06/12/2003

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 06/26/03 10:00A.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPT & RESPONDING OFFICERS issued to special process server.

06/12/2003

-

ORDER FILED – JMS.

06/13/2003

-

MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & CITATION IN CONTEMPT returned , personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 06/11/03 . Served by 0885. Entered by 1117.

06/13/2003

-

Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

06/16/2003

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 06/26/03 10:00A.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT issued to special process server.

06/17/2003

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum returned , personal service – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 06/17/03

06/19/2003

-

Remove from mot/d 6/26 and set for half a day hearing on 7/16/03 at 1:30 pm per call from Mr. Robinson’s office

06/19/2003

-

SET – Hearing on 07/16/03 at 01:30PM. in division 03.

06/23/2003

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum returned , personal service – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPT & RESPONDING OFFICERS 06/12/03

06/27/2003

-

#63 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR CONTINUANCE RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY FILED.

07/08/2003

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE SCHMIDT TO LEONARD M ROBINSON AND DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 07/07/03.

07/08/2003

-

ORDER TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT – JMS

07/08/2003

-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

07/08/2003

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

07/15/2003

-

CONTEMPT DOCKET: Ward Rowe appears for Dyntek. (2OR)Obligor not present but Leonard Robinson appears. Personal service 06/11/03. Order back 08/26/03 at 08:30AM EXPO

07/15/2003

-

Judge Schmidt recuses herself from this case.

07/23/2003

-

SET – Support Docket on 08/26/03 at 08:30AM.

07/28/2003

-

Notice of Hearing Continuance filed. To be heard 08/26/03 at 08:30A.M.

08/26/2003

-

Support Docket: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI (2OR) Present.

08/26/2003

-

CONTEMPT DOCKET:ROWE APPEARS FOR DYNTEK.DISMISS CITATION.BCH

08/27/2003

-

Case Manager Recommendations received from Amanda Smith Wilson, Court Services. deb

09/04/2003

-

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION AND ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE

09/04/2003

-

RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS

09/11/2003

-

PETITIONER’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS

09/30/2003

-

Case Management Order filed – DEB.

09/30/2003

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

10/10/2003

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD SWARTZ, DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER, TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND HAL RICHARDSON DATED 10/06/03.

10/30/2003

-

*********AHO RECUSES HERSELF FROM THE CASE ************KA

11/18/2003

-

SET – Hearing on 12/19/03 at 01:30PM. in room 311.

11/18/2003

-

Notice of hearing for 12/19/03 Hearing issued .

12/09/2003

-

#64 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR CONTINUANCE

01/06/2004

-

Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support.

01/08/2004

-

Order to Withhold Income for Child Support – JMS

01/08/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ DATED 01/06/04

01/13/2004

-

Agreed Order signed. deb

01/13/2004

-

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND LEIN SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

01/14/2004

-

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND LIEN SIGNED BY HAL RICHARDSON

01/14/2004

-

AGREED ORDER FILED – DEB.

01/23/2004

-

Order re: case manager’s letter signed. deb

01/23/2004

-

ORDER FILED – DEB.

02/12/2004

-

WRITTEN OBJECTION TO FEBRUARY 2004 RECOMMENDATION OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FILED BY FAX

02/20/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

03/02/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 02/26/04.

03/02/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

03/03/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

03/11/2004

-

LETTER FROM DIV. 12 TO RALPH RAPOSA DATED 03/11/04.

04/28/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

04/28/2004

-

Reassigned to division 12 from division 3. OJA reason for transfer 2.

04/29/2004

-

$26.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (21.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)

04/29/2004

-

#65 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EXPEDITED HEARING TO REMOVE DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FOR CAUSE AND REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED VISITATION

05/03/2004

-

ORDER FILED – DEB.

05/03/2004

-

ORDER FILED – DEB.

05/04/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

05/06/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 05/04/04.

05/07/2004

-

#66 MOTION FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

05/07/2004

-

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FILED

05/10/2004

-

Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Counsel from Leonard Robinson signed. deb

05/10/2004

-

RESPONSE OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER TO MOTION FOR EZPEDITED HEARING TO REMOVE DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FOR CAUSE AND REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED VISITATION

05/10/2004

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, LEONARD M ROBINSON – DEB

05/12/2004

-

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.

05/20/2004

-

Order signed. deb

05/20/2004

-

ORDER FILED – DEB.

05/24/2004

-

Filed by fax – RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INVESTIGATION REPORTS SUBPOENA

05/26/2004

-

PRAECIPE FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN

05/27/2004

-

Subpoena – Business Records issued personal service returnable 06/01/04 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE

05/27/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 01/01/04.

05/27/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.

06/01/2004

-

Affidavit of Business Records from SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.

06/02/2004

-

Subpoena – Business Records returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 05/28/04 . Served by 0391. Entered by 1125.

06/02/2004

-

( JUDY FORESTER )

06/03/2004

-

Order to Release Business Records signed. deb

06/03/2004

-

ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT TO GEORGE MARTIN, HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN LAW OFFICE – DEB

06/04/2004

-

Memorandum received from Amanda Smith Wilson.

06/04/2004

-

RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT TO THE LETTERS TO THE COURT OF DR. ALBOTT AND CASE MANAGER LLOYD SWARTZ, RESPECTIVELY SENT MAY 26, 2004 AND MAY 7, 2004 FILED BY FAX

06/07/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

06/10/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO LEONARD ROBINSON & DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 04/01/04.

06/10/2004

-

LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LLOYD SCHWARTZ DATED 04/27/04.

