California legislature passes bill aiming to protect children from abusers during custody disputes

Again and again, Ana Estevez warned officials that the man she was divorcing, Aramazd Andressian, was abusive and dangerous. Nevertheless, a Los Angeles County family court judge granted him shared custody of their 5-year-old son, Piqui.

One week later, on April 21, 2017, Andressian smothered the boy to death.

Engulfed by grief, Estevez, a former elementary-school principal, teamed up with her state senator, Susan Rubio, to craft legislation to prevent other children from being ordered into the custody of their abusers. This week, the California legislature passed that bill, known as “Piqui’s Law.”

After voting unanimously for passage on Wednesday, the state Assembly gave Estevez a standing ovation. Estevez also attended Thursday’s Senate vote, holding an urn containing Piqui’s ashes. That vote was unanimous, too.

The law, which will take effect unless it’s vetoed by the governor, establishes training on domestic and child abuse for custody judges and bars them from ordering children who resist contact with one of their parents into “reunification treatment” that cuts them off from the other parent.

Read more here.

Read More –>

Fear Of Fighting The Family Courts: Children Bruised, Beaten, F’d, Protective Parents Bankrupted, Jailed, Fighting Back Seems Incomprehensible

The court denies the existence of sexual abuse and all other forms of abuse, as children are transferred into the hands of predators, as per the Gardner mantra that child sexual abuse does not exist and parental alienation is the underpinning for allegations for sexual abuse to support custody transfer based on false allegations. The […]

The post Fear Of Fighting The Family Courts: Children Bruised, Beaten, F’d, Protective Parents Bankrupted, Jailed, Fighting Back Seems Incomprehensible first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

Judge’s having sex with their Marshal inside the courthouse!

Judge’s having sex with their Marshal inside the courthouse!

Clark County Nevada

September 2, 2023

 

(VIPI) Veterans In Politics International was notified back in July, stating that Nadin Cutter Clark County Family Court Judge had to take a year off for maternity leave because she was having her Deputy Marshal Nicholas Boutos child.

Let me just add to this, Judge Cutter is married this alleged affair took place on the courthouse grounds.

VIPI immediately contacted Judge Nadin Cutter and her Deputy Marshal, who is now transferred out of family court to the Regional Justice Center. But all we received were crickets.

VIPI also contacted the Presiding Judge and Chief Judge, we received information stating that this is a personal related matter.

VIPI sat on this story until today when we received additional information from the infamous Las Vegas Law Blog echoing that Judge Cutter is indeed the mother of her Deputy Marshal child and this information is in her divorce pleadings.

Also adding that other judges within the Eighth Judicial District Court currently, have sex with their Court Appointed Deputy Marshal.

We discovered that this type of behavior has been going on for decades with former judges.

The Judge, Deputy Marshal, and the courthouse are all paid by taxpayers. This is a conflict of interest.

How can these judges judge us when they make bad judgments for themselves?

This is one of the reasons the Eighth Judicial District Court arbitrarily seals cases.

They make it difficult for pro-se-litigants to see their cases on the computer. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment, which talks about a fair judiciary. Especially litigants who live out of a 25-mile radius from the courthouse.

An attorney could just log into their portal and a litigant who represents themselves has to go to the courthouse, park, take a number, and wait in line. As if their time doesn’t matter!

How fair is this?

The court is trying to force litigants from self-representation and to hide their bad behaviors, so you can’t use it against them for re-election.

This violates the US Constitution and the Nevada Supreme Court decision that states “a courthouse is of public concern”. View the Nevada Supreme Court cases Jennifer Abrams vs. Veterans In Politics International and Marshal Willick vs. Veterans In Politics International.

Is the Nevada “toothless” Judicial Disciplinary Commission going to do something about this?

 

Read More –>

Veterans In Politics calls for a review of all Judge Harter’s cases, Autopsy report proves suicide, and addiction to antidepressants and pain pills!

