Posts

Want to resolve your Texas family law case outside of court? Remember these rules of engagement

Want to resolve your Texas family law case outside of court? Remember these rules of engagement

Originally published by The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC Blog.

Going to court to resolve a family law case is not a fun experience for anyone involved. You probably didn’t need me to tell you that, but it is the absolute truth. There is nothing glamorous about it. You will not have the moment in time where you get to call out your ex-spouse for the bad behavior he engaged into the delight of your family watching in the audience and the shock of the judge. If you are after truth, justice, and the American Way, then a family court is not the place to go.

What you are more likely to experience is a judge who is engaged but not sympathetic and an opposing party who is slinging mud at you based on issues that may or may not have ever occurred. Do not expect your ex-spouse to be contrite in response to any of the accusations that you hurl at him. I’ve seen enough men and women who have done bad things go on the offensive against a “victim” ex-spouse enough times to know that family court doesn’t deliver results in the way that you may anticipate.

With all of that said, it would make some sense to attempt to appeal to your spouse’s reasonable side and attempt to settle any family case outside of the courtroom. Mediation is a great resource for parties and attorneys alike when it comes to attempting to reach a middle ground on the important issues of your case. The nice part is that the judge in your case will likely require that you mediate your case at least once before you get anywhere near a courtroom. Odds are good that your case will settle and a potential courtroom drama can be averted.

What happens from the beginning part of your case until you get into mediation can have a lasting impact on the chances of your case settling. When it comes to co-parenting with a person who you may not see eye to eye with, getting along may not be an option. In these high conflict family court cases can you do anything to avoid disagreement and disaster?

Today’s blog post from the Law Office of Bryan Fagan will seek to answer that question. We actually took up the issue at the conclusion of yesterday’s blog post and we will continue to run with it in today’s blog. This is an important subject that you need to know about sooner rather than later. Learn what will work when it comes to co-parenting and avoid problems before they occur.

Be accountable to your co-parent

Whether you were married to your child’s other parent or not, you now have a sizeable amount of history with that person. You should feel some degree of responsibility to be held to your word. Basically, you should do the things that you say that you’re going to do. Just as importantly, you should avoid doing the things that you have said that you will not do. That shows that you take seriously the responsibility you have in raising a child with this person.

Even if you couldn’t care less how your child’s other parent views you, remember that everything you do in this case should be done to benefit the life of your child. Do not put your child in a bad position because you cannot be trusted or because you think it’s unimportant to be held to account for your actions. Taking the easy way out may seem better at the time (especially if doing so could harm your ex-spouse) but remember that in a co-parenting relationship you will often find yourself facing similar circumstances down the road.

Although you cannot control what your child’s other parent will do in response to your actions in the future, you have complete control over how you act at the moment. If you say that you are going to do something- do it. It’s as simple as that. Even if it means going out of your way or doing something that doesn’t seem like much fun if you said something your actions need to back those words up.

Keep a journal of interactions with your ex-spouse

If you are not a big fan of organization you may want to pay particular attention to this section of our blog post. Keeping notes of what you say and what your ex-spouse says in relation to your child is an important trait to pick up. For one, it will help you to remember better what was said so that you do not operate under mistaken assumptions and memories of things that did not occur. We’ve all been there- absolutely sure something happened, but as it turns out nothing close to that having occurred.

Before you consider filing a family lawsuit- whether that is a modification or enforcement lawsuit- I would recommend that you review those notes to determine how your memories line up with the reality of the situation. You may find that your emotions are not justified by past events as they actually occurred. It is a good practice to be able to check yourself by keeping notes of your meetings, interactions, phone calls, etc. Better to know exactly what took place than to run off to an attorney for no good reason.

Mediate, and mediate again (if necessary)

As I noted at the outset of today’s blog post, your case will very likely be decided in mediation rather than in a courtroom. Family court judges in most courts will mandate that you mediate your case at least once before stepping foot into their courtroom. When you and your ex-spouse find yourself facing a situation that is too big for you to resolve on your own, it is a good idea to push your attorneys to schedule a mediation early in your case.

Many times I will encourage clients to mediate their case even if an agreement is in place before the case is filed. Let me explain. Suppose that you and your spouse are getting a divorce. You know that you are getting a divorce- there is no chance to reconcile with your husband and divorce is the only alternative that you can seek at this point. You feel good that you all sat at the kitchen table and hammered out an agreement that will allow you to avoid having to go to court.

The next thing one of you does is walk into our office and tell one of our attorneys that you have an agreement for your divorce. All you are looking to do is have a lawyer draft order based on the agreement and you will be on your way. This sounds reasonable and in many ways is exactly what you should have done before coming to see a lawyer. However, I will add one thing to this discussion that should encourage you to seek advice from an attorney and mediator.

Here is that information- even if you have an agreement with your spouse in place for a divorce settlement, there is nothing guaranteeing that your spouse will stick to their word and honor that agreement. A lot can happen in between the time you all agreed to something at the kitchen table and the time where a judge can sign an order. An order has to be drafted, both sides must review the draft and signatures from you and your spouse must be collected. We’re talking at least a couple of weeks.

In the event that you or your spouse change your mind on the terms of your agreement, there is nothing to protect you. You could come up with an agreement only to see your spouse change their mind at the last minute. As long as he hasn’t signed the divorce decree he can turn his back on the process. This is completely legal and happens all the time. Before you start to worry, here is where mediation can solve this problem.

By going to mediation and resolving your issues there, you assure yourself of two things. For one, any agreements that you reach are going to be memorialized by a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA). You, your spouse and your attorneys will sign the MSA along with the mediator. This is significant because once it is signed there is no going back. I will tell clients that you cannot call me the next morning in a panic and tell me that the MSA needs to be tossed out because you realized you made a mistake of some sort. The final decree of divorce will be drafted off of that MSA.

Next, not only will you have an agreement in place that is unbreakable, but you also will ensure that you have accounted for all of the areas that are necessary for a divorce. Divorces can be complicated and touch on a range of issues. By coming up with your own settlement you are possibly missing out on a number of subjects that you had failed to account for. By having multiple attorneys and an experienced mediator look at the MSA you are almost guaranteed of having an agreement that takes into account all the areas you needed to account for.

What happens if you cannot agree on compromises after an order is established?

Once all the parties and the judge have signed off on an order it is set in stone. In the future, if there are any disagreements between you and your ex-spouse you can go back and refer to the order to see what your responsibilities are. That is reassuring to have a guidepost like that, but it can also be frustrating due to the fact that your family may “outgrow” the order.

In the future, you and your ex-spouse are free to resolve issues on your own without even filing a lawsuit. This is what judges assume will happen- the two of you will work together and resolve problems on your own without too much difficulty. You will save money and time by not filing a lawsuit and in the end, you will reach conclusions that are better tailored for your family than anything a family court judge could have come up with.

In the event that you have a problem that cannot be solved by negotiation and compromise, remember that the order is what controls the situation. Think of the order as your fall back provisions. Whatever you cannot agree upon means that your order takes center stage. As long as have a mutually agreed upon solution to a problem, you can go off of that solution. However, once one of you no longer agrees to abide by the compromise you must go off of what the order has to say.

This is important for you to know since you cannot be assured that you will always be able to come up with solutions to your problems on the fly. So, what you should take away from this discussion is that your orders had better be workable for your family- both now and in the future.

Questions about visitation problems? Come back to our blog tomorrow to find out more

As children age, and as your own circumstances evolve it may become apparent to you and your child’s other parent that your visitation orders need to be re-worked. What can you do in situations like this? If you find yourself in this sort of position, I would recommend that you return to our blog tomorrow. We will spend some time discussing this subject and how you can work around problems like this.