06/14/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 06/14/04.

06/16/2004

-

#67 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STATUS CONFERENCE OR TO REINSTATE UPON ORDER UNSUPERVIED PARENTING TIME. Filed by fax

06/21/2004

-

Order to Release Business Records signed. deb

06/21/2004

-

ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI – DEB

06/23/2004

-

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE COURTS RECORDS

06/24/2004

-

ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JILL DYKES – DEB

06/24/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

06/28/2004

-

POST OFFICE RETURNED AN ORDER TO REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME THAT JUDGE DID NOT SIGN BECAUSE OF A BAD ADDRESS FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

06/29/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 06/29/04.

07/01/2004

-

LETTER FROM FELICIA THEEL TO JILL DYKES DATED 07/01/04.

07/11/2004

-

#69 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT OF VISITATION RIGHTS

07/13/2004

-

Order Allowing And Assessing Fee signed. deb

07/13/2004

-

PETITION AND ORDER FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES FILED – DEB

07/29/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 07/29/04.

07/30/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

08/04/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PETITIONER & RESP DATED 08/02/04.

08/13/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 08/12/04.

08/27/2004

-

LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB

09/03/2004

-

LETTER FROM M JILL DYKES TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 08/31/04.

09/18/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 09/17/04. FILED BY FAX.

10/01/2004

-

Transfered from Div.12 to Div.05, New Judicial Assignment.

10/01/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO HAL RICHARDSON & CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 093004.

10/08/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/07/04.

10/08/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 09/30/04.

10/28/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO MR. SWARTZ DATED 10/28/04. FILED BY FAX.

11/01/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/29/04.

11/08/2004

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/29/04.

12/02/2004

-

Recommendation of Domestic Case Manager, November 2004, ORDERS of the Court signed. EZW.

12/06/2004

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 12/06/04. FILED BY FAX.

12/17/2004

-

RECOMMENDATION OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER AND ORDER FILED-EZW

01/07/2005

-

SET – Hearing on 03/03/05 at 09:00AM. in division 05. STATUS CONFERENCE

01/07/2005

-

Notice of hearing for 03/03/05 Hearing issued .

02/09/2005

-

Notice of termination of assignment of support rights filed IV-D AFDC.

03/03/2005

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/03/05.

03/03/2005

-

Ct.Rptr:TAYLOR (SHC050303-081110).Petitioner appears and by DONALD R.HOFFMAN; Respondent appears pro se; Rikki appears not but by JILL DYKES, GAL. Also appearing: LLOYD SWARTZ, CM. Status Conf.-Resp.directed to provide current contact info.to C.M., to include physical address, phone number. -Resp.directed to inform C.M. of intent to file Motions before filing them with Court to get C.M.okay to file them with Court. -Resp’s request to remove C.M. and GAL is denied. -Court makes no changes to current orders except as set forth above. Resp’s parenting time with child will remain supervised at this time. -GAL’s request for fees granted. Advanced by County. Parties shall submit income statements to C.M., who will send court a recommendation as to assessment of fees to the parties.(cont’d.next screen)

03/03/2005

-

(cont’d.from previous screen) DYKES will journalize. EZW,Div.5.

03/10/2005

-

Order Allowing and Assessing Fee signed. EZW,Div.5.

03/11/2005

-

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – EZW (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)

03/15/2005

-

LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/14/05.

03/17/2005

-

NOTICE PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY M. JILL DYKES

03/18/2005

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/18/05. FILED BY FAX.

04/24/2005

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD C SWARTZ DATED 04/19/05. FILED BY FAX.

05/03/2005

-

Journal Entry signed. EZW,Div.5.

05/03/2005

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 05/03/05. FILED BY FAX.

05/03/2005

-

Journal Entry filed. EZW

05/23/2005

-

OBJECTION TO THE CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATION DATED MAY 11, 2005. FILED BY FAX.

06/28/2005

-

Filed by Fax – LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SAFE VISIT STAFF DATED 060705.

07/18/2005

-

RECEIVED BY FAX A MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION ON 07/13/05 FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. THIS IS BEING RETURNED TO HER BECAUSE THE $26.00 MOTION FILING FEE WAS NOT PAID.

07/19/2005

-

$26.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (21.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)

07/19/2005

-

#70 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI PRO SE, TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION

07/19/2005

-

Order signed. EZW,Div.5.

07/20/2005

-

SET – Hearing on 10/25/05 at 02:00PM. in division 05. Special Setting, set by Court.

07/20/2005

-

ORDER- 1)TERMINATING CASE MANAGEMENT; 2)DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS M JILL DYKES AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; 3)DISMISSING RESPONDENT’S (A) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENCY AND (B) MOTION TO MODIFIY CUSTODY AND VISITATION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT; AND 4)SETTING A HEARING FOR RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PARENTING TIME-EZW

08/26/2005

-

DIVORCEWORKS Certificate of Completion for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.

09/13/2005

-

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY BETHANY J ROBERTS AS ATTORNEY FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

09/27/2005

-

Notice of hearing for 10/25/05 Hearing issued .

10/25/2005

-

Ct.Rptr:TAYLOR. Pet.appears and by D.R.HOFFMAN; Resp.appears and by B.J.ROBERTS; JILL DYKES, GAL, also appears. Hearing on Motion to Modify P.T. Court rules: 1)P.T. will remain supervised thru Safe Visit; 1x/week from 4pm-5pm on Sunday; 2)Resp.may have unsupervised T.C. w/minor on Tues.and Fri. evevning at 8pm for 1/2 hour. Resp.will initiate call. 3)Resp.and minor into Fam.Therapy as selected by GAL, Resp. to pay for it. 4)Review hearing set for 2/2/06 at 9am. 2 hours. ROBERTS to prepare JE. EZW,Div.5.

