The Rule of Law Part II

Sandra

The late Psychiatrist Ralph Underwager was likely the leading US scholar on child sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990’s. He wrote extensively about the over protection issue and anti-sexuality climate in the States, the essence of Underwager’s argument was undermined by his actions. He represented an expensive resource for often high-level predators seeking to buy their way out of abuse, though courts have rejected his testimony on more than one occasion. This has been on the basis of the doctor’s unsubstantiated and clinically unproven sources and methods (such as learned memory) that serve to underline his belief that “90 percent of accusations against child molesters are wrong.” A view that was widely promulgated by PAS creator, Richard Gardner. While Underwager’s writings do have much validity in presenting the anti-sexuality present in Christian America, his defence of paedophiles, or rather child rapists undoubtedly acted against children. There are plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists present who continue to blur the lines.

Jim Peters, a senior attorney for the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse who investigated Underwager in the late 1980s believes that such psychiatrists present themselves as scientific observers, when more often than they are advocates for abuse inside and outside the courtroom.²⁰ In an interview with the journal Paidika, he has this to say regarding the question of paedophilia: “Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, I believe this is in fact part of God’s will.” Hardly an independent view that enables children’s’ welfare to come first.

There is hope, however partial. In 2005 an appellate level court in New York was the first to recognize the debate within the mental health community over whether “it is ethically proper” to give opinions on the best interests of the child when there is no empirical base to support them.” So said matrimonial attorney and Albany Law School professor, Timothy Tippins. The article continued:

Psychologists and psychiatrists are unable to scientifically measure and predict the effects of different factors on the future well-being of a child. There is no way to ethically study, for example, the effect it would have on a child to place him in a home with schizophrenic parents.

Therefore, after a mental health expert offers opinions regarding the effects of, for instance, depression or spousal abuse, the judge should be the one to opine as to the child's best interest.²¹

Psychopaths can attune to everyone’s ideal hero and associated archetypes. And the pervasive narcissism in our societies allows the predator to slip between our shadows unnoticed. Children disappear at the hands of the system, in plain sight, in precisely this way. There, behind closed doors they are abused and scarred for life with the blessing of family courts. Nor is this an isolated case. 

To give the reader a more immediate example of this judicial nightmare, an example follows, from the State of Indiana in the US, and a mother’s campaign to have the courts reverse a decision regarding her now, 12 year old daughter who presently resides with her abusive father.²²
 

Sandra had been married to Ted for several years and had two children by him, Bella aged 4 and David aged 10. Things quickly turned sour after she was physically assaulted by him in 1996, which led to a separation. After a trip to the local doctor it was discovered that she had not been the only one to be assaulted by her husband. Bella had also been hurt. A few months passed and Ted then attempted to abduct his daughter that led to the police being called and statements taken. Before long, an arrest warrant was issued and a protection order put in place. Another county court in the neighbouring county to which Ted was heading for decided against such precautionary action and excluded Bella from receiving a further protection order. Ted was finally arrested and subsequently extradited to face charges of abuse. Not long after and much to the chagrin of all concerned, Ted’s local minister saw it fit to put up the bail, allowing him the potential freedom to abuse his family once more. 

By this time, Sandra had started proceedings for divorce and had finally been granted temporary custody and a restraining order that had then been finally placed on her husband. She requested a Guardian Ad Litem for Bella, understandably thinking this would help the situation. ²³ However, the Guardian submitted a report that recommended her husband visited every weekend. Much to Sandra’s alarm, the presiding Judge agreed and a temporary order was summarily issued. 

By 1998 things had gradually become worse. According to a letter from the assigned Domestic Violence Counsellor, Ted had refused contact by phone or in person. Though this was clearly on record, the Court failed to act. Whether due to bureaucratic complacency or purposeful neglect, this was to have serious repercussions for Bella and her brother.

By 1999 Ted had found himself a girlfriend, the relations of which resulted in serious abuse inflicted on Sandra’s daughter during her visits. After the family doctor saw the girl she was referred to the sexual abuse hospital for further tests. During the same period Sandra decided to arrange visits to a child psychologist for her daughter as by now, she was suffering from severe anxiety, primarily due to the constant fighting from her father and his girlfriend which generally seemed to take place in her presence. She invariably returned home from a visit either crying and/or suffering some kind of minor injury. Despite some rough physical treatment, which included spanking, Sandra was still bound by law to drop her daughter off with a man whom she knew to be dangerous.