In the meantime, if you have any questions about today’s blog post or anything another subject in family law please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan. Our licensed family law attorneys can schedule you for a free of charge consultation six days a week. These consultations are a great opportunity to ask questions of our experienced attorneys and to receive direct feedback about your particular circumstances.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



Read More –>

Picture

Contra Costa Protests Catch More CPS and Family Court Staffers in Child Abuse and Trafficking Rings

Picture


A former member of the Contra Costa County Grand Jury has leaked information that indicates  2018 parent protests  and new laws  mandating the termination of privately run foster homes resulted in an investigation of staff employed in the county’s CPS and family court services.  That investigation found that CPS workers were not following the law when they acted to remove children from their family homes. 

A recall effort that had wiped Santa Clara County Judge Aaron Persky off the bench was threatened by parents in Contra Costa, which caused an immediate investigation of three of the county’s judges.

Turns out, parents were right.  The investigation revealed Judge Hardie and Judge Fannin had direct ties to money laundering operations that take children from loving parents and sell those children into sex trafficking rings, while non- profits collect fees for the children placed into foster care. 

” It was the parents protesting in the streets that was very embarrassing to the upscale Walnut Creek community, that protest launched not only a criminal investigation by the FBI. but also the local grand jury.’ said the former grand juror who asked to speak off records. 

The juror also expressed frustration in the lack of media coverage on the topic. ” We never saw this coming because mainstream media never covers what is really going on in the county’s family courts,

Judges in the county appeared rattled over the investigation, which is leading to supervised visitation  and reunification camps where judges hold financial interests through their spouses and family members to avoid disclosure. 

Of the $153 million budgeted for foster kids. less than 1 percent was determined to be going to benefit foster youth. Worse were the judges who ignored the law and took children from their parents for no legal reason. 

SANTA CRUZ – Judge Hell

A Santa Cruz mother described the year  a CPS worker took her 2 year old, causing the mother to pay $40,000 she paid to get her child back.  

” The payment felt like a ransom” , explained the young mother, “we had to pay to defend  CPS worker’s allegations’: 

The Grand Jury didn’t investigate the use of supervised visitation, where several judges have a financial interest. 

Read More –>

Make Your Divorce Easier

8 Smart Family Lawyer Tips to Make Your Divorce Easier

Make Your Divorce Easier

 

When I started as a family lawyer over 13 years ago, I was as new to the divorce process as anyone else. Having now been involved with hundreds of cases, some more difficult than others, I’ve learned some sage advice to give my clients. Divorce is by no means an easy thing to go through, but there are some things that you can do to make the process a little bit simpler and easier for you.

Here Are 8 Smart Lawyer Tips to Make Your Divorce Easier:

Observe Proper Timing

Divorce is as important as a couple’s decision as getting married is. You can’t force someone to get married the same way as you can’t just force a divorce on your spouse (setting aside special circumstances). It is best to talk things through before filing for a divorce so your partner won’t drag the process just to get back at you.

Open Your Own Bank Account

Ideally speaking, you should have your own bank account even when you are married but if that is not the case, then you should get one; whether you are getting divorced or not. Know that in cases of joint accounts, your spouse can drain your account without your consent so it is better to avoid this situation, to begin with, by having your own.

Ensure That You Have Time for a Divorce

Getting a divorce can eat up your time and the changes will be hard for you, your ex, and the children. By making sure that you have the time to devote to a divorce, not only will it make the process easier and faster but you will also have time to allow yourself and loved ones to transition into your new life. I’ve seen many cases where, although a divorce is needed, the timing causes havoc far beyond the existing marital issues.

Your Divorce Rationale Letter Should be Lawyer-Reviewed

If you are the one filing the divorce, you might be compelled to explain why to your spouse in writing. Because of guilt, raw emotions and history with your spouse, you might say things that can hurt you later on so it is better to have your lawyer review your letter to ensure it doesn’t contain anything that can be used against you.

Begin with a Lawyer and Lawyer Meeting

Most divorce cases are negotiation proceedings so having your lawyers meet in the beginning makes sense to minimize communication issues later. A lawyer to lawyer meeting like this often results in a win-win divorce with no need for dramatics.

A Second Opinion Won’t Hurt

A divorce is a one-time thing so it follows that you cannot make mistakes with it and end up with an even bigger problem. This is why a second opinion matters. Your lawyer will also usually welcome a second opinion from a respected colleague.

Ask for Relief When You Have Multiple Reasons to Do So

Filing a motion for every little thing and for the smallest of things will just annoy the judge, your spouse, your spouse’s lawyer, and your lawyer too. It is best to wait until you have a few things to address.

Expect that the reason for the Divorce Won’t Affect Who Gets Child Custody

It doesn’t matter if you are divorcing because your spouse used up all your money or you caught your partner cheating. Know that child custody goes to which parent has better means and ability to take care of any child from the marriage.

Going through a divorce will forever change your life, your ex’s and your children’s lives. How you go about it, can play a large role in how you persevere throughout the process and how you manage to turn the page and live your best life moving forward. From my experience, following these tips, the divorce process will be smoother and you’ll be better for it.

The post 8 Smart Family Lawyer Tips to Make Your Divorce Easier appeared first on Divorced Moms.

Read More –>

What does being a joint managing conservator mean in a Texas family law case?

What does being a joint managing conservator mean in a Texas family law case?

Originally published by The Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC Blog.

If you are involved in a
family law case in Texas then you are likely interested in knowing what you need
to do in order to best position yourself within the case. Certainly your
concerns lie mainly in being able to spend as much of your time with your
child as possible and to have a hand in making important decisions in
your child’s life. The rest, as they say, is just details.

The reality is that you need to know how to prepare yourself within your
case in order to be able to make credible arguments regarding your future
role in your child’s life. Although there is a presumption in place
under Texas law that both parents of a child should be named as joint
managing conservators of that child you will still want to have the evidence
available in your case point towards you becoming the primary managing
conservator if your case were to go to a trial.

Let’s take that assumption one step further: assuming that you and
your child’s other parent are going to be named as
joint managing conservators of your child, what are the biggest areas of disagreement that you can
expect to encounter in a negotiation or trial? In today’s blog post
from the Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC we will discuss the subject of what
questions really matter in a Texas child custody case.

Designating the primary residence of your child

This is the big one that parents in child custody and divorce cases alike
get up in arms about- with good reason. Being able to designate the primary
residence of your child means three things. The first is that you are
able to live with your child during the week when school is in session
and for most of the summer. As a result you are awarded more time with
your child. Under a Standard Possession Order (SPO) this means that you
will likely be able to spend 55% of the year with your child, if not more.

Next, you have the right receive
child support from your child’s other parent. If you have one child at issue in
the custody/divorce case this means that 20% of your child’s other
parent’s income is on the hook for child support. Child support
is intended to even the scales a bit since the other parent does not see
your child as often and will not be responsible for much of the day to
day costs associated with raising the child. Keep in mind that child support
is not intended to allow your child to live the lifestyle that he has
become accustomed to or anything like this. It is meant to care for the
base essentials of daily life.

Third, being named as conservator with the right to designate the primary
residence of your child means that you are able to also be awarded superior
rights as to your child as well. It is typical that the parent with the
right to designate the primary residence of the child also is able to
have superior rights to being able to make educational and health care
related decisions as well. This is not always the case but it is often
times the case.