10/26/2005

-

SET – Hearing on 02/02/06 at 09:00AM. in division 05. REVIEW HEARING – 2 Hours Allowed.

10/26/2005

-

Notice of hearing for 02/02/06 Hearing issued .

10/28/2005

-

Order Allowing and Assessing Fee signed. EZW,Div.5.

11/01/2005

-

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEES FILED – EZW (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)

11/16/2005

-

Journal Entry (Motion to Modify Parenting Time) signed. EZW,Div.5.

11/21/2005

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – EZW

01/30/2006

-

Case transfered Div 05 to Div 04,New Judicial Assignment.NEP

02/03/2006

-

ORDERDED HOME STUDY FOR PETITIONER’S HOME,PARTIES ORDERED TO CONTACT COUNSELOR FOR MINOR CHILD AND REPORT TO THE COURT PR IOR TO NEXT HEARING. CREDENTIALS FOR THE THERAPIST(MS BROWN) TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. SAFE VISITS TO CONTINUE ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PREVIOUS ORDERS UNTIL NEXT HEARING. ATTORNEY ROBERTS TO JOURNALIZE THE HEARING.JDJ

02/14/2006

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – JDJ

03/03/2006

-

SET – Hearing on 04/10/06 at 10:30AM. in division 04.

03/03/2006

-

Notice of hearing for 04/10/06 Hearing issued .

03/14/2006

-

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY CONFERENCE FILED

03/14/2006

-

SET – Counsel Conference on 04/14/06 at 10:00AM. in division 04.

04/14/2006

-

PARTIES PRESENT AND THROUGH COUNSEL. RESPONDENT APPEARED PERSONALLY. GAL, JILL DYKES APPEARED ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD. COURT ORDERED THAT SAFE VISITS ARE TO CONTINUE. RESPONDENT ORDERED TO RECEIVE AN EVALUATION THROUGH FAMILY SERVICES AND GUIDANCE CENTER. MATTER PLACED BACK ON THE STATUS DOCKET FOR AUG 9@9AM.JDJ

04/14/2006

-

SET – Status Docket on 08/09/06 at 09:00AM. in division 04.

04/14/2006

-

Notice of hearing for 08/09/06 Status Docket issued .

05/09/2006

-

JOURNAL ENTRY REGARDING PARENTING TIME SIGNED BY JDJ

05/09/2006

-

Journal Entry filed. JDJ

06/12/2006

-

#71Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI PRO SE FOR ORDER TO ALLOW GRANDPARENT VISITATION EMERGENCY ORDER.

06/13/2006

-

#72 MOTION FILED BY BETHANY J ROBERTS TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

06/14/2006

-

SET – Motion Docket on 07/27/06 at 09:30AM. in division 04.

06/14/2006

-

Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date July 27, 2006 09:30AM.

06/14/2006

-

PETITIONER’S RESPOSNE AND OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO ALLOW GRANDPARENT VISITATION EMERGENCY ORDER FILED

06/27/2006

-

Order for withdrawal of attorney, BETHANY J ROBERTS – JDJ

07/24/2006

-

TAKEN OUT OF SETTING ON 8/9

07/25/2006

-

CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

08/31/2006

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 08/31/06.

09/07/2006

-

SET – Status Docket on 10/16/06 at 02:00PM. in division 04.

09/07/2006

-

Notice of hearing for 10/16/06 Status Docket issued .

09/13/2006

-

SET – Status Docket on 09/27/06 at 11:30AM. in division 04. THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2006@ 11:30 A.M. COUNSEL, IF YOU DISCOVER THIS SETTING CONFLICTS WITH YOUR CALENDAR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE.

09/13/2006

-

Notice of hearing for 09/27/06 Status Docket issued .

09/27/2006

-

PETITIONER APPEARS IN PERSON AND THROUGH COUNSEL, MR. DON HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT APPEARS IN PERSON, PRO SE. THE CHILD APPEARS THROUGH THE G.A.L., MS. DYKES. THE COURT ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUS ORDER TO GET AN EVALUATION COMPLETED AT FAMILY SERVICE & GUIDANCE CENTER. CHILD’S PICTURE TO BE REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S WEBSITE. CHILD TO BE AVAILABLE ON WEDS & SUNDAYS AT 7PM FOR CALLS FROM MOTHER. ALL VISITS BY MOTHER WILL BE THROUGH SAFE VISITS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. MATTER CONTINUED FOR 30 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE. JDJ

09/27/2006

-

PSYCH. EVALS/ASSESSMENTS/RECORDS FILED

09/27/2006

-

JOURNAL ENTRY ORDER FILED – JDJ

09/28/2006

-

RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FILED

10/10/2006

-

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER FILED – JDJ (CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO COURT ADMIN)

11/01/2006

-

#73 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE TO RESTORE PARENTING TIME.

11/01/2006

-

POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

01/29/2007

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED

01/29/2007

-

01/24/07. Filed by Fax

02/07/2007

-

SET – Hearing on 04/04/07 at 02:00PM. in division 04. ***PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS AN AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING**** DISREGARD ANY PREVIOUS NOTICES

02/07/2007

-

Notice of hearing for 04/04/07 Hearing issued .