By 2001 Ted had separated from his girlfriend, but the abuse continued. This time he had decided to get his parents involved in order to find a buffer for his activities. On one occasion, during winter, Bella had been returned to her mother without warm clothes and complained about feeling ill. Sandra demanded her daughter’s clothes back which the grandparents promptly refused to give up. Meantime, Ted had found a new girlfriend who was even less responsible than the last and even more psychologically unbalanced, an example of which was her religious fundamentalism. Bella was often forced to pray on her knees while being threatened with beatings if she refused. Returning home in tears was becoming a common occurrence. 

As the months passed, Sandra had been continuously pleading with the family courts to stop the visits. The courts response to these requests was to threaten her with the granting of custody to Ted if she ceased visiting access in any way. She then sought help from Child Protection Services (CPS) who were equally unhelpful. Sandra continued to search for assistance, not wanting to believe that the America of democracy and freedom was in fact a horrible fantasy. 

Though in the middle of 2001 Ted remarried, the abuse did not stop. During this time, the most serious occurrence resulted in Bella having several bruises on her forearm and burn marks from a curling iron. Sandra then attempted - not for the first time - to involve the police in her county who still refused to become involved. She was told to go to the next county where there was some apparent jurisdiction. She did so and managed to have police statements taken and the child protective services to open an investigation. Much to her dismay however, this “investigation” consisted of a phone call to her ex-husband after one week had passed. They subsequently dropped the case. The presiding judge had decided that the new wife was allowed to pick up Bella on her own and take her to her father’s house even though there was the suspicion that she was assaulting the girl. In fact, by allowing the wife free access to Bella on behalf of Ted’s visiting rights, the judge thereby nullified the existing protection order, while in another county, the judge determined that there was “probable cause.”

By 2002, Sandra had begun to believe that she would never be able to protect her daughter. Legal Services contacted her to say they had no funds to assist her. She could therefore, no longer afford to make the payments After the courts and Ad Litem forced her to pay exorbitant fees incurred from multiple daytime appointments both her lack of time and dwindling savings eventually led to the loss of her house and her job. Even though she had three job shifts to support her children it was not enough. It was particularly cruel in that not only was Ted allowed access to her daughter but he was living in style it seems, with two houses, (one of which sported an expensive security system and Jacuzzi) two trucks and a car. Despite this, Ted could easily meet the retainer payments to his attorney.  

By now, fearing the worst and without financial aid of any kind, Sandra spoke to her family doctor in the hope he, at least, could offer some assistance in an increasingly desperate situation. He finally made a report to the Child Protection Agency following a requested visit by Sandra to properly evaluate her former husband. Meanwhile, visits continued to produce abuse that was becoming progressively worse. One set of injuries included a “sore rectum,” a “chemical sprayed in her eyes” and “red marks” extending from her ankle to her knee. She talked again to the Child Protection Agency and this time, got Bella to speak to them personally. Despite the obvious danger, the CPA claimed that it was a civil matter and thus not within their jurisdiction. 

Sandra decided to try another avenue of approach which meant seeking help from the local domestic violence shelter. The advocate present advised her to find another child psychologist and to keep a journal to record every detail that took place. After the last visit Sandra’s son David also contacted the CPA, such was his concern for his sister. The outcome of this act of desperation was that he was “No longer welcome” at his father’s home. Again David returned home to his mother with his sister crying, this time from hunger as well as from the emotional anxiety regarding her father. 

Finally, during one visit Ted decided he would not let Bella go home. Sandra spoke to the town police, but as before, they refused to get involved. By this time, the child psychologist had not managed to prevent Bella from lapsing into a form of depression with suicidal tendencies. While succeeding in rescuing her children from Ted, Sandra and her children were nearly run off the road by Ted’s wife. After the incident, a pro se for modification of visitation was filed which led to documented evidence identifying the stepmother as one of the abusers of Bella.  