What about a geographic restriction on where your child can reside?

Even after the conclusion of your child custody case the court will retain
jurisdiction over the case so that a judge will be able to issue additional
orders in the future if the need arises. A typical restriction that is
put on families after a child custody case is that of a geographic restriction
on where a child can reside. While you are no longer subject to the jurisdiction
of a court, your child will be until he or she turns 18 or graduates from
high school. As such a court can regulate where your child lives until them.

The purpose of a
geographic restriction is to allow both parents of a child to develop and maintain a relationship
with their child after a child custody case. The thought is that if there
would be no geographic restriction that is put into place a mother or
father who is the primary conservator of a child could move away from
Texas after a case ends causing the other parent to need to move as well
in order to keep up. A geographic restriction states that you as the primary
conservator of the child must live within a certain geographic area. It
could be Harris County and any county that borders Harris. It could be
within a certain zip code. Or it could be within the boundaries of a certain
school district.

A geographic restriction is usually lifted in the event that the non-primary
parent moves out of the geographic area where the parties are restricted
to living. For example if your child is restricted to living in either
Harris or Montgomery County and after two years you decide to move to
Waller County then the geographic restricted is automatically lifted.
Your ex-spouse can move with your child wherever he or she wants. The
reasoning behind this is that the geographic restriction is intended to
benefit you, and if you decide to make a decision that does not coincide
with the order then you should not expect your ex-spouse to have to live
by the order either.

How is time with your child going to be divided up when your case concludes?

A Standard Possession Order (SPO), as its name implies, is the most typical possession schedule that is
handed out in a family law case in Texas. Its details can be found in
the Texas Family Code, but it basically involves the non primary parent
being awarded possession on the first, third and fifth weekends of each
month as well as a Thursday night during the school week. Holidays are
alternated on a yearly basis with the other parent. Summer vacation means
extended time to spend with the non primary parent as well.

If your case makes it all the way to a trial then a judge would likely
award the non primary parent a SPO barring evidence showing that it would
not be appropriate. Things like family violence, drug or alcohol abuse
are examples of situations that could lead to a SPO award not being made
by a judge.

If you are a parent to a young child under the age of three then you should
be aware that a SPO does not apply to you or your child. A judge would
need to take your specific situation into consideration when handing out
an order for possession. Obviously the needs of a child under the age
of three are considerably different from older children. What typically
happens is that a “stair step” order goes into place which
allows the non primary parent to be awarded more time with your child
the older the child gets.

If your family has a unique circumstance involving a child with a disability
or a factor that we have not covered today the best advice that I can
provide you with is to contact an experienced family law attorney in order
to discuss your circumstances in greater detail. There is no substitute
for being able to get practical advice from someone who has dealt with
cases like yours before. While you can receive advice from anyone, the
advice isn’t worth much until the advice giver has seen and experienced
what you are going through in particular.

Questions about family law matters in Texas? Contact the Law Office of
Bryan Fagan

The attorneys with the
Law Office of Bryan Fagan, PLLC appreciate your time and interest in today’s blog topic. If you
have any questions or seek clarification on anything that you’ve
read today please do not hesitate to
contact our office. We offer free of charge consultations six days a week in our office.
A licensed family law attorney would be honored to meet with you and answer
your questions and concerns in a pressure free environment.

We post to our blog every day of the wee and we hope to see you back here
tomorrow as we continue our discussion into relevant and important family
law topics.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



Read More –>

Divorce Attorney Elise Mitchell's Private Files Document Blow Jobs to Judges

Moms, Dads  and Women District Attorneys  (Diana Becton  and Nancy O'Malley) – Take on Family Court Judges, CPAs  and Divorce Attorneys

​As newly elected district attorney Todd Spitzer investigates family court clerks, custody evaluators and private judges involved in custody and divorce cases in Orange County, California’s two most powerful female district attorneys began to look at family court cases that have been ignored by male their male counterparts for decades. 

CONTRA COSTA DA  DIANA BECTON &
IRS INVESTIGATE CPAs USED IN DIVORCE CASES 

Diana Becton became Contra Costa County DA following the exposure of criminal activity involving Mark Peterson. Peterson was indicted, blasted in the news and disbarred by 2017 in large part based on  public outrage that a DA had corrupted the cozy East Bay communities  and allowed family courts to run amok for the past two decades. 

Becton is reportedly mindful that family court reformers have managed to get the Grand Jury to investigate the county’s CPS and Family Court Services staff investigated and now Becton has an opportunity to investigate CPAs including Jack Peth, Charles Burak, Sally White, Michael Thompson, James Butera and others who are known for not adding properly when it comes to the fair division of community property in divorce cases.

A small group of accountants have been regularly acting in appointed or retained capacities in family law cases, and many of these CPAs have been cooking the books, concealing corporate profits and helping law enforcement officers, tech executives, and even judges engage in tax fraud and tax evasion for decades.  Criminal IRS investigators are also reportedly conducting an investigation of several CPAs who acted in high profile divorce cases in a manner that concealed income from the government. 

Ms. Becton was recently named to Governor Gavin Newsom’s Judicial Selection Committee. It  is reported she is mindful of the public outrage that led to an audit of the CJP, the agency that disciplines the state’s judges. Many in California’s  court reform movement come from family court experiences and were largely responsible  for getting the audit, and recalling Judge Persky in Santa Clara County in June of 2018. 

ALAMEDA  DA  NANCY E. O’ MALLEY ASKED TO INVESTIGATE LAWYER PERJURY

District Attorneys across the state are asked on a daily basis to investigate perjury and filing of false documents in family court cases. 

” We have divorcing couples send  transcripts of their former spouse testifying in family court and ask us to investigate perjury related to that testimony.  Sadly, while the general public may believe perjury is clear cut, it is not. It is very difficult to prove and frankly we don’t have near enough  resources to investigate these crimes, ” described public corruption investigator John Chase of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office after a perjury charge involving attorney Bradford Baugh was brought to his attention in 2015. 

What Mr. Chase refused to investigate in 2015 has now landed on the desk of Ms. O” Malley where Mr. Baugh appears to have committed perjury in a video deposition conducted by a former client. Mr. Baugh has been appointed to represent children in San Mateo and Santa Clara county divorce and custody cases for over two decades. 

As many lawyers express they aren’t worried Ms. O’Malley will actually start prosecuting perjury in family law cases, a few admit that the perjury of divorce attorney Bradford Baugh would be significant given Baugh’s involvement  in hundreds of Silicon Valley’s high profile cases, including cases before Judge Persky, where Mr. Baugh represented he served in Vietnam. 

One lawyer regularly  appointed to represent children in San Mateo and Alameda County noted he has been aware Mr. Baugh has been court appointed to represent children in addition to typically representing high asset earners in Silicon Valley’s tech and social media industries. 

” I thought Baugh served in Vietnam as I heard him discuss it in court before Judges on a regular basis. Pretty sure Judge Persky, Judge Swope , Judge Hill ,and Judge Towery believed he was in the military as well. Certainly doesn’t seem that anyone should be appointed to represent children if they spend decades lying about having served in the Vietnam war”, the attorney said asking to remain off the record. 

Bill Dok, Baugh’s former partner claimed to be embarrassed he had been partners with Baugh when Baugh was lying to the family law community. But Mr. Dok may have more than embarrassment to worry about if Mr. Baugh was earning money that paid law firm expenses as Baugh committed perjury in a deposition with a former client. 

BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN 

In the name of the best interest of children, family court judges have issued orders that have resulted in billions of dollars being spent on lawyers, custody evaluations  and sham therapists. These judges have done little for children and more for a crony network that has highjacked California’s legal system. 