04/04/2007

-

PARTIES PRESENT AND WITH COUNSEL. MS. DYKES FOR THE PARTIES MINOR CHILD. THE COURT ORDERED MS. DOMBROWSKI TO MEET WITH MS. CYNTHIA TURNBULL FOR EVALUATION. MR. HOFFMAN IS TO JOURNALIZE. JDJ

04/11/2007

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 04/10/07.

05/21/2007

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 05/21/07.

06/15/2007

-

JOURNAL ENTRY OF 4/4/07 HEARING SIGNED BY JDJ

06/15/2007

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – JDJ

06/29/2007

-

LETTER FROM JENNIFER OLSEN TO DONALD R HOFFMAN DATED 06/29/07.

07/11/2007

-

LETTER FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DISTRICT COURT DATED 07/10/07.

07/23/2007

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 07/23/07.

07/26/2007

-

COPY OF LETTER FROM SAFE VISIT ADMINISTRATOR TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 06/15/07 COPY OF LETTER FROM SAFE VISIT ADMINISTRATOR TO HAL RICHARDSON AND CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 07/24/07

08/06/2007

-

Transcript of HEARING, held 04/04/07 filed.

08/30/2007

-

EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCESS FILED

09/12/2007

-

SET – Review Hearing on 11/07/07 at 11:00AM. in division 04.

09/12/2007

-

Notice of hearing for 11/07/07 Review Hearing issued .

09/19/2007

-

FORMAL OBJECTION TO ANY THIRD PARTY INTERFERANCE AT SAFE VISIT FILED

09/20/2007

-

#74 Motion filed and entered by M JILL DYKES as GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO ALLOW DOCTOR TO OBSERVE SAFE VISIT

09/20/2007

-

ORDER ALLOWING DOCTOR TO OBSERVE SAFE VISIT FILED – JDJ

10/25/2007

-

LETTER FROM MARY ANN DUGAN TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 11/17/06.

11/07/2007

-

PETITIONER PRESENT AND THROUGH COUNSEL, JASON HOFFMAN FOR DON HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT MOVED TO RECUSE THE G.A.L. SAID MOTION WAS DENIED. RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED TO CONTACT MS. TURNBULL CONCERNING PSYCH EVALUATION AND TO SCHEDULE THE SAME. UPON SCHEDULING THE G.A.L. WILL BE ADVISED. PHONE CALLS WILL BE ON SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAYS FROM 5:30-6:30P.M. THE PHOLE WILL NOT BE ON AT ANY OTHER TIME. JDJ

11/09/2007

-

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES FILED AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – JDJ (CERTIFIED COPY TO CRT ADMIN)

11/16/2007

-

AMENDED PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES FILED

11/16/2007

-

LETTER FROM CYNTHIA TURNBULL PHD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN DATED 11/12/07

11/27/2007

-

LETTER FROM M. JILL DYKES TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 11/12/07.

11/27/2007

-

Filed by Fax

12/16/2007

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 12/13/07.

01/03/2008

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 01/03/08

01/03/2008

-

Filed by Fax

01/15/2008

-

LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 01/15/08.

02/04/2008

-

#75 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE FOR IMMEDIATE ORDER RESTORING AND REINSTATING WITHOUT RESTRICTION CHILD AND PARENT ACCESS. A VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL AND CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS OF BOTH CHILD & PARENT. Filed by Fax

02/13/2008

-

#76 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE.

02/14/2008

-

SET – Show Cause on 03/13/08 at 01:30PM. in division 04.

02/14/2008

-

Notice of hearing for 03/13/08 Show Cause issued .

02/19/2008

-

Filed by fax – RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION

02/28/2008

-

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE/ADVANCEMENT & ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE/ADVANCEMENT FILED – JDJ.

02/29/2008

-

SET – Show Cause on 04/25/08 at 11:30AM. in division 04.

03/20/2008

-

Three Praecipes for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE.

03/20/2008

-

Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to MICHAEL L BURLISON

03/20/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER

03/20/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT

03/20/2008

-

Sheriff Process Fee ($10.00 cash) received and forwarded.

03/27/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 03/25/08 . Entered by 1153.

03/27/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT 03/25/08 . Entered by 1153.

03/28/2008

-

Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MICHAEL L BURLISON 03/27/08 . Entered by 0148.

04/02/2008

-

#77 Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION OF THIS COURT FOR THE HEALTH AND BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILD.Filed by fax

04/03/2008

-

SET – Motion Docket on 04/24/08 at 10:30AM. in division 04.

04/03/2008

-

Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date April 24, 2008 10:30AM.

04/03/2008

-

#78 Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR DEMAND RULING. Filed by fax

04/04/2008

-

HEARING SET FOR 4-24-08 ON RESPONDENTS MOTIONS HAS BEEN CONSLIDATED WITH HEARING ON 4-25-08 AT 11:30 A.M.

04/25/2008

-

PETITIONER PRESENT AND WITH COUNSEL, MR. HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT APPEARED PRO SE. THE G.A.L. MS DYKES ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RESTORE ACCESS TO THE CHILD. THE G.A.L. GAVE HER REPORT TO THE COURT FAVORING AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SAFE VISITS THAT ARE PRESENTLY ONGOING. THE MATTER WAS ALSO BEFORE THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION WAS SUSTAINED.THE PAR- TIES WILL BE PLACED IN THE ODYESSY PROGRAM. THE PARTIES WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM’S VISITATION AND THERAPY COMPO- NENTS. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION WAS SUSTAINED FOR CHANGE OF VISITATION WITH THE MINOR CHILD. JDJ

06/18/2008

-

FAXED LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 06/18/08.

