Note: Cross posted from [wp angelzfury] Battered Mothers-A Human Rights Issue.
When I started this blog, over a year ago, I promised that I would expose every last criminal in family court. I will continue to keep that promise and Mama Liberty will be expanding to other various outlets to give Mothers a voice even more. We are United States Citizens with the same rights as any other.
If you do not like what is being exposed about you and your corrupt system then do the right thing and stop abusing your power and feeding your ego!
We have the right to expose any government entity for fraud, abuse or neglect.
You all cannot shut us all up, we have power in numbers.
The wind always blows mightily over Kansas as it has for so long, just ask Dorothy.
Now the winds of change are upon the dirty family court system in Shawnee County. Well over a decade a Mother in Kansas has fought the court system and its criminals to have visitation with her daughter.
Claudine Dombrowski continues to ask the court to follow the custody guidelines for her visitation time. In February 2010 a miracle happened when the Judge actually adhered and allowed the now teenage daughter to have unsupervised visitation with her Mother with no interference from the father.
But the continued problems this Mother and Child face is the Guardian Ad Litem for the child, Jill M. Dykes, who wishes nothing more than to keep Claudine from her child. Instead of trying to assistwith fostering a relationship with the Mother, Dykes wants to stay on this case, she wants more taxpayers money to keep her job.
Within the transcript of a hearing held in 2009 Ms. Dykes ineptness and bias against Claudine Dombrowski is evident. In the below transcript Dykes continues to interrupt the judge and fervently tries to prevent the judge from allowing unsupervised visitation. Dykes other favorite thing is to submit overtime to the county for keeping a parent and child separated.
Much to the dismay of the court system and specifically Jill M. Dykes this Mother is demanding that the statutes be upheld…otherwise they should terminate her parental rights. It is not something that would be easy for any Mother but perhaps it is the right thing to do, in the best interest of the child and this mother.
They have once again started their campaign to end the unsupervised visits. In fact what has been learned by this blogger is that :
“if there is any extended visitation time it would evaporate any progress that the mother and child have made.”
That is right, you read that right, the court whores are going to make it very difficult for any mother and child relationship. Therefore until justice is given to Claudine and her child, this blog and others will continue to expose the injustices by Shawnee County and those that profit from it. The winds of change are coming Shawnee…and its a BIG one…watch out for falling houses Jill
Entry Filed under: Child Custody Issues,Child Custody for fathers,Children's Rights,Family Courts,activism,child abuse,domestic violence. Tags: domestic violence, family court,abusers,government corruption, battered women, Violence, Judges, domestic abuse, abused children,bad fathers, women haters, cyber stalking, protective parent, abusive men, mother rights,family court corruption, violence against women, maternal deprivation, stupid men,Claudine Dombrowski, Shawnee KS, Jill M. Dykes.
"What you farmers need to do is raise less corn and more Hell."
Mary Elizabeth Lease (1853-1933)
Kansas political activist, suffragist, populist, writer, and lecturer
Not too many years ago, Thomas Frank wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" where he wondered whatever happened to the spirit of progressive Kansas voices like Mary Elizabeth Lease.
After attending a custody hearing as a court observer in Shawnee County, Kansas last week, I can tell you that Mary's spirit still lives on--in Claudine Dombrowski.
Unfortunately, I also saw that the corruption and special interests that Mary railed against all her life are still with us too.
It's taken me a week to gather my thoughts together, because my experience as a court watcher was inspiring, maddening, frustrating, and revolting--all at the same time.
Claudine Dombrowski is a Kansas mother, a domestic violence survivor, who lost custody of her daughter to her abusive ex-husband, Hal Richardson, in an ex parte decision.
For those of you who are not legal experts, an ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. Basically we're talking about a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties.
In the United States--or so we're told--the availability of ex parte orders or decrees from both federal and state courts is sharply limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process of law.
In THEORY, this has been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. A court order issued on the basis of an ex parte proceeding, therefore, SHOULD necessarily be TEMPORARY AND INTERIM in nature, and the person(s) affected by the order must be given an opportunity to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent.
In REALITY, this has never happened in Claudine's case. The ex-parte hearing took place in 2004. Six long years ago. That's an huge piece of somebody's childhood. Since then, Claudine has been on supervised visitation although I NEVER heard Hal Richardson's attorney, Jason P. Hoffman, bother to articulate A SINGLE REASON AS TO WHY. In fact, Claudine has never been accused of or investigated for child abuse, substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other abuse you can think of.
But more about that later.
The purpose of this hearing was to finally get Claudine unsupervised parenting time and to force the court to follow established Kansas law per Chapter 60, article 16. This states that a parent must be allowed "reasonable parenting time" unless it can be DEMONSTRATED that the parent is dangerous or somehow harmful to the child.
I've mentioned that I did not hear one single accusation regarding Claudine's parenting abilities, much less any evidence, even of the flimsiest sort.
So what did I hear? I heard utterly ALARMING AND FRIGHTENING attacks on Claudine as an outspoken advocate for victims of domestic violence and as a human rights activist. I saw an obsessive fishing expedition orchestrated by Jason Hoffman, who was demanding that the authorship of various domestic violence blogs and websites be publicly revealed--even ones that I know for a fact that Claudine has no connection with. As if being a domestic violence advocate was some sort of act of treason or crime against the state!
Where the hell are we? I kept asking myself. China? Burma? North Korea?
I also witnessed an obsessive line of inquiry as to whether Claudine had removed all references and photos of her daughter from the Internet. Through all this, Hoffman did not produce one piece of timely evidence to suggest that she had not. In short, another ridiculous piece of legal grandstanding.
Oh, and another thing. The specter of ALIENATION! Despite the fact that the father (and his cronies) had limited this mother to supervised visitation since 2004, and that the father had conveniently obstructed all visits since last summer, Hoffman had the nerve to accuse Claudine of being an alienator or potential alienator! Never mind that if ANYBODY should be labeled an alienator, it's Daddy Dearest. For me, this moment crystalized how the whole "alienation" label has become increasingly bogus with every passing day. That Daddy has shut off a child from contact with a non-abusive, fit, and loving mother isn't "alienation." That Mom might have some residual anger or frustration about the situation is. Horse patootie.
One other party in this scam deserves special recognition. Jill Dykes, who has been connected with this case as a guardian ad litem, showed that she was utterly incapable of even the barest appearance of professional objectivity. Throughout the entire hearing, she was literally at Daddy's elbow, sometimes whispering into his ear. This is neutrality? This is the best interest of the child? Though she objected to unsupervised visitation being granted, she produced zero evidence to support her position. There was something about a letter, not written by Ms. Dykes, but by somebody else who was conveniently unavailable for questioning or cross-examination. Such a coincidence. And even that letter was said to be quite old--didn't catch how old.
Generally, her reasoning came down to a distorted circle of pseudo logic: Ms. Dombrowski should be on supervised visitation because...she's been on supervised visitation. Not good enough, Ms. Dykes. Can you come up with better? Didn't think so.
It seemed quite apparent that Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Richardson, and Ms. Dykes thought they could play the same old games and get away with it. And maybe they would have.
Except in the audience, there were a half dozen observers from Topeka, Kansas City, and even out of state, who were scribbling down every word. Because all of us had heard about the blatant constitutional violations in this case, and all us had decided to bear witness to it.
I'll give credit to Judge David Debenham. Maybe he has seen the light, and realized what a legal travesty and constitutional outrage this case has become. Or maybe he just felt the heat, with all the court watchers present.
The end result is that he ordered limited unsupervised visitation. Just two hours on a Sunday to start. And the right to telephone twice a week.
But it's a start. And it's an opportunity for this mother and daughter to start a healing process that is long overdue.
Posted by silverside at 8:41 AM
PHOENIX By MamaLiberty
Entry Filed under: Child Custody Issues,Child Custody for fathers,Children's Rights,Family Courts,activism,child abuse,domestic violence. Tags: abused, abused children, abusers,abusive men, bad fathers, battered women, batterers, Claudine Dombrowski, corruption, court whores, CPS, custody, cyber stalking, domestic abuse, domestic violence, family court, father rights, government corruption, maternal deprivation, misogynists, mother, mother rights,mothers, Shawnee KS, violence against women, women haters.
You have not killed me…you have made me stronger like a Phoenix born from the ashes…so am I. You may have taken a piece of my soul but that part has been replaced by love and justice. Our children will someday come looking for their Mothers, they will not be pleased. Why you ask? Why would children that have purposefully separated from them for no good reason want to see you? Why indeed is the question you should all write upon your souls how you desecrated the most sacred of a womens being….MOTHER.
Why do you think I fight so hard? I fight as any Mother would, never-ending, unconditional LOVE. Our children feel the same way even though you have tried to break our bond it also is never-ending. So beware to those who intend to cause to do harm on my child…we will never give up in getting justice, we willnever shut up about how much we love and miss our children and now that we are reborn and anew we will NEVER GO AWAY! For we have loved and lost and will never LOSE again!
UPDATE: Dombrowski Case: Trial set January 8th, 2010 (The Murder of Motherhood)
December 18, 2009 — Claudine Dombrowski
Quick Publish to just update, will delve further as I can, Thank you my dear friends and family,
(To the Perpetrator and his many many attorneys and the dea Judge who is monitoring the ww for any activity relating to this case!)I will not shut up, give up and I WILL NOT GO AWAY!
Sin Denied Telling All; Reminding Others of Morals
UPDATE: Dombrowski Case:
December 16, 2009
“ We walked into Court and Jason P Hoffman one’ of Attorney’s for thePerpetrator came with a two inch stack of ‘contempt’ papers (to clean up the internet) I still do not have copy of the recent contempt’s not allowed to have (as with GAL and FOC’s private reports) as I turn them all over to bepublished.
The current ‘claim’ remains – is I STILL have ‘ alleged images’ of my daughter (now why would I want images of my child and my dead mom?) But are actually ‘court documents’ and several media appearances’ most recently on Domestic Violence.
Not to mention that Kansas is at an all time record high in DV Fatalities in TWO DECADES with State Warnings and the Media and Senate Hearings Testimonies on the Kansas Joint Committee on Children’s Issues.”
and Audio Testimonies:
The bottom line is this:
1. I am NOT a threat to my daughter nor have I ever been alleged to be a threat to my daughter unlike that of the well documented HX of violence of the perpetrator.
2. Under K.S.A 60-1616: Unless AFTER hearing- showing that I am a threat or harm to my daughter- The Courts can not deny our parenting time- (as they have this past ten years) DV by Proxy and other Court Whores that Profit.
Like my daughters Guardian ad Litem GAL M. Jill Dykes, Topeka Kansas Bottom dweller and blood profiteer of children. and we shant forget the ‘good judge himself’ Judge ‘death’ David Debenham Who one year ago denied my daughter the right to go to her Grandmothers funeral.
Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy: Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers
“ I am tired this is draining to do- so I will publish now- and update as possible.” I Love you my Mother and my daughter- “ Don’t Give up”
K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
In the Matter of the Marriage of
JANET BOULEY, f/k/a KIMBRELL,
WILLIAM DAVID KIMBRELL,
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. Under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
2. The fundamental rule of statutory construction to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed rather than determine what the law should or should not be.
3. Orders which condition parenting time and visitation upon a minor child’s desires to see a parent give a minor child the authority to determine parenting time and can have the effect of denying parenting time altogether.
4. Among the factors that must be considered when determining the issue of child custody, residency, and parenting time under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1610(a)(3)(B) and K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), the trial court must look at the desires of a minor child as to the child’s custody or residency. The child’s wishes as to custody, residency, and parenting time and visitation cannot be the exclusive factor relied upon by the trial court in determining parenting time.
Appeal from Douglas District