During the time that Sandra had fled to a safe-house, the courts had decided to place a protection order on her husband’s wife. While this was applied for, the Ad Litem guardian argued that visits had to continue provided that Ted promised to keep his wife away from Bella. Over the months that ensued, this request was not complied with, though the Ad Litem refused to believe that this was the case. 

Sandra and her daughter accompanied the psychologist to the CPS to demand a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for Bella, as some of the abuse took place in the adjacent county. The agency refused to grant a CASA worker and to investigate the case. Bella was referred to a new female counsellor and an initial assessment was filed.

In the summary, Bella is noted as suicidal with an adjustment disorder stemming from the intense fear of her father and his abuse. The result is that she is placed on suicide-watch while in the safe house. Astonishingly, during her stay in the safe house the Ad Litem “compelled” Sandra to turn over Bella to her father under threat of court action threatening “consequences” should she not do so. Once with Ted, it didn’t take long before he forced his daughter to divulge the location of the safe house, threatening her with violence if she did not do so. The house counsellor issued a safe phone from the increased threat posed by the father, while the safe house child advocate filed a statement from Bella describing her abuse at the hands of her father. 

We can see quite clearly the mechanics of a case that is an all too familiar story in most family courts. A number of questions immediately come to mind such as why it was that the father was not compelled to abide by the initial restraining orders? Why Bella was excluded from a second restraining order? Why did the police refuse to act for the safety of the child? Why was the Ad Litem Guardian pointedly on the side of the father when evidence of abuse was documented and obvious? Why was Sandra’s son who witnessed the abuse of his sister never interviewed by the Guardian Ad Litem or the presiding judge even when a police statement was given? Why was an emergency room report of Bella’s response to a question from a triage nurse “that her father lets people hurt her” subsequently ignored? 

In a classic case of “ bait and switch” the mother, in her own words: “…filed prose which made me petitioner, then one time I noticed that I was not petitioner anymore but a respondent. Somehow, without my knowledge they had never ruled on the emergency hearing for modification of visitation I filed. To this date I have never had the emergency hearing while it was all of a sudden switched to a hearing to give father custody.” 

After 2002, Sandra continued to come up against judicial brick walls that still prevent her from protecting her child from abuse. If a judge takes a dislike to the one of the plaintiffs, impartiality vanishes. In her own words:

“I can file a complaint against a judge and even an attorney; however, this does not remove them from the case while the complaint is being investigated. The judge is left, as is the attorney in charge of the court case. Now image if you have someone who is flouting the rules [and] biased how they could retaliate against you now that you have filed a complaint against them?” Also the Indiana Supreme court disciplinary commission has in the past reprimanded this particular judge for a denial, I think it was for “due process” and I believe there is a history of this reprimand being given out more than once. […]

I was also told by an advocate in the area that this particular official has a relative sitting on the disciplinary commission. I do not know how true it is, but the advocate seemed to be very assured of this, which would account for the reprimands. According to Indiana's Judicial Accountability Advocacy Group, they say less than 1percent of attorneys are even censored, let alone investigated, and that is not even including judges.”

We can see from this example why so many women in the US become victims of the courts. The abusers go free and take home their abused daughter or son with them as this case so vividly illustrates. Or, as Sandra says, summing up the feelings of many women under attack from the courts: “It is like being raped and then the court order[ing] to provide the care and housing for the rapist. It is insane.”

The law is about money rather than justice. No-one but the rich can afford to go the whole nine yards in a highly contested custody case which requires thousands of dollars to see it through to the end. Child custody has become a huge money-making enterprise along with so many other forms of control. Money talks, abusers walk. With divorce on the rise globally and with an estimated 40 to 50 percent of all marriages ending in separation or divorce, this effects approximately one million children each year,²⁴ as well as the fall-out from a war that is fuelling a similar rise. ²⁵
 

The emotional cost to the child is also rising with higher incidences of stress related illnesses appearing in custody battle children. Judges receive a fat salary and job security and when the overflow of cases gets too much the retired judges are wheeled out, often with their accompanying prejudices and outdated beliefs. Appeal judges seldom reverse lower court rulings. When funding is added to the equation it becomes a dangerous gamble. If you are unhappy with the ruling and you suspect foul play - which will at some point along the judicial line, probably exist – you will have chance for redress. Judges have total immunity which means suing is not an option. No surprise then that the Oversight Agency Commission for Judicial Performance spends over $3 million dollars per year, yet in a 3 years period, not a single judge was removed from the bench. 