08/25/2008

-

Case transfered Div 04 to Div 13,New Judicial Assignment.NEP

10/15/2008

-

POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

10/15/2008

-

#79 EMERGENCY Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR ORDERS OF JUSTICE

10/17/2008

-

SET – Motion Docket on 11/13/08 at 09:30AM. in division 13.

10/17/2008

-

Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date November 13, 2008 09:30AM.

10/28/2008

-

#80 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE, FOR TEMPORARY ORDER ALLOWING MINOR CHILD TO ATTEND HER GRANDMOTHERS FUNERAL. Filed by fax

10/30/2008

-

SET – Motion Docket on 11/04/08 at 03:30PM. in division 13.

10/30/2008

-

Notice of hearing for 11/04/08 Motion Docket issued .

11/04/2008

-

Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court hears from counsel and denies Respondent’s motion. Court schedules Respondent’s emergency motion for orders of justice for December 16, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. DBD

11/04/2008

-

SET – Hearing on 12/16/08 at 01:30PM. in division 13. Motion Hearing

11/04/2008

-

Notice of hearing for 12/16/08 Hearing issued .

11/05/2008

-

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN

11/07/2008

-

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

11/13/2008

-

LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL, MANAGING REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 11/13/08.

11/21/2008

-

JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – DBD

12/04/2008

-

EIGHT PRAECIPE FOR BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FILED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to JUDGE DAVID E BRUNS

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DREX FLOTT LSCSW CLINICAL DIRECTOR

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to M JILL DYKES

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to KARA HARRY DIRECT THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to LLOYD SWARTZ

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER

12/05/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to CONNIE SANCHEZ

12/09/2008

-

$57.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (57.00 DM Transcrpt)

12/12/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT 12/10/08 . Entered by 1153.

12/12/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 12/10/08 . Entered by 1153.

12/12/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to CONNIE SANCHEZ 12/10/08 . Entered by 0883.

12/12/2008

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE BRUNS TO JUDGE DEBENHAM DATED 12/12/08.

12/15/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to JUDGE DAVID E BRUNS 12/11/08 . Entered by 0885.

12/15/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to DREX FLOTT LSCSW CLINICAL DIRECTOR 12/11/08 . Entered by 1128.

12/15/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to KARA HARRY DIRECT THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT 12/11/08 . Entered by 1128.

12/15/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to LLOYD SWARTZ 12/11/08 . Entered by 0885.

12/16/2008

-

MISC. Petitioner in person and by counsel, Donald Hoffman; G.A.L. Jill Dykes in person; Respondent in person, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court hears evidence and arguments of parties and denies Respondent’s motion as it is unsupported by the evidence introduced by Respondent. Based on evidence put on by Respondent, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the child to leave parenting time as it is presently set and in a supervised fashion. Any further motions filed by Respondent will need to specify factual allegations and legal conclusions to support the motion or the Court will entertain motions to dismiss the same. Donald Hoffman to prepare JE. DBD

12/16/2008

-

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

12/22/2008

-

Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned personal service requested, no service, no response to notes left – as to M JILL DYKES 12/18/08 . Entered by 0572.

12/23/2008

-

LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL, MANAGING REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 12/23/08.

12/29/2008

-

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN

12/29/2008

-

EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCESS FILED BY FAX

01/14/2009

-

PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES & ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – DBD. (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)

01/27/2009

-

#81 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE, FOR COURT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND KANSAS APPEALLATE RULINGS IN THAT THE LAST OF ORDER OF THIS COURT (DECEMBER 16, 2008) IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AND DEMANDS THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ILLEGAL RULING IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE ANY ALL FURTHER STEPS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAWS SETFORTH

01/27/2009

-

Filed by Fax

01/27/2009

-

#82 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE

02/13/2009

-

$213.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (213.00 DM Transcrpt)

02/24/2009

-

SET – Hearing on 03/17/09 at 01:00PM. in division 13. (hearing to determine if Respondent needs appointed counsel) (1/2 hour)

02/24/2009

-

Notice of hearing for 03/17/09 Hearing issued .

02/24/2009

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 04/06/09 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (1/2 day)

02/24/2009

-

ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE FILED – DBD.

02/24/2009

-

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED.

02/24/2009

-

Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

02/25/2009

-

MOTION/AFFIDAVIT SHOW CAUSE & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service issued to special process server.

03/13/2009

-

POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

03/13/2009

-

#83 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR ORDERS OF JUSTICE

03/13/2009

-

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUSTICE FILED

03/13/2009

-

#84 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE

03/13/2009

-

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE FILED

03/13/2009

-

#85 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR COURT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND KANSAS APPEALLATE RULINGS IN THAT THE LAST OF ORDER OF THIS COURT (DECEMBER 16, 2008) IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AND DEMANDS THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ILLEGAL RULING IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE ANY ALL FURTHER STEPS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAWS SETFORTH

03/17/2009

-

MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent does not appear. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court finds Respondent’s Motion to Recuse was improperly filed but after consideration denies the Motion for Recusal. On evidence presented Court finds Respondent was personally served with Motion and Order to Appear and Show Cause scheduled for April 6, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. pursuant to K.S.A. 60-303(d)(4). Court appoints Kevin Cook to represent Respondent during hearing scheduled on show cause order. Court denies Respondent’s motion filed 12/29/08 titled, “Expedited Judicial Process”, Motion #81, Motion #83, and Motion #85, as none of the motions have alleged any new information or basis for overturning Court’s December 16, 2008, decision. Court will journalize order. DBD

03/18/2009

-

ORDER FILED – DBD.