Lawyers willing to lie, judges willing to cheat and Rule of Law that has been abandoned in family court has inflicted more harm on children than at any other time in California’s history. 

WHAT IF INJUSTICE HITS YOUR HOME? 

Due process is not alive and well in California’s Courts. Q has been dedicated to matching families with like issues and regional areas. If you have suffered injustice in California’s Family Courts, Email us with your case number, judge, lawyers and experts. Post comments naming the judges and lawyers under anonymous name to prevent retaliation. 

All contacts will be carefully vetted and audited before connected to others. Judges and lawyers have been known to read this website and act in a retaliatory manner when the get caught. 

Read More –>

Picture

Orange County DA Todd Spitzer to Break Up Family Court Corruption

According to a source connected with  newly elected Orange County DA Todd Spitzer, the FBI has been called in to investigate  several court clerks, judges and divorce attorneys  for obstructing justice in CPS, divorce and custody cases following the transfer of court executive David Yamasaki from Santa Clara County in early 2017. 

Orange County  has been fraught with jailhouse snitches and federal investigations of the county’s traffic court cases, Recent emails leaked from the DA’s office indicate family courts are being investigated for covering up money laundering, drug enterprises and sex trafficking rings. 

RECRUITMENT

Ambulance chasing is to personal injury lawyers as case rigging is to  California’s family law attorneys. These lawyers chase divorces involving private businesses with crimes to conceal and family homes with millions of dollars in equity. 

Divorce can put companies at risk. Inflated expenses, cash funds, and tax evasion secreted away from shareholders can be exposed when an ex spouse’s lawyers and accountants dive in to determine the value of community property. 

According to sources involved with the investigation, since 2000 ,  small groups of lawyers have been rigging cases to get before certain elected judges or appointed private judges. 

Emails discovered in a private email account of Mr. Yamasaki and  a Silicon Valley divorce lawyer known as “Black Tulip”  indicate large payments flowing to lawyers, family court services and experts who are handsomely paid for court appointments. 

Cases appear to be  rigged when court clerks assign a case to a judge during an exparte request, or when cases are originally assigned. Clerks investigated during the 2015 traffic case scandal who were not indicted, appear to have moved either to divorce cases, or into private businesses benefiting from the criminal activity.  These individuals troll new divorce filings and in some cases work with lawyers before the case is filed to get it before a corrupt judge. The ” clients ” have no idea this is occurring such that a disqualifying 170.6 challenge can be lodged. 

SILENCE THE SPOUSE 

A critical component of this enterprise involves the emotional, financial and physical abuse of former spouses who may know too much .  Secret surveillance, personal computer hacking and cell phone Stingrays are regularly  used to discover what a spouse knows. If that spouse is determined to be a threat based on an ability to expose a former spouse’s secrets, the enterprise moves in to have reports issued to a judge that  that  claim a former spouse is ” crazy” . ” abusive ” or mentally unfit to parent children, or to remain in the family home. Stripping women in particular of their home and their children is so destabilizing, it changes the game for the enterprise.

Staffers in Family Court Services, or CPS,  appear to issue reports favorable to the enterprise such that the report can be rubberstamped by a judge, which helps the enterprise avoid detection.

Spouses busy fighting move out or supervised visitation orders are too fragile to challenge the financial aspect of a divorce case.  

Before mandatory JCC,  or emergency screening hearings occur, the enterprise has already rigged the outcome of custody decisions  with judges working for the enterprise in return for future employment in private judging, mediation and arbitration once they leave the bench 

 The FBI investigation has focused on Dr. Rebecca Bailey, and her reunification camp following news reports by NBC Bay Area.  Parents scouring the courthouses for other victims of the enterprise have also become investigators best sources, as few DA offices are prepared to properly investigate family courts and related cases. 

SECRET AGREEMENTS- FLEAs (Family Law Elite Attorneys)  

Divorce lawyers calling themselves ” Elite” Family Law Attorneys  (FLEAs)  have been known to law enforcement, and the courts since 2000. Little has been done to stop these lawyers, whose work  and misdeeds remain largely underground. 

FLEAs operate regular legal practices in the area of family law, where 80% of cases are quickly resolved or settled. For the other 20% , FLEAs identify a spouse with secrets to hide and focus on destroying the other spouse in a divorce case in order to protect secrets could result in criminal charges. This conduct serves to protect clients who are  vulnerable to a criminal enterprise orchestrated to protect the secrets from the IRS, the DOJ and the FBI. 

Businesses in the  marijuana  industry, transportation, professional sports organizations and tech are the main flow of cash to the FLEAs. Bad cops collecting cash and turning away from drug and sex traffickers act as a freeway for cash payments and bribes to elected politicians, judges and private divorce lawyers. Above board these lawyers are paid with the sale of the family home, or rental properties, but behind the scene far more money is moving in illegal payments. 

Well paid lawyers are loyal and protective of the criminal enterprise. 

In Orange County, as designed first in Santa Clara County, lawyers, minor’s counsel and private judges are assuring payments of cash to pay off loans on the properties and investments of the judges whose disclosures are carefully monitored by the press. 

CALIFORNIA’S REAL ESTATE HOLDS THE KEY

Divorcing spouses are often surprised to learn a former spouse is willing to sell real estate to pay legal costs in effort to drag out cases. And many spouses are surprised to learn courts willing to sell these houses to pay the enterprise, rather than preserve community property as the law provides. 

Victims of the criminal enterprise report high conflict custody disputes left them ill prepared to recognize the scheme to sell the family home. 

Most alarming has been the discovery that elected judges in Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Diego, San Francisco, LA and Orange County regularly fail to disclose their real properties on the required From 700. Worse are cases involving private judges with real estate holdings that are not required to be disclosed.

Emails between Black Tulip and Court CEO David Yamasaki indicate Rebecca Bailey has been one of bad actors assisting the enterprise in laundering money, abusing children and silencing the parents who dare to speak up. It is estimated that Mr. Yamasaki has orchestrated the illegal transfer of billons of dollars of California home equity in the state’s family court cases caught up the web of a criminal activity designed to separate children from their families, and sell off the family home in order to operate.   

Read More –>

Divorce’s Emotional Impact on Family

Divorce’s Emotional Impact on Family Roles

Divorce’s Emotional Impact on Family

 

Roles within a family and the early relationships we craft will impact us emotionally through the rest of our lives. Unfortunately, the relationship between two parents and divorce specifically can negatively affect the people that you both care about most, your children.

Divorce’s Emotional Impact on Family Roles

Typical family roles are changing, even without considering divorce as a primary factor in most relationships. The American Community Survey found in a 2009 study that only about 45.8% of children would make it to 17-years-old with their biological parents still married. That means that about half of children will live through the divorce of their parents.

Impacts of Divorce on Children

The driving concern for everyone involved in a divorce is the impact on the children. But, there’s more at play than who spends more time with whom. The emotional impact of children can vary wildly based on three aspects.

First, the relationship with each of the parents. If one child was always closer with their mother, then they may immediately, and completely of their own accord, see the other partner as the “bad guy.”

Second is the extent of the conflict. Have you and your partner reached a consensus that the marriage isn’t worth salvaging or that the damage is irreparable? Or, have you gone through months of screaming matches, cursing, throwing objects across the home and worse? The extent of the conflict can either show children that through emotional intelligence, you can end a bad relationship civilly or that a relationship must go through levels of toxicity before anyone can leave.