Sandra is fighting depression as her hope wanes. She is wracked by guilt that she could not protect her child. She paints a bleak picture of the judicial system in America, describing the tight net of oppression and injustice that lies in wait for those who reach desperation point. The law sees its victims as a lucrative source to exploit:

If you do something to try to protect an abused child, you will be placed on a missing poster by the National Clearing House for Missing and Exploited Children, you also will have the FBI issue a warrant for your arrest even if you have custody, if you are caught (you most likely will) you and your children will be hunted by local police agencies if you are captured (which you will be) than these police will take your child , call the abusive parent and give your child to the abuser to with as he likes. Meantime, you will be handcuffed, held in a holding cell, you will not be read your rights nor will anyone offer the elusive phone call. After you repeatedly ask for an attorney (which you will not get) you will, in handcuffs be taken to a county jail. Now, depending on the size of the state you will be stripped searched and put in maximum security lockdown.

At this point, your crime is “noncustodial interference” even if you had custody (because you were not there to protect your rights so the court took this chance to strip you of them) Do not forget you will also be put on the 5 o’clock news on every channel in that area with the headline reading “parent abducts child - child returned safely to other parent.” Something like that. Your state has about 7 days to extradite you (which they will) most likely in chains (again your crime trying to protect your child being abused which you know about). You will be held in your county jail not able to pay bail, because this court has financially ruined you. (That is to say, you spent your savings on all the court fees to protect your child). You will sit in jail not knowing if your children are safe. Everyone you trusted - this is to say the same people who testified in the civil action for you - will betray you - and believe me they will. No one will believe you because “this couldn't happen” and even so ‘why to you?’ This, despite all the evidence, the pictures and stuff like that, you cannot see your child because you tried to save them. If you don't have a nervous breakdown, if no one will give you a job because of the publicity and if you don't harm yourself you get treated like you are crazy, or better yet, like you are a bad parent for not having your child. Now you are destitute and easy pickings for this corrupt court system.

You will more than likely not see your child but these officials will try to charge you money for every conceivable thing you can think of. If these officials take it all and make it impossible for you to get more, you will either watch any rights you had to your poor child terminated and given to the parent who is horrifically abusing them (you know this because you have the evidence, though what good it is I'll never know) or get to be sent to jail again once these officials have drained you financially.

You then get to be the lucky recipient of nightly nightmares regarding your child and how the evidence vividly details how the parent abuser is abusing your child.

Sandra and her daughter are two victims out of thousands who are suffering a similar fate. 

Notes

20 ‘Witness for Mr. Bubbles’ Transcribed from "Australia 60 Minutes," Channel Nine Network (Aired on August 5, 1990 in Australia)Produced by Anthony McClellan; Reported by Mike Munro.

21 ‘Custody Ruling Addresses Reliance on Expert Opinions’ By Mark Fass, New York Law Journal, 2005.

22 The names have all been changed to protect the identities of those involved, not least the mother who is legally bound to silence. The content and facts of the case have not been changed, though I have placed these facts into a suitable narrative for ease of reading. I can fully vouch for the mother’s evidence and testimony during the course of my own correspondence. 
23 If we remember, this term refers to the equivalent of an attorney that is appointed by a judge to assist the Court in determining the circumstances of a custody battle. This varies from state to state and does not apply in every country.They wield considerable influence. Their income is paid hourly and the longer a case can be drawn out the higher their income. This varies from state to state and does not apply in every country.

24 Generally, the global divorce rates are climbing (even among older couples) including separation between co-habiting couples. Europe has a slightly less rate while the US is highest in the world, though it has since leveled off from a leap in from 60s to the 80s. See:‘Divorce Wars: Litigation as blood sport’ By Chris Francescani and Kristen Depowski, ABC News, July 11, 2006.

25 ‘Soldiers' divorce rates up sharply’ By Gregg Zoroya, USAToday, July 6, 2005.