03/20/2009

-

#86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT

03/20/2009

-

Journal Entry filed. DBD

03/24/2009

-

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD.

04/06/2009

-

MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”. Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD

04/24/2009

-

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

04/28/2009

-

LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL,COURT REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 04/28/09.

05/22/2009

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE DEBENHAM TO ROBERT DUNCAN II DATED 05/22/09.

06/16/2009

-

Transcript of HEARING, held 04/06/09 filed.

06/29/2009

-

LETTER FROM JUDGE DEBENHAM TO ROBERT DUNCAN II DATED 06/29/09.

08/28/2009

-

$52.00 Check recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (42.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 10.00 DM Surcharge)

08/28/2009

-

#87 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY VISITATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ORTHODONTIC CARE AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT

08/28/2009

-

SET – Motion Docket on 09/17/09 at 10:30AM. in division 13.

08/28/2009

-

Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date September 17, 2009 10:30AM.

09/17/2009

-

MISC. MOTION DOCKET. Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L. Jill Dykes present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. 1) Parties agree that Petitioner will have child looked at by 2 other orthodontist within 60 days and share estimates of cost with Respondent; 2) Both parties are responsible for half of all orthodontic care for the minor child; 3) Parties are to exchange MDRA within 10 days; 4) Respondent to file amended motion to modify visitation with counsel’s signature; 5) Both parties ordered to provide U.A.’s today; and 6) Hearing set for 11/13/09 at 11:00 a.m. on supervised parenting time. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD

09/17/2009

-

SET – Motion Hearing on 11/13/09 at 11:00AM. in division 13.

09/17/2009

-

Notice of hearing for 11/13/09 Motion Hearing issued .

09/18/2009

-

ORDER FILED – DBD.

10/16/2009

-

#88 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE

10/16/2009

-

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED

10/22/2009

-

Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.

10/23/2009

-

MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & ORDER TO APPEARS & SHOW CAUSE issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service issued to special process server.

11/09/2009

-

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FILED

11/09/2009

-

Filed by Fax

11/13/2009

-

MISC. Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, in person. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter comes before Court on Respondent’s motion for unsupervised visitation and Petitioner’s motion for contempt. Parties have agreed that motion for contempt will be deferred pending Petitioner’s locating and removing all referenced items to the minor child on the internet. Matter to be reset if disagreement between the parties about removal of items referring to minor child and her likeness from internet. Court interview minor child – no record per agreement of the parties. Court suspends parenting time of Respondent due to Respondent’s continued use of her website and the internet to publish photographs of minor child and statements reference minor child. Court will entertain motion to reinstate parenting time once Respondent deletes all photographs and likenesses of minor child, any reference to minor child on her website and the internet, agree not to discuss Court proceedings with minor child and not to discuss divorce with minor child. Review set for December 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. T. Duncan to do JE. DBD

11/13/2009

-

SET – Hearing on 12/16/09 at 10:00AM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

11/13/2009

-

Notice of hearing for 12/16/09 Hearing issued .

11/13/2009

-

#89 Amended Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY VISITATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ORTHODONTIC CARE AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT

11/13/2009

-

MINI DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF HAL RICHARDSON

11/13/2009

-

CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET SUBMITTED BY FATHER

12/16/2009

-

Hearing continued at request of Respondent. Hearing reset January 8, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. DBD

12/16/2009

-

SET – Hearing on 01/08/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

12/16/2009

-

Notice of hearing for 01/08/10 Hearing issued .

12/16/2009

-

ORDER FILED – DBD.

12/21/2009

-

Hearing for 1/8/10 rescheduled due to conflict in Court’s schedule to 1/22/10 at 1:30 p.m.

12/21/2009

-

SET – Hearing on 01/22/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

12/21/2009

-

Notice of hearing for 01/22/10 Hearing issued .

12/22/2009

-

Hearing for 1/22/10 reset due to conflict in attorney’s schedules.

12/22/2009

-

SET – Hearing on 01/28/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)

12/22/2009

-

Notice of hearing for 01/28/10 Hearing issued .

01/29/2010

-

MISC. Petitioner in person and by Jason Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Motion #88 to find Respondent in Contempt and Motion #87 by Respondent to Modify Visitation before Court. Evidence presented – Court finds Petitioner has failed to prove an intentional violation of Court’s prior orders by Respondent and denies motion to find Respondent in contempt. Court finds minor child has serious concerns about parenting time with mother but they do not rise to the level that would seriously endanger child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health per K.S.A. 60-1616(a). Further, reasons for ordering supervised parenting time in 2004 were not presented in the evidence, minor child is 15 now and it is in best interest of child that both parents have relationship with child. Court orders unsupervised parenting time from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. every Sunday, starting January 31, 2010 – exchanges at LEC, parenting time to be exercised in public within boundary of Shawnee County, Kansas. Neither parent to discuss divorce, proceedings or other parent with child. Respondent allowed to call daughter every Tuesday and Thursday between 8:00 p.m and 9:00 p.m. for 1/2 hour. Respondent to pay her remaining balance at Odyssey. Court will review case on March 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to determine if parenting time should be expanded. Duncan to do JE. DBD

01/29/2010

-

SET – Hearing on 03/02/10 at 08:30AM. in division 13. (Review of parenting time)

01/29/2010

-

Notice of hearing for 03/02/10 Hearing issued .

02/12/2010

-

ORDER ESTABLISHING PARENTING TIME FILED – DBD.

02/26/2010

-

#90 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CONTINUANCE

02/26/2010

-

Filed by Fax

03/01/2010

-

Agreed Order of Continuance signed by Court. Hearing for 3/2/10 removed.