Third, the parent’s ability to focus on the child. Emotional intelligence goes through waves of development, but younger children are much more self-centered than grown adults. Without someone addressing their needs regularly, they’ll carry resentment for undelivered attention through their lives.

Considering the Situation

Emotional impact may vary based on the specifics of the divorce and the parent’s situation, but the need for emotional development doesn’t differ.

Major emotional milestones include:

  • Experiencing embarrassment between ages 5 and 6.
  • Awareness of others’ perceptions between ages 7 and 8.
  • Identity development starting at age 9.
  • Become introspective at age 11.

It’s easy to see how a generally uncomfortable or strained environment can impact all of these milestones. Emotionally, there are two consistent behaviors that children of divorce exhibit.

Both boys and girls express anger non-verbally and internalize distress. Usually, a child with parents going through a divorce will choose one of these patterns and stick with it. Children that regress to the non-verbal expression of anger will vandalize, fight, or start generally destructive habits. Children who internalize distress will often experience depression, poor gut health (from worry) and have severe changes to their eating and sleeping habits.

There are instances when a child removed from an emotionally neglectful or harmful situation will do better after the divorce.

The best way to reduce emotional distress is to help the child develop security in their relationship with any involved parent. That means the parents must uphold preset duties, make good on promises, and act civilly with the other parent.

Impacts of Divorce on Mothers

When evaluating family roles, much attention goes to the mother. However, it’s worth noting that women instigate the divorce more than twice as often as men do.  When it comes to divorce handling, the role of the mother often changes.

Times have significantly impacted what people expect to deliver as the mother-role in a partnership. But, as the person likely to have started the divorce, and likely to be seeking full custody, they are often taking on a new and more authoritative role. Often when a divorce starts, they no longer seek approval of their spouse or discuss major decisions with them.

Mothers may realize that they now have to rely on the social system, child care, or child support and will have less anxiety over asking for help. Emotionally, mothers may thrive after a divorce finding relief from marital problems they may have lived with for years.

Impacts of Divorce on Fathers

In 2016 a study found that about 55% of divorce instigators blamed the other person, and if women are twice as likely to file for divorce that means that men are almost always stuck with the blame.

There are many negative physical effects that divorced dads are more likely to experience, but they also have emotional setbacks to face as well. Men are more likely to experience depression and anxiety after a divorce as their roles are often essentially removed. Their role as a father is most often confined to weekends where a father will often lose both respect and authority.

Time Spent Between Family Members

When you look at the typical family roles, of the parents and children, there’s a balance between child independent time, child time individually with parents and child time with both parents. These are all essential for a child’s development and can help define your role within the family unit. When a divorce happens, the time spent between family members skews. Often the child’s time spent independently and with an individual parent will increase significantly.

If a parent withdraws from a child’s life either intentionally or through court-ordered child custody, there is an emotional loss. However, it’s critical to consider that child custody cases often evaluate the whole of the child’s best interest and staving off harmful interactions can create the opportunity for better emotional and physical help.

Standard visitation may not provide the interaction that your child needs to maintain a quality relationship with the parent. It’s important to seek the help of a lawyer if you have concerns regarding the time that you’ll spend with your child.

As part of a custody arrangement, a judge will often consider the emotional ties between the parent and child during the decision making. A just will, of course, determine custody and visitation if the parents cannot reach an amicable resolution with a mediator.

The time spent between family members even as roles may change and ties may dissolve is vital for each person in this equation. Divorced parents can co-parent civilly in some situations; in others, it is best to involve an attorney rather than continuing any struggle at home.

The post Divorce’s Emotional Impact on Family Roles appeared first on Divorced Moms.

Read More –>

Picture

Santa Clara County Politicians Dave Cortese and Cindy Chavez  Tied to Sex Trafficking in Family Court Cases

After months of sifting through documents reportedly left at a Catholic high school by Silicon Valley divorce attorney Elise Mitchell, it appears  attorneys Heather Allan, Nicole Ford,  BJ Fadem, Jessica Huey, Irwin Joseph, Michael Smith, John Schroder, James Cox and Nat Hales have spent the past 2 decades using a complex money laundering scheme to traffic children through Silicon Valley’s family courthouses.  Pedophiles are paying top dollar for white affluent children at the center of a divorce or custody case. Court CEO Rebecca Fleming and David Yamasaki appear to be the linchpin of the operations. 

The enterprise appears to be expanding to Contra Costa, Santa Cruz and Orange Counties through court staff, judges and administrators. 

CAPTURING CHILDREN & MONEY LAUNDERING 

By  including   workers from CPS and Family Court Services, and gaining   cooperation from  court appointed experts including  Matthew Sullivan, Leslie Packer, Valerie Houghton, Ken Perlmutter, John Orlando and Michael Kerner, the enterprise has thrived for the past two decades. 

The players are different in every county, but the enterprise is easily detected with the assistance of documents and secret recordings parents have been collecting over the past three years. 

Secret recordings made at a recent  ” Power Lunch ” appear to implicate Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese and employees in the DA’s office in RICO activity that sells children to abusers and pedophiles, White children raised in Silicon Valley’s elite neighborhoods bring as much as $1 million to the enterprise in the form of cash and loan payoffs on real estate transactions. Attorney Sharon Roper has recently been selling properties as a temporary judge in a manner that has poured over $100 million dollars into the enterprise to strengthen and expand the operation.   

Family courts are often a source of strife in a child’s life. Family Court Services and CPS social workers appear to have  been using divorce and custody cases to identify children with the potential for being trafficked without detection. High conflict custody cases often lead to children ” running away” , or so the public is told. In fact these children are taken in through religious organizations, or non- profits assured funding by local politicians, only to disappear as a ” nanny” or child needing placement in foster care managed by the county. 

Payments recorded in leaked documents put Judges Stuart Scott, James Towery, Judge Roberta Hayashi, and  Joshua Weinstein at the center of the corruption. Court appointments made by these judges correlate to cases where parents are placed on supervised visitation, children are sent to reunification camps, and foster care programs are introduced once children have been isolated from ” problematic parents”. 

Judges are issuing Domestic Violence Restraining Orders to keep these parents permanently from their  own children. These orders often label a parent as ” abusive ” or ” crazy” to justify the orders.  

The Mitchell documents tie divorce and custody cases to the enterprise, where judges  appoint lawyers to represent children,  or act as private judges,  where the enterprise can be further secreted.  The documents show Judge Joshua Weinstein has been issuing appointments directly and indirectly as he prepares to leave the bench and go into private judging where other judges will regular appoint him to divorce and custody cases with the most money, real estate and children.  The Mitchell documents appear to indicate that in the average middle class divorce case minor’s counsel are assured appointments with $10,000 retainers, and private judges earn up to $200,000 in fees. 

Buyers of the children appear to be hiring young women to work as  a nanny, and young boys are promised scholarships and internships as a cover. In fact these children have reported they are essentially groomed to perform sex acts.

One young woman described her experiences  in family court where she was told her protective mother was alienating her from her father. The father then got fully custody and went on to  rape his own daughter  several times a week. When she tried to go to doctors or teachers for help, she was returned to her father.

The lawyer appointed to represent this women during  her parent’s divorce case,  only met with the young client once, but continued to represent to the court the girl did not want to see her mother.  The girl repeatedly heard her father on the phone with the lawyer demanding recommendations to the court that would maintain his custody position.

The young woman  noted that her brother was sent to live with a man who suddenly gave her father a home after the family home had been sold in the divorce to pay all the lawyers. The girl was told her brother was ” working ” for a Silicon Valley tech executive, she has had no contact with him for the past five years. 