Veterans In Politics calls for a review of all Judge Harter’s cases, Autopsy report proves suicide, and addiction to antidepressants and pain pills!

 

Clark County Nevada

August 21, 2023

 

 

(VIPI) Veterans In Politics International was extremely critical of Family Court Judge Matthew Harter for several reasons:

 

  1. Hardly shows up to the courthouse about 2-3 days per week.
  2. Told several litigants that he is God!
  3. Allignate Parents from their children by holding their children hostage until the parent pays for a third-party court-appointed facilitator.
  4. Narcissistic attitude on the bench
  5. Mortgage and Bankruptcy fraud
  6. Perjury

 

VIPI file multiple Judicial Disciplinary Complaints and complaint to different state agencies including the worthless Attorney General’s Office, but it seems like these government agencies that were put in place to protect Nevadans is used only to protect the Judge.

 

VIPI requested several years ago that any candidate for a judicial seat should undergo a Psychiatric background check, but that fell on deaf ears. Now we have learned that Judge Harter had an addiction to pain pills and antidepressants. The coroner’s report suggested that Harter also committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest.

 

Harter destroyed thousands of lives while sitting as a family court judge!

 

VIPI is requesting that all of Judge Harter’s cases be under review.

 

 

 

Other related information on VIPI YouTube Channel”

 

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=judge+harter

 

Read More –>

Fear Of Fighting The Family Courts: Questions Raised By Protective Parents Facing The Decision Whether Or Not To Confront The Wrongful Court Ordered Placement Of Children With Their Abuser When The Child During Visitation Reports Ongoing Episodes Of Abuse

Parents who eagerly look forward to their next visit with a child who is known to be in the shared custody of a physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuser, when they are confronted with the knowledge that abuse has occurred, are faced with the overwhelmingly horrifying “Sophie’s Choice”-like dilemma of what to do. Do nothing? Comfort, […]

The post Fear Of Fighting The Family Courts: Questions Raised By Protective Parents Facing The Decision Whether Or Not To Confront The Wrongful Court Ordered Placement Of Children With Their Abuser When The Child During Visitation Reports Ongoing Episodes Of Abuse first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

Dumbing Down Of Expertise To Expedite Cruelty And Irresponsible Child Custody Transfer

The team of renowned legal and Psychiatric Forensic experts who are engaged by the mother of the murdered father have expressed dismay that she has been fraudulently excluded from a position of custody of the child  subject of the custody/ guardianship litigation in the case before us. The Forensic team of the FCVFC is placing […]

The post Dumbing Down Of Expertise To Expedite Cruelty And Irresponsible Child Custody Transfer first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

Decisions By Courts And Evaluators To Place Children Into The Custody Of Documented Abusers And Sexual Perverts

We do not know why so called experts of the courts make the decisions they make or why they have not been prosecuted for their crimes. We do not know why criminals receive custody of the children who were subjects of their crimes. The following case is described by a colleague whose life is in […]

The post Decisions By Courts And Evaluators To Place Children Into The Custody Of Documented Abusers And Sexual Perverts first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

The Court that Hurts Children

The Court that Hurts Children

By Barry Goldstein

Custody courts cannot protect children when they permit a biased theory, designed to help abusive fathers take custody from good mothers and twice rejected by the American Psychiatric Association because there is no research to support it, to have more influence over the courts than ACE (adverse childhood experiences) and Saunders that are peer-reviewed scientific studies that go to the essence of the well-being of children and come from highly credible sources.

The ACE Studies are peer-reviewed medical research sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The original ACE Study was released in 1998 and there have been at least five additional ACE Studies that confirm and expand the original findings. ACE is used by doctors to diagnose and treat patients, therapists for trauma-informed treatment of patients, public health officials use ACE to help traumatized survivors, and educators use ACE to help traumatized students. The only purpose of unscientific alienation theories is to help abusive fathers take custody from safe, protective mothers and help the cottage industry earn large incomes.

ACE would tell the court that children exposed to domestic violence, child abuse and other trauma will live shorter lives and face a lifetime of health and social problems. Most of the harm is not from any immediate physical injury, but from living with the fear and stress abusers cause. Doctors working with the ACE research can help courts understand that contested custody in DV cases is often the last chance to save children from a lifetime (often a shorter lifetime) of illness and pain. In order to save these children, they will need medical treatment and therapy to respond to health problems as they develop and reduce the stress which will cause most of the harm. The children also cannot be exposed to more abuse or frightening situations or else they cannot heal. When courts insist on giving an abuser shared decision-making, they prevent the children from receiving the treatment they need. Abusers particularly do not want the children in therapy where they might reveal his abuse. When courts assume keeping abusers in children’s lives is beneficial, they expose children to more abuse and stress. These standard court responses remove the last chance for children to have a full and successful life.

The Saunders Study was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in the US Justice Department. The purpose was to determine the domestic violence knowledge of judges, lawyers, and evaluators. Saunders found court professionals need more than generalized training in DV. They need specific knowledge that includes screening for DV, risk assessment, post-separation violence, and the impact of DV on children. Professionals without this information tend to focus on the myth that mothers frequently make false reports and unscientific alienation theories. This leads to recommendations and decisions that harm children. Saunders found DV advocates have more of the DV knowledge courts need than court professionals and most judges, lawyers and especially evaluators who do not have the DV expertise they need. Saunders recommends a multi-disciplinary approach that in potential DV cases must include a DV expert.

Fundamentally, without ACE, courts routinely minimize the harm from DV and child abuse and without Saunders they rely on the wrong professionals and so disbelieve true reports of abuse. Many standard court assumptions and practices were proven wrong by ACE and Saunders but continue to be relied on by courts.

Domestic violence is about control, including financial control. This means that in most DV cases most of the family’s financial resources are controlled by the abusive father. This factor led to the creation of the cottage industry of legal and mental health professionals who promote bogus theories such as alienation to help abusers gain custody. This financial advantage is a huge legal advantage and courts have been reluctant to use their authority to level the playing field. Abusers routinely use economic and litigation abuse to bankrupt their victims so that many victims wind up representing themselves. Courts do not seem to notice the tactics, use the information to recognize abusers’ motives, or take action to guarantee a fair trial. The superior economic resources of abusers result in judges and other court professionals hearing far more misinformation than the actual research that courts badly need.

The tilt is further encouraged by the response of attorneys. Lawyers for abusers are comfortable acting aggressively even when it misleads the court and places children in jeopardy. At the same time, many attorneys for mothers refuse or discourage their clients from presenting evidence or research about DV. Many courts have failed to understand mothers’ attempts to protect their children and have responded by punishing protective mothers who are the primary attachment figures for the children. Judges rarely consider that aside from missing true reports of abuse, the retaliation discourages lawyers from providing courts with the information needed to protect children in other cases.

The Meier Study is an outcome study designed to measure how courts respond to alleged DV, child abuse, and alienation. In the context of other research, Meier supports the conclusion that custody courts support abusive fathers far more than the evidence would justify. This is to be expected given the information discussed earlier.

In the last 15 years, a study from the Center for Judicial Excellence found over 900 children involved in contested custody have been murdered mostly by abusive fathers. In many cases, judges disbelieved or minimized reports of abuse and gave the killers the access they needed. The Bartlow Study asked judges and court administrators in the communities that suffered these murders what the court had done to make children safer in response to the local tragedy. The shocking answer was nothing because they all assumed the murder was an exception. I find it distressing that even the murder of a child does not overcome the defensiveness and insularity that has prevented needed reforms including the use of ACE and Saunders.

Children who physically survive their time controlled by custody courts are not out of the woods. Many of these children die in their teens or twenties from suicide or a drug overdose. Other children will later die early from cancer, heart disease or other diseases that are caused or exacerbated by the stress ACE focuses on. People who were never in custody court die from similar tragedies so we cannot know if an individual death was caused by the poor practices courts use in responding to abuse cases. There is no doubt, however, that many children’s lives are being ruined because courts are more willing to maintain the status quo than introduce ACE and Saunders.

I wrote an article based on a true story of a mother who saved her son by punching a mountain lion who attacked him. She was viewed as a heroine because the danger was from a wild animal instead of a wild abuser. The story illustrates the maternal instinct to protect children. Only in the courts that hurt children is this instinct viewed as harmful and severely punished. Some of the most heart wrenching stories I hear involve extreme decisions separating mothers from children and children from mothers. Courts make this tragic mistake because they are relying on flawed and biased practices. The Saunders Study and Kayden’s Law would tell courts of their mistake if only courts would consider scientific research instead of subjective opinions. Many, if not most, children will never recover from these extreme and retaliatory decisions. No judge wants to hurt children, but without the research they will continue to do so.

One of the reasons DV experts understand abuse issues better than other professionals is that we look at the patterns. Judges and court administrators miss the patterns because they are handling all custody cases. Most cases involve two good and loving parents and the standard court practices work well in those cases. This makes it harder for courts to recognize the 3.8% of contested custody cases that require a very different response. 75-90% of these cases are really DV cases in which an abusive father who often had limited involvement with the children during the relationship seeks custody or shared parenting (as a first step) to regain control and punish the victim for leaving.

It is a mistake to treat cases with two safe parents the same as cases with an alleged abuser. High conflict approaches are biased in favor of abusers because they create a false equivalency between victim and abuser. There is now a specialized body of knowledge and research that is needed in abuse cases, including to determine if there is abuse. Any attempt to decide possible abuse cases without the benefit of ACE and Saunders is malpractice.

Any effort to reform court practices in order to protect children must include ACE and Saunders. Many court officials seek to block any legislation they view as limiting their discretion. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges seeks to train other judges about ACE and Saunders because it goes to the essence of the well-being of children. I have never heard a judge or court administrator explain the justification for failing to make sure the knowledge in ACE and Saunders is used to understand these cases and protect children.

I don’t write this article out of anger or to criticize anyone. I am writing out of profound pain and sadness. The worst part of this work is the constant stream of preventable tragedies that never stop. We fight on a case-by-case basis, but as long as courts maintain the ignorant and biased practices that err on the side of protecting abusers and ruining children’s lives, the unbearable tragedies will continue. Please tell me how courts that hurt children can continue to try to respond without the benefit ACE and Saunders.

Barry Goldstein is a domestic violence author, speaker, advocate and expert witness. He is the author of six books concerning domestic violence and child custody. Barry is the author of the Safe Child Act which is a comprehensive plan based on current scientific research that can fix the broken court system and make family courts safe for children.

(Thanks to Veronica York for her suggestions that improved this article).

Read More –>

What to Do When Case Settlement is Not an Option, in Spite of Gaslighting and Intimidation

High conflict custody litigation poses special challenges faced by no other form of litigation in this age of the junk concept of “Parental Alienation,” guided by its inventor, Richard Gardner, MD. What makes the Gardner narrative a dangerous one to follow is the prescription for the capacity for one parent to be demonized in order […]

The post What to Do When Case Settlement is Not an Option, in Spite of Gaslighting and Intimidation first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

Practices Reputedly Followed For So-Called “Family Reunification” Therapy During And After Child Sexual Abuse Is Known To Have Occurred

So-called “reunification therapy” services emerged as an appendage of the interventions related to responses to parental alienation as designated in a family court order when custody has been transferred to the reputed alienated parent. This treatment intervention developed and can be identified in court proceedings as of early 2016. Parental alienation as a designated diagnosis […]

The post Practices Reputedly Followed For So-Called “Family Reunification” Therapy During And After Child Sexual Abuse Is Known To Have Occurred first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>