03/02/2010

-

SET – Hearing on 05/24/10 at 11:00AM. in division 13. (review hearing)

03/02/2010

-

Notice of hearing for 05/24/10 Hearing issued .

03/04/2010

-

HEARING DATE OF 5/24/10 WAS A CONFLICT FOR MR. DUNCAN – MATTER RESCHEDULED UPON AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES TO MAY 26, 2010 AT 1:30 P.M.

03/04/2010

-

SET – Hearing on 05/26/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review hearing)

03/04/2010

-

Notice of hearing for 05/26/10 Hearing issued .

03/10/2010

-

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

03/16/2010

-

LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL,COURT REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 03/12/10.

CONFIRMED: PROTECTIVE MOTHERS WERE RIGHT

4 Responses »
May 092010

A special Mothers Day Article

By Barry Goldstein

clip_image002

For many years, protective mothers have complained about a broken custody court system giving custody to abusive fathers. The courts dismissed the complaints by saying they came from disgruntled litigants. Now, a new book based on multi-disciplinary research has confirmed that common mistakes in the custody courts have resulted in thousands of children being forced to live with abusers. Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues, co-edited by Dr. Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein includes chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in domestic violence and custody in the U.S. and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. Although the writers come from different disciplines and professional experience, there is remarkable agreement that the courts’ failure to use up-to-date research is responsible for placing children at risk and undermining laws designed to prevent domestic violence.

The custody court system developed practices to respond to domestic violence allegations over thirty years ago at a time when there was no research. The courts relied on popular assumptions such as the belief domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the victims’ behavior. They assumed domestic violence only involved physical abuse and children were unaffected unless directly assaulted. All of these and many other assumptions relied on by the courts have proven wrong, but the court continues to use outdated and discredited practices. Even worse, after hearing misinformation constantly repeated for over thirty years the myths and stereotypes are so deeply ingrained that courts often don’t believe accurate information based upon up-to-date research because it is so different from what they have heard repeated their entire professional careers. Hopefully by putting all the research together in one volume, the book will force the courts to take a fresh look at practices that have worked so poorly for children.

Most cases are settled more or less amicably. The problem is with the 3.8% of contested custody cases that continue to trial and usually far beyond. The courts think of these as "high conflict" cases and literally they are, but 90% of these cases involve abusive fathers which is why they can’t be settled. Male supremacist groups have developed an unspeakably cruel tactic of encouraging abusers to go after the children as a way to pressure the mother to return, punish her for leaving and avoid child support. As a result, the courts repeatedly see cases in which fathers who had little involvement with the children before the separation suddenly seeking custody, but the court system has been slow to recognize the tactic or respond to it. Judges have constantly been told that children do better with both parents in their lives but not that this is untrue if one of the parents is abusive.

In the typical case, the mother is the primary parent. She complains about the father’s abuse and he counters by claiming alienation. Primary attachment refers to the parent who does most of the child care in the first couple of years of a child’s life. If the child is separated from their primary attachment figure, the child is more likely to commit suicide, suffer depression, have low self-esteem and other harmful attributes. Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors when they are older and their developmental progress is interfered with. On the other hand, it is common even in intact families for parents to make negative statements about the other parent and there is no research that alienation causes long-term harm to children.

At the same time, in our still sexist society, mothers continue to do most of the child care so claims of primary attachment are virtually always true and often not contested by the father. Contrary to popular myths, women rarely make false allegations of abuse so that at least 98% of a mother’s allegations of abuse in custody cases are accurate. Fathers on the other hand, are 16 times more likely to make false allegations in contested custody cases than mothers. This is not because women are so much more honest, but that most fathers in custody cases are abusers using the children to maintain control of their ex-partner and they seem to believe they are entitled to use any tactics to win custody.

Accordingly most allegations of alienation by fathers in custody cases are false. In other words the allegations by the mothers have the most consequences for the children and are most likely to be true, but the courts are paying more attention to the allegations by the fathers that are likely to be false and of little consequence to the children.

The book can be used by mothers and their attorneys to challenge the common mistakes made in domestic violence cases. One of the big problems is that because of the original mistaken assumption that domestic violence is caused by mental health or substance abuse issues, the courts have relied on mental health professionals who have little or no understanding or training in domestic violence. They rarely have any familiarity with up-to-date research and instead frequently rely on myths and stereotypes.

Although professional ethics require psychologists and psychiatrists to consult with an expert if they are handling a case involving an issue in which they lack expertise, evaluators and other court professionals routinely ignore this requirement by pretending they have expertise even with only an hour or two of training.

Evaluators often rely on psychological tests to create the illusion of a scientific basis for their opinions. These tests were developed for a population very different from the parents seen in custody court. When advocates for mothers tell courts that most abusers tend to be manipulative or mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations they respond by saying they are judging THIS case and cannot rely on probabilities. Under the best of circumstances the psychological tests are accurate between 55-65% of the time. So what happens if the mother is part of the 35-45% for which it is not accurate? Even worse factors like domestic violence or the pressure of going through a contested custody case reduce the accuracy significantly.

Furthermore, many of the tests are gender biased and criticize women but not men for the same responses. Of course the evaluators rarely inform courts of this information and most attorneys don’t know enough to raise these issues.

A critical problem that does not receive the attention it deserves is that judges and the professionals they rely on repeatedly fail to recognize domestic violence because they don’t know what to look for. Judge Mike Brigner wrote a chapter for the book in which he discusses his training of judges about domestic violence. They constantly ask him what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they refer to women who return to their abuser, seek protective orders, but don’t follow-up or don’t have police or medical reports after alleged assaults. In reality battered mothers do all these things for safety and other good reasons, but when ignorant professionals use this to discredit allegations of abuse, they have no chance to get it right.