The Mitchell documents indicate affluent white children bring millions to judges, lawyers and others acting in Silicon Valley’s family courts.

Local politicians know what this sex trafficking enterprise is doing and refuses to act in order to assure their reelection. Dave Cortese, a Santa Clara County supervisor  is running for California’s state senate in 2020. Mr. Cortese has reportedly been told he will have the powerful support of the Catholic church and support of the state’s judges in return for his silence. 

Read More –>

Divorce Attorney Elise Mitchell's Private Files Document Blow Jobs to Judges

Santa Clara County Politicians Tied to Sex Trafficking in Family Court Cases

After months of sifting through documents reportedly left at a Catholic high school by Silicon Valley divorce attorney Elise Mitchell it appears  attorneys Heather Allan, Nicole Ford,  BJ Fadem, Jessica Huey, Irwin Joseph, Michael Smith, John Schroder, James Cox and Nat Hales have spent the past 2 decades using a complex money laundering scheme to traffic children through Silicon Valley’s family courthouses.

The enterprise appears to be expanding to Contra Costa, Santa Cruz and Orange Counties through court staff, judges and administrators. 

CAPTURING CHILDREN & MONEY 

The enterprise includes workers from CPS and Family Court Services and  appears to require cooperation from  court appointed experts including  Matthew Sullivan, Leslie Packer, Valerie Houghton, Ken Perlmutter, John Orlando and Michael Kerner. The players are different in every county, but the enterprise is easily detected with assistance of documents and secret recordings parents have been making for decades. 

Leaked documents and  secret recordings made at a ” Power Lunch ” appears to implicate Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez who made  comments to local judges and members of the district attorney’s office that indicates she and Supervisor Dave Cortese have full knowledge that that the sex trafficking operation exists in the local courts, and elected judges and politicians are on the take for the enterprise. 

Family courts are often a source of strife in a child’s life. Family Court Services and CPS social workers appear to have  been using divorce and custody cases to identify children who offer the greatest potential for trafficking. These children are then marked by judges who appoint lawyers to assure the children are separated from loving or protective parents. 

At risk children are those whose parents have been involved in divorce or custody cases for more than 3 years. Judges then appoint lawyers to represent children and within a year these lawyers make recommendations to isolate the children from a loving parent. 

Payments recorded in the documents put Judges Stuart Scott, James Towery, Judge Roberta Hayashi, and  Joshua Weinstein at the center of the corruption. Court appointments made by these judges correlate to children being separated from their families, based on reports issued by corrupt custody evaluators . The activity is especially insidious when private judges are appointed to hear these cases. 

Donelle Morgan, Bradford Baugh, Mark Erickson, James Mc Manis, Catherine Bechtel, Jim Hoover, Travis Krepelka and Julia McDowell appear to be charged with assuring payments to private judges are delivered in the form of loan payoffs for personal homes, and real property rentals. 

Once a court appoints a lawyer to represent children, or to act as a private judge, this group of lawyers moves in to sell families homes, and later kickback fees to the private judges from fee awards the private judges make. 

Documents indicate Chavez and Cortese have been getting political contributions and kickbacks where transgender and gay children  are taken from their families in cases where Walter Hammon is involved.  Cortese, who is running for the California State Senate reportedly kept news of pedophile persists from making local headlines, assuring donations to local non- profit news organizations who kill stories that could expose the enterprise. 

Family Court Services staff are heard in the recording talking about how BJ Fadem works behind the scenes to take gay and bisexual children form their families, where they are more vulnerable t0 being trafficked through the local courts. Once the children have been alienated from protected parents, they are easier to get into sex trafficking rings. 

Digging through the documents, and searching titles of local properties parents have found court appointments made by Judge James Towery, Judge Stuart Scott, Judge Roberta  S. Hayashi   and Judge Joshua Weinstein to be the forefront of the trafficking activity, which has been known and supported by Santa Clara County Supervisors Cindy Chavez and Dave Cortese for several years. 

Payments to court appointed experts show that 

Read More –>

Demand to AOC for removal of corrupt Head of Bergen Family Court, Judge Peter J. Melchionne

Demand to AOC for removal of corrupt Head of Bergen Family Court, Judge Peter J. Melchionne

“The Godfather”
played by pedophile-lovin Judge Peter J. Melchionne, Head of the Bergen Family Court

In a complaint letter and addendum filed this past week with Glenn Grant, J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in New Jersey, New York mother Karin Wolf is demanding the removal of Judge Peter J. Melchionne, the Presiding Judge of the Bergen County Family Court in the State of New Jersey, and calls for an investigation into the matter.

According to Wolf, “What New Jersey needs is a public task force hearing like the one they did in Connecticut in 2014, where parents testified over the course of 14 hours about the perversions of family court.”

Ratings on Judge Peter J. Melchionne from The Robing Room:

Ms. Wolf posits that the State of New Jersey had no compelling state interest to prevent her kids from leaving the State and returning to her, as the children became domiciled by operation of law with her in the State of New York upon her ex-husband’s death in April 2018. Ms. Wolf says the State of New Jersey has once again, violated her fundamental rights embedded in the United States Constitution and that this case is ripe for a 5.1 constitutional challenge in the federal court.

Some background of the case – In 2013, Karin lost her kids after years of being denied legal representation by the State of New Jersey, including the Bergen Family Court dismissing her attorney 15 minutes prior to trial, forcing her to proceed unrepresented, violating her Due Process rights; and the Appellate Division blocking her from perfecting an appeal by allowing the Office of the County Counsel to deny her free transcripts, which they were required to do pursuant to a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In 2014, Judge Gerald C. Escala, known for taking a bribe in the Denike v. Cupo case, retaliated against Karin for filing a grievance against him and trying to protect her kids, barring Karin from contact with her kids.

In 2014, Karin sued the Office of the County Counsel in federal court and it was reprimanded by a federal judge. In that case, James X. Sattely, Esq. represented the Office of the County Counsel as a defendant; and Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol, now Head of the Bergen Court, was also a defendant.

James X. Sattely is now a judge in the Bergen County Criminal Court, who has, in a major conflict of interest, presided over Karin’s recent criminal case, where she’s being vilified (as the only living parent) for picking up her 14-year-old daughter during the summer of 2018 in North Carolina, for safety reasons, when the girl ran away from her stepmother Luciana Coutinho-Crane, whom the child alleges physically abused, sexually harassed, and medically neglected her.

In the fall of 2017, Karin’s young teenage daughter disclosed that her stepmother Luciana Coutinho-Crane was physically abusing her, leaving bruises on the child and spitting in her food; and that Coutinho-Crane’s father, Plinio Coutinho, kicked her and was exposing Karin’s kids to pornography; and that the child’s father, Edward Crane, was ignoring the problem and coercing the child to keep quiet, threatening her with foster care. As we’ve seen as customary for child protective services agencies throughout the U.S. in promoting abuse and pedophilia, the New Jersey Department of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP, formerly known as DYFS) covered it up and let it fester.

“Cunt-ho the Wicked”
played by Luciana Coutinho-Crane
(Sadistic Stepmother whom child says abused her and exposed her to pornography)

Concerned for her children’s safety and morality, and placed in an untenable predicament, Ms. Wolf began checking up on the kids and seeking alternatives to Bergen County Family Court’s corruption.

In October 2017, Edward Crane (who had threatened to shoot his ex-wife Karin in the past) chased Karin in the car through the streets and highway spanning five towns in Bergen and Passaic counties, toting what is believed to be a gun. Karin called 911, and a police pursuit ensued.

Karin got a restraining order in her home state of New York and filed domestic violence criminal complaints against Edward in both Bergen and Passaic. Judge Meola in Passaic County found probable cause on four counts and scheduled an arraignment. On the other hand, Kimberly McWilliams of the Glen Rock Municipal Court (Bergen), either ill-trained or without smarts to know the difference between a civil complaint and a criminal one, refused to file the domestic violence criminal complaint, insisting Karin go to the Bergen Courthouse to file for a civil restraining order (despite Karin reiterating she already had one from New York – this did not compute).

Det. Sgt. James Calaski of the Glen Rock Police threatened Karin, saying that the State of New Jersey would not enforce her restraining order, despite federal law saying it must. Audio of the 911 call she placed on the day of the incident also revealed Chief Dean Ackerman of the Glen Rock Police victim-shaming her on the tape. Karin then filed criminal complaints against Calaski and Ackerman, as well as misconduct complaints with Internal Affairs.

For more on the sins of the Glen Rock Police Department, see heading below, “A Culture of Troglodytes in Glen Rock.”

On April 12, 2018, Karin brought Coutinho-Crane’s alleged abuse to the attention of Judge Melchionne of Bergen County Family Court and filed for a change of venue. Four days later on April 16th, Karin Wolf’s ex-husband Edward Crane died, and Karin Wolf became the sole surviving custodial parent.

Mr. Crane’s short-term wife, Luciana Coutinho-Crane hid the death from Karin for nearly a week. Officers at GRPD (buddies of Edward Crane) refused to assist Karin get her kids back peacefully, also revealing they’re without smarts to understand what a restraining order looks like.

In an effort to swindle the kids’ 2 million dollar inheritance, Coutinho-Crane then ran down to the courthouse to file for custody of Karin’s kids claiming to be the their “psychological mother” (whatever that is), employing Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, & Conte, P.C., a law firm Karin had used in the past in her custody case with her ex-husband Edward Crane. Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, & Conte, P.C. failed to properly notify Karin, serve her with the petition, or the Order.

Brazilian native Coutinho-Crane claims Karin is unfit for exercising her First Amendment Rights blogging about political corruption (particularly in Bergen Court), posting on social media, and founding a non-profit called Women’s Civil Liberties Union. Of course, this was too luscious to resist, as the Bergen Court was given a self-serving opportunity to further retaliate against Karin, and did so by granting Coutinho-Crane, a Brazilian citizen, full custody of Karin’s two biological children; as well as a convenient politically-motivated Gag Order on Karin.

Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, & Conte, P.C. also represented Edward Crane in the criminal proceedings at the beginning of 2018 and have not been forthcoming about their involvement with the Cranes and their previous involvement with Ms. Wolf.

On the record, Karin asked Judge Melchionne why her dead ex-husband’s name was handwritten onto the initial April 24, 2018 order as a co-defendant. Judge Melchionne stated he didn’t know – didn’t know what he was signing, if he did indeed sign it. Several orders in the case show inconsistency of the signatures. Also, Melchionne was at a judicial conference out of state that day, not sitting on the bench.

Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, P.A. was, at that point, illegally representing both the Plaintiff and a defendant in the case.

Brian Shea, Esq. of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, P.A. disqualified himself, but is MFMC is still representing the decedent Edward Crane in the case.

As Karin states in the Addendum letter:

“…in the process of my deceased former husband becoming a co-defendant on April 24, 2018, Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte, P.A. was immediately required to disclose their representation of my former husband Edward Crane earlier in the year, withdraw as counsel, and withdraw the pleadings. This business of ‘file now, get orders signed, and ask questions later (IF anyone finds out)’ is not only unethical, but downright illegal.”

The case is ripe with Due Process violations and conflicts of interest.

“In essence, this is a de facto adoption without procedural protections in place, which I have repeatedly documented and stated on the record.” – Karin Wolf, Letter to AOC

As usual, Judge Melchionne appointed his mistress Valerie Solimano, Esq. as Guardian ad Litem (GAL). This appearance of impropriety has sent tongues wagging in Bergen – because you know, there’s only so many times you can hear that story about Richard Gere and the gerbil…

“The Favourite Court-esan”
played by Valerie Solimano, Esq.
(Melchionne’s Mistress, appointed GAL on every case)

On May 7, 2018, Karin filed a civilian criminal complaint against Melchionne, Solimano, Coutinho-Crane, and several officers at the GRPD, for kidnapping, extortion, and official misconduct. At that point, Melchionne was required to recuse himself.

According to Karin’s daughter, Coutinho-Crane and her dirty-old-man-of-a-father were still abusing her. This led to the child running away while on vacation in North Carolina and asking her mother to rescue her. Again, Karin was placed in an untenable predicament. Mother and child checked in with the police in Virginia and all was ok. Then, Ms. Coutinho called her buddies at Glen Rock Police Department to do her bidding in issuing a fake arrest warrant for the incident, which didn’t happen in New Jersey. No jurisdiction, but as we’ve seen, Bergen County just does what it wants, in martial law fashion.

At the time of her arrest, Karin’s criminal complaint was still pending against Judge Melchionne, Coutinho-Crane, and several officers at the GRPD. Certainly Ms. Wolf’s arrest and incarceration conveniently prevented her from testifying against them.

Within five days of the child running away, Coutinho-Crane stated she didn’t even want Karin’s daughter back. So much for her claim as the “psychological mother.” Apparently, having custody of the boy is enough to milk the trust fund, which together with the Bergen Court players in the case, have raided and plundered the children’s trust fund upwards of 300K. The case has employed about a dozen lawyers, GAL’s, doctors, and other family court leeches.

“The Troll” or “Jayba the Hutt”
played by family court leech Jay Atkins, Esq.
(attorney for Wicked Stepmother)

Despite no finding of unfitness, abuse or neglect against Karin, the Bergen Court placed her daughter in foster care, on a case stemming from a case opened by the State of Connecticut against Coutinho-Crane for abuse and neglect, which New Jersey is gaslighting.

DCPP has been up to its old tricks again, taking people’s kids without basis, attempting to make a case when none exists, calling it “permanency” under the controversial Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). CPS’ diabolical tactics are described in the book Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services by Carlos Morales, a former CPS worker and whistleblower.

The UK equivalent of the ASFA is The Child Act of 1989, the subject of the documentary, England’s Stolen Children, originally aired in France as Les enfants volés d’Angleterre.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on taxpayers and families in America. The ASFA was part of welfare reform, but instead redirected the monies going to single mothers, to incentivizing government agencies like DCPP and family courts to use Orwellian methods to steal kids, including putting hospital holds on babies for predictive neglect. In the UK, The Child Act has prompted pregnant women into running to Ireland and France to give birth.

Passage of the Act was pushed by Republican Newt Gingrich in collaboration with Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, as well as Democrat Hilary Clinton.

Along with the ASFA, the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Act enables the State to steal children from their mothers in progressive Handmaid’s Tale fashion. First, remove the child(ren) from their mother, incentivized by federal money given to family court through the Fatherhood Initiative, then if the father dies, take the kids again via the ASFA. This is exactly what is happening to Karin Wolf and her children.

The number of states now enacting anti-abortion laws is not surprising, as the business of misogyny via the Fatherhood Initiative and the ASFA are the pre-cursors. When Sarah Ragle Weddington, the attorney representing Roe in Roe v Wade was arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, she argued that pregnancy impacts a woman’s ability to attend school, work certain jobs and ultimately, succeed.

In an American climate of mass incarceration issues and criminalizing motherhood, white male privilege lawmakers aim at using these new anti-abortion laws as a means to control and incarcerate women.

The Sarah Ragle Weddington’s of today might argue the custody and adoption issues women have been facing in recent years are a reason why women should not be forced to carry a pregnancy that could have serious implications and circumstances down the road, like being jailed for protecting their child(ren) from abuse (as in Karin’s case), or facing a custody battle initiated by their rapist.

The State of New Jersey has subjected Karin and her kids to a rigamarole of absurd processes that violate their fundamentally and constitutionally protected right to be a family. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated the State can’t take people’s kids away absent a finding of abuse or neglect.

Karin states that DCPP has violated her and her children’s ADA and HIPAA rights. She states that DCPP is threatening to terminate her parental rights, yet has purposely failed to schedule many of the unnecessary reunification services it is requiring for her daughter to be returned to her.

“What this really is, is punishment for suing the State of New Jersey and exposing corruption in Bergen County. Donald Trump and David Duke can raise their children, but not me?”

In The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services, former Georgia congresswoman Nancy Schaefer, who was curiously murdered (along with her husband and her documentary filmmaker, believed to be for exposing CPS corruption), stated:

“…that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children…”

Schaefer also stated:

“State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care . . . [and] there is double dipping.”

“The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. There is funding for foster care, then when a child is placed with a new family, then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved and so is Medicaid; as you can see this program is ordered from the very top and run by Health and Human Resources. This is why victims of CPS get no help from their legislators.”

DCPP and the Bergen Court also purposefully excluded Karin from the Child Placement Review Board hearing at the beginning of the case, and attempted to exclude her from an Internal Placement Review (IPR).

Karin also states that DCPP had a psychologist, Dr. Marc Singer, who is an ex-cop, violate her rights under the ADA/ADAAA and interrogate her about the underlying criminal matter, without a lawyer present, causing her to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and abruptly leave the evaluation.

DCPP and the Bergen Court are pushing a report from pen-for-hire Dr. Allywyn Levine, an evaluator who attempted to diagnose her under the DSM-V, without meeting or speaking to Karin even once. That report was commissioned by Valerie Solimano, who is aligned with the stepmother, because hey, when you are a litigant who has brought 2 million dollars to the table, why not be rewarded? No surprise, that report says Karin’s daughter should go to foster care (why DCPP loves it) or be shipped off to boarding school, with, wait for it….Coutinho-Crane in charge of all the money.

“The Hired Handjob”
played by pen-for-hire Dr. Allwyn Levine
(Psychologist who fraudulently diagnosed Ms. Wolf without ever meeting or speaking with her)

A significant portion of that money and the children’s status was subject to a divorce agreement between Karin and Edward, which he violated.

Karin also states that the public defender the Office of Parental Representation of the State of New Jersey appointed for her is useless, an ornament placed there by the State. Karin’s attorney, Michael Lamolino, Esq. refuses to assert her rights, including Karin’s demands that he prepare and file a written answer to the initial Order to Show Cause filed by Attorney General, and his refusal to make a Motion to Recuse Judge Melchionne when Melchionne has violated the ADA and has remained on Karin’s cases, despite her criminal complaint against him. In fact, the New Jersey handbook for public defenders specifically bars public defenders from zealous representation of the parents they are representing.

Judge Melchionne’s tyranny is such that Karin’s private attorney in the custody case, Louis Lamatina, Esq., also refused to make a Motion to Recuse Judge Melchionne, so as not to provoke, “Judge Melchionne’s ire.” This is common for family law attorneys who don’t want to “upset the apple cart” so as not to encounter problems in their careers down the road.

Karin said she had to write Judge Melchionne directly on February 13, 2019, demanding his recusal and refusing to sign a coerced financial settlement at that point. This incensed Melchionne, who retaliated by appointing a GAL for Karin, so that she could no longer make decisions in her case, including firing her attorney Lou Lamatina, Esq.

“Accordingly, I refused to solidify a financial settlement in the case. In retaliation, Judge Melchionne appointed a GAL for me without a finding of mental unfitness. Moreover, I have not been supplied with any handbook or set of State guidelines as to what GAL’s can and cannot do. Therefore, the appointment of all GAL’s for my children and me is void for vagueness.”

Lydia Tatekawa and Lavar Parker, two social workers at DCPP, have been illegally tampering with a witness, relentlessly trying to convince Karin’s daughter she was “kidnapped” by her only parent. Enlisted by the Bergen Prosecutor’s Office to manipulate the case for the State, and harboring a Napoleon complex, Tatekawa’s shady tactics are obsessive, akin to Inspector Javert of Les Misérables or the Spanish Inquisition. The daughter, now 15-years-old (almost 16), has maintained throughout that she ran away to escape the stepmother’s abuse, asked her mother to pick her up, and checked in with the police in Virginia. Karin’s daughter has gotten feisty with Tatekawa and told her off, along with Karin’s brother telling Tatekawa to f–k off. This sent Tatekawa’s knickers in a twist, and further lodged the bug up her ass. Mon dieu!…Confess! Confess! Karin has not, in fact, been charged with kidnapping.

“Inspector Javert”
played by Lydia Tatekawa, Adoption Supervisor and Gaslighter

Tatekawa and Parker are also relentless in attempting to convince Karin’s daughter that Karin is mentally ill, despite a psych eval that says she’s not.

Recently, Judge Melchionne has jumped on that bandwagon, gaslighting Karin’s daughter and lying to her. As Godfather of the Bergen County Family Court, he must maintain the RICO enterprise.

As Schaefer stated:

“…caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored…”

“…the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets…”

DCF/DCPP is required to place the child(ren) with relatives first, yet in the case of Karin’s daughter, DCPP refuses to place the child with her only living biological and beloved grandmother, Karin’s mom, who helped raise Karin’s kids for many years while Karin worked.

As Schaefer stated:

“…relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.”

Schaefer stated:

“…the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer…”

Despite the Gag Order, Karin Wolf has gone public with her story, as is her First Amendment right. Several years ago, the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, struck down a family court Gag Order as unconstitutional.

As Schaefer stated:

“…Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a
confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid!”

A Culture of Troglodytes in Glen Rock

Glen Rock is an affluent suburban town fostering the Future Brock Turners of America movement and breeding future Handmaids. It’s a town that would rather not acknowledge domestic violence happens there nor have any “incidents” on their records, especially when the perpetrator is a white male.  According to the teenage male population there, girls are “bitches and ho’s” and “feminist pieces of shit.”  According to teenage female population at the school, Principal John Arlotta of Glen Rock High School (who has repeatedly covered up child abuse at his school) completely misses the mark on the #MeToo incidents happening or otherwise brewing at the school.

“The Brock Turner”
played by Dean Ackerman, Glen Rock Chief of Police
(promoted to position AFTER sexually assaulting his co-worker)

In Brock Turner fashion, the Borough of Glen Rock promoted Chief Dean Ackerman to his current position after sexually assaulting his female co-worker, who sued the Borough.  Officer Matthew Stanislao also sued the borough in October 2014, after being sexually harassed by several officers at the Glen Rock Police Department for being gay, then was fired.  #MeToo

Then there is the 2015 incident where the Head of the Juvenile Division, Det. Sgt. Eric Reamy (then 51) was convicted of child endangerment for sexting a 14-year-old girl and a 17-year-old girl he’d been assigned to supervise.  Those girls have now sued the Borough.  #MeToo

Read More –>