CA Assembly Passes “Piqui’s Law” by Senator Rubio, Family Court Bill Heads to Senate Judiciary

SACRAMENTO, CA – In a unanimous, bipartisan vote, the State Assembly today passed Piqui’s Law, by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which mandates judges take training on domestic violence and child abuse to prioritize child safety in custody proceedings and clarifies California’s ban on the use of dangerous reunification programs in family court.

Senate Bill 616, Piqui’s Law: Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence, is named for a 5-year-old murdered by his father. The boy’s mother, Ana Estevez, fought in family court to protect her son against her ex-husband before Piqui’s death. The bill will align with federal provisions within the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in order to receive funding to reform family court. The Assembly passed the bill in a 64-0.

Read more here.


Affairs of the Court

In the family courts, judges, lawyers, and court-appointed psychological evaluators have all become threats to an intellectually competent, psychologically compos mentis, moral, ethical society. The latest drove of pariahs to join the hordes of psychopathic predator judges and appointees across the country to speak for “family values” are the “reunification therapists.” On the list of […]

The post Affairs of the Court first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


The Child Knows Best: The Resultant Provision of Wellbeing When the Court Hears & Rules Accordingly

The Child Knows Best: The Resultant Provision of Wellbeing When the Court Hears & Rules Accordingly

by Genevieve Brackins, Ph.D.

Children inherently deserve to be nurtured and supported in their growth and development yet abuse all too often harms the wellbeing and development of children.[1] When a parent does not provide care and protection for a child the child may attempt self-preservation. This attempt may take the form of trying to stay beyond the reach of an abusive parent. Yet, family courts across the nation have a pattern of denying these children the basic safety they so need: observable in family courts throughout the U.S. is a pattern of forcing the child back into the vicinity of the abuser in the name of reunification where the harm can, and often does, continue.

Through these court rulings, family courts in the United States have sentenced hundreds of children to their premature deaths at the hands of the very abusers from whom the children sought respite,[2] and hundreds of thousands more to endure harmful abuse (sexual, psychological, spiritual, physical, mental, emotional, financial, or social). For twenty-four years professionals have had the benefit of the results of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Studies. Throughout this nearly quarter of a century, it has been crystal clear that the chronic stress of living with the fear and harm of an offending parent’s abuse causes a real decrease in a person’s wellbeing, produces longstanding health problems, and is likely to account for a significant decrease in the person’s life expectancy. Parental abuse of children does not cease to have an impact when the child ages out of childhood (thereby gaining the legal ability to get away/escape the abuser’s physical presence), it is a wrong that may affect a person until their dying breath.

Family court judges across the United States sentence an average of 58,000 children per year to suffer the abuser’s abuse[3] and with frequency these courts legally prohibit the child and the protective parent from having contact with one another, serving another major blow to the development and wellbeing of the child. This problem is all the more possible when judges fail to utilize trauma-informed best practices. Often, court-appointed evaluators, expert witnesses, and other professionals upon whom these judges rely, also are not practicing a trauma-informed approach. Compounding this problem, often unchecked implicit biases in these professionals adversely affect the outcomes for the child as well. Whereas an attorney or judge may choose to defined “success” as clearing a case off the docket, such “success” may be a travesty against success to the child, who may now have been handed a life-sentence of agony due to the decision of the court and the enforcement of that decision. It is beyond crucial to listen to and account for the voice of the child about their experience. The importance of the child having a court-appointed trauma-informed children’s attorney is far-reaching as is the importance of directly addressing abusers’ attorneys that run the PAS strategy against the child’s best interest. The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory was concocted by Richard Gardner, an unabashed advocate for adults who desire access to the bodies of children for the adults’ sexual gratification via the utilization of the bodies of children. Gardner self-published his books and articles purporting his PAS theory. Never were his publications peer reviewed and the DSM-IV and DSM-V deny PAS a place in the compendiums due to the lack of validity of the Gardner’s theory of PAS. The Men’s Rights and Father’s Movements have advocated and lobbied for the acceptance of PAS and attorneys representing child abusers frequently deploy the PAS strategy.[4] Often this strategy is invoked in an attempt to prohibit the protective parent from exercising a legal right to protect the child in order that the offending parent can continue the abuse unrestrained.

While the etymology of the English word “custody”
means safe-keeping and protection, today, in effect in the U.S.,
the word dehumanizingly means legal property rights in a living human
child for the child’s parent. No more ought the family court paradigm be about
coercing children and their protective parent into accommodating the offending
parent’s abuse. Family courts across the nation must produce rulings that
reduce the fear and stress inflicted upon children by the parents who have been
harming them. The paradigm must center parents’ responsibility for and to the
child, as well as parents’ obligations to adequately meet the needs of the
child, including development needs. Now is the time for the paradigm to evolve
into one that reminds grown humans (in the form of judges, attorneys and other
professionals, parents, and society at large) that the child is just as human
as are they and they the will and needs of the child are to be recognized and
honored to the greatest extent possible.

Custody cases hold the potential to be about the safe-keeping and protection of the child/children whom the litigation surrounds. We know this is more likely to occur when judges hear from the child through the child’s attorney and is more likely to occur when those involved in such cases (including evaluator, visitation supervisors, the parents’ attorneys, judges, GALs, etc.) are properly and thoroughly trained to utilize trauma-informed practices and approaches (and not when such professionals say they have received such training while actually not engaging in trauma-informed practices which is a common problem). With growing public awareness about this crisis and organized strategic advocacy on the part of professionals engaged with and within this legal system, there may be changes implemented that decrease court-inflicted suffering of children while increasing the safety and wellbeing of the children.

[1] In excess of 60% of youth surveyed in The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence published in 2009 were impacted by violence. 46.3% had endured assault, 24.6% were impacted by robbery, vandalism, and/or theft, 10.2% were impacted by maltreatment, and 6.1% reported enduring sexual abuse.

[2] The yearly average is seventy-five court facilitated deaths a year [Goldstein, 2021].

[3] Bala, Cynwyd, 2008. How Many Children Are Court-Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With An Abusive Parent After Divorce? <>.

[4] This is even withstanding that the data reveals that when a litigating parent makes the accusation of PAS of the other parent, that the majority of the time they themselves have brought about the relational disconnect between themselves and the child [Lubit 2019].

Dr. Genevieve Brackins serves as the University of Virginia’s Maxine Platzer Lynn Women’s Center’s Education & Outreach Specialist where she oversees the Men’s Leadership Project mentoring program among additional engaged scholarship work.

Genevieve’s has presented her scholarship at Universities in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Tunisia as well as a variety of states across the U.S.. She holds a Ph.D. in the Interdisciplinary Humanities from Florida State University. Her M.A. from Florida State University is focused in Cultural Studies and Postcolonial Theory. Her B.A. is a double major in Women’s Studies and Music from SUNY Oswego.


Center for Judicial Excellence. US divorce child murder data [online]. Available from: http:// [Accessed 11 July 2019].

Bala, Cynwyd, 2008. How Many Children Are
Court-Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With An Abusive Parent After Divorce?

Felitti VJ, et al, The relationship of adult health
status to childhood abuse and household dysfunction
. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 1998; 14:245-258.

Finkelhor, David, et. al, 2009. Children’s
Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey
(Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, D.C.) [online] Available from: [Accessed 20 July 2019].

Goldstein, Barry. The
Least Worst Interests of the Child: The Only Outcome Family Courts Will
[online]. Available from: [Accessed 19 July 2019].

Hannah, Mo Therese and Barry Goldstein, 2010. Princeton: Civic Research Institute. Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues


“Reunification Therapy” Destroys Families

The following redacted complaint was sent to the licensing board of the person we are calling “Ms. Therapist.” Copies were sent to other professionals who need to be informed of the unconscionable activity going on under the name of “therapy.” Introduction Please be advised that I write this most serious complaint against Ms. Therapist, not […]

The post “Reunification Therapy” Destroys Families first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


“Reunification Therapy” Is Torture by Infliction of Acute, Overwhelming Emotional Distress

Here is that concept in action as a court-appointed therapist attempts to intimidate a client who rejects the pursuit of their rejected provider. Angeline Schuller, MSW, LCSW, “Reunification Therapist,” demonstrates the tactics and techniques of threats, coercion, and intimidation, accompanied by attorneys whose courtroom tactics include lying, cheating, and stealing money, property, and children via […]

The post “Reunification Therapy” Is Torture by Infliction of Acute, Overwhelming Emotional Distress first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


Complaint to the Indiana Licensing Board against Angeline Schuller and her “Reunification Therapy”

Following is the complaint sent to the appropriate authorities against a licensed therapist regarding the illegitimate so-called “therapy” to “reunify” children with an alleged abuser. *** To:    Indiana Behavioral Health and Human Services Licensing Board Cindy Vaught, Board Director Indiana Professional Licensing Agency 402 W Washington St Rm W072 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2298 (317) 234-2054 CC:    […]

The post Complaint to the Indiana Licensing Board against Angeline Schuller and her “Reunification Therapy” first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.


Arizona Judge Brad Astrowsky Sent Kids of MLB Vet to Controversial “Reunification” Camp

Judge Bradley Howard Astrowsky, a family court judge in Phoenix, sent former Major League Baseball player David Segui’s two sons from Arizona to California without Segui’s permission to attend the Family Bridges camp at their mother’s request.  This comes after court filings in which Segui stated he tried to protect the boys from an abusive mother and her boyfriend. Earlier this year, a video surfaced of the mother’s boyfriend allegedly abusing one of the children by spraying vinegar in the boy’s eye.

Family Bridges is one of the most widely used “reunification” programs in North America, but there is no oversight of the program, and little is known about its effectiveness in reuniting children with a non-custodial parent.

Read more here.


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

Dirty Divorce Lawyers Use Pandemic To Increase Profits

We want to hear from families involved in divorce, custody or domestic violence cases during the 2021 pandemic. Tell us about: 

  • Access to court hearings by phone, or Zoom
  • How judges behaved in a case. 
  • Complaints filed to the Commission on Judicial Performance, State Bar or local presiding judge. 
  • Outrageous court orders.
  • How the lawyers behaved. 
  • Court reporters.
  • Discovery 
  • Any depositions held during the 20-21 pandemic. 
  • Court filings when clerk offices were closed. 
  • Experts who are paid to testify in court. 
  • Taxes 
  • Child Support 
  • Language Barriers

If you have recordings or videos of lawyers , judges , or court appointed experts in your case, please end them along with a brief description as to what the recording shows. 

Tell us the county, and name the judges , lawyers and court appointed experts. Please limit other information , it will not be read. We will contact you if any of the above issues are addressed. 

If you have recorded supervised visitation centers, or reunification camps and therapists, or of an attorney engaging in abusive conduct, please let us know. 

Email: CalJohnQPublic



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.


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.


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.


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.


Parental Alienation: Allegations and the Favored Parent

Parental Alienation: Allegations and the Favored Parent



Parental Alienation: Allegations and the Favored Parent

Copyright © 2018 by Monika Logan, M.A., LPC, LSOTP


When a parent is identified as being the favored parent and accused of undermining the relationship between the other (rejected) parent and their child, the favored parent may feel discouraged and indicate that he/she is doing everything possible to promote the parent-child relationship.

The favored parent will often insist that he/she does not speak ill of the rejected parent, but rather encourages the child to communicate with the rejected parent. The favored parent may pronounce that the child’s rejection is a direct result of the rejected parent’s (in)actions and/or behaviors. The favored parent may also be inclined to attribute the child’s rejection to the rejected parent’s disposition and/or some other personality and/or behavioral flaw of the rejected parent. The favored parent may indicate that the child no longer wants to spend time with the rejected parent and that he/she cannot and should not force the child to do so.

What can a parent do? It is important for mental health professionals to realize that when working with families that the reason for rejection may be based in some fragment of reality. It is vital, however, that the favored parent does not mischaracterize the incident, behavior, and/or personality trait of their co-parent (the rejected parent). A common example is when a rejected parent has had an inappropriate response to anger during an isolated incident(s) in which he/she resorts to screaming and/or shouting at the child. Consequently, the child may have developed a fear reaction to the rejected parent. In addition, although the fear response by the child was observable in the past, it has now developed into a momentous concern by the favored parent.

After all, what can a parent accused of alienating behavior do, when his/her ex-spouse is “hot-tempered”? It is imperative that the favored parent does not perpetuate the child’s fear. It may become easy to claim that the rejected parent’s unmanaged anger problem is the cause of the child’s rejection, touting “See, his/her temper is why the child does not want anything to do with him/her.”

What can a parent do? Do not embellish your co-parent’s flaw, which only serves to further exacerbate fear(s).

When it comes to faults, rather than resorting to a myopic view, consider how the rejected parent’s flaw(s) were managed during the marriage/partnership. It is unlikely that your co-parent was flawless during the marriage/partnership. Perhaps the rejected parent’s temperament was an irritant during the marriage/partnership, however, it notably was not the reason for the relationship’s demise.

What can a parent do? Do not let the rejected parent’s temperament serve as weapon of rejection that can be used to sever the relationship with the child.

A common example observed by mental health professionals is a rejected parent who has worked outside of the home in order to provide the favored parent the opportunity to remain at home with the child. During the marriage/partnership, the rejected parent’s working hours were sometimes a frustration, however, he/she also earned an income that provided for many of life’s extras. Therefore, during the marriage/partnership the long hours were acceptable. When soccer games or dance recitals were missed on occasion, positive sentiments were made, such as telling the child that the rejected parent did not want to miss the event, and that he/she will attend next time.

What can a parent do? If the rejected parent went above and beyond to pay for activities and/or other extras during the marriage/partnership, do not use time as the weapon of choice after the marriage/partnership has ended by depicting the rejected parent as “absent” and/or “uninvolved” co-parent.

Sometimes, favored parents will verbally say they want what is “best for their child,” but will behave to the contrary. Here are some actions that may aid to offset and/or curtail allegations of alienation:

  • Promote time with the rejected parent as valuable.
  • Do not schedule activities that your child values during the rejected parent’s parenting time.
  • Do not simply say you will cooperate, show that you will cooperate.
  • Enforce your parental authority. If your child reports they do not want to spend time with the rejected parent, consider how you make your child eat dinner, go to school, and/or any other activity that your child may not want to engage in.
  • Encourage the importance of family. Share positive memories with your child about the rejected parent’s extended family.
  • Do not overact when your child tells you something negative about the rejected parent.
  • Establish boundaries.
  • Do not overschedule your child so that the child does not miss out on valuable time with the rejected parent.
  • Seek help from a well-trained and experienced professional who is skilled in working with children, families, and resist/refuse dynamics.


Monika Logan is an owner and the Director of Texas Premier Counseling Services, PLLC (Texas PCS) located in Frisco, Texas. She specializes in Parental Alienation as well as troubled, damaged, and/or strained parent-child relationships. She provides counselling services for parents and their children in conflict and/or those struggling with issues related to separation and/or divorce. Ms. Logan offers Parenting Facilitation Services to help parents reduce conflict, and she helps repair parent-child relationship breaches as a Reunification Counselor.