Another common example is when judges, lawyers or evaluators watch fathers interact with the children. If the children show no fear, it convinces these professionals that the abuse allegations must be false. What the children understand is that their father would never hurt them in front of witnesses, especially someone he is trying to impress and in fact they could be punished if they showed fear. At the same time the mental health professionals are discrediting valid allegations based on information that is not probative, they tend to look only for physical abuse and miss many other domestic violence tactics that demonstrate the control and coercion he practices.

The mistaken practices give the courts little chance to recognize the father’s abuse, but it is even worse than that. The mental health professionals often use their failure to recognize domestic violence as an excuse to pathologize the mother. She is often called delusional or paranoid because she believes something they missed. This or the assumption she is deliberately trying to interfere with the father’s relationship with the children often results in extreme outcomes in which the mother is given supervised or no visitation based on the court’s mistakes.

In her chapter on retaliation and manipulation, Joan Zorza says that in light of the frequency in which courts fail to recognize domestic violence they should avoid retaliating or penalizing mothers who continue to believe the allegations of abuse after the court finds against them. This recommendation can be used to ask courts to modify orders with extreme results when there is no proof the mother is unsafe.

Some child protective agencies have participated in programs in which they work with the local domestic violence agency. The train each other and when there is a case with possible domestic violence issues, the child protective caseworkers consult with domestic violence advocates. This helps them recognize and respond more appropriately to domestic violence cases. This should be considered best practices and needs to be expanded to the custody courts.

The custody courts do a particularly bad job of responding to allegations of sexual abuse. By the time a child reaches the age of 18, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The myth is that rape and sexual abuse are mostly committed by strangers but in fact 83% of the time it is someone they know, often the father. Courts don’t want to believe a father could do something so heinous especially if he is successful in other parts of his life. Accordingly a very high percentage of sexual abuse allegations result in custody to the alleged abuser.

One of the problems is that sexual abuse of children is very hard to prove. Often there is no physical evidence particularly if the child does not reveal it immediately. Younger children may not have the language to describe what was done to them and older children may have been threatened or don’t want someone they love to get in trouble. Few of the evaluators relied on by courts have expertise in child sexual abuse. What is a mother supposed to do when the child’s behavior or other clues suggest sexual abuse? If she does nothing she is placing the safety and well-being of her child at risk, but if she asks for an investigation she can lose custody.

We have seen many cases in which a child acts out because the father violated the child’s boundaries such as by sleeping with the child. The father did not inappropriately touch the child. The issue could easily be handled by instructing the father to change his routine and it would be totally safe for the father to continue with normal visitation. This would be a win-win situation, but instead courts and the unqualified professionals they rely on assume the mother is making deliberately false allegations and so separate the child from their primary attachment figure and deny the child a relationship with her.

The book also takes on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) which is one of the major reasons courts get so many cases wrong. Dr. Paul Fink past president of the American Psychiatric Association wrote a chapter about PAS and Nancy Erickson who is an attorney and law professor who went back to school to become a psychologist wrote about how to challenge false allegations of PAS. Richard Gardner concocted PAS based on his belief system which included many statements to the effect that sex between adults and children is appropriate. Many of his quotations are in the chapter and can be cited to judges who presumably will not want to be associated with such behavior.

There is no scientific basis to PAS and it is not recognized by any reputable professional organization. It is based on the myth that most allegations of abuse are false. Psychologists are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS because they are in effect diagnosing something that does not exist. As PAS has become more discredited, abusers and the professionals they pay to support them have started using PAS by other names such as parental alienation or just alienation. It the idea is to assume allegations of abuse must be wrong or to justify giving custody to the alleged abuser and supervised or no visitation to the protective mothers they are using the discredited PAS by another name.

Professor Garland Waller wrote a chapter about the failure of the media to cover the crisis in the custody court system. She writes about the tipping point when enough information reaches the public so that they will no longer tolerate frequent court mistakes that place children in jeopardy. We believe this book can move us towards the tipping point and hope those committed to ending the injustice in the custody court system will consider some of the following actions to help us reach the tipping point.

1. Inform the courts in your area about this book. They can find additional information atwww.domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com Ask the courts to use the research in the book to train judges and other court personnel and to reform practices that the research demonstrates are working poorly for children.

2. Contact your local media to cover the crisis in the custody court system by using the research in the book to understand the harm the courts are doing to children. If you want to seek publicity for your case use the book to show the context and national problem and then your case illustrates how it played out in a local case. When there are local domestic violence stories bring the information in the book to the reporters.

3. If you have local colleges, universities or law schools in the area, ask them to incorporate the research from the book into the curriculum and to sponsor programs about the custody courts based on this research.

4. Ask local and college libraries to obtain a copy of the book. This would be particularly helpful for protective mothers who cannot afford to purchase the book.

5. Cite the book in court cases and appeals. Use the research to challenge unqualified evaluators and other court professionals and to obtain experts who can put this research into evidence.

6. Use the book to inform legislators of the problems in the court. Ask them to hold hearings and sponsor legislation to protect children and prevent abuse. We will soon have legislative proposals available based on the research in the book.

7. Work together with domestic violence agencies, women’s groups and anyone else sympathetic to the cause.

8. Come up with your own ideas. We cannot tolerate a system that continues to place children in jeopardy because they fail to use the up-to-date research now available.

Older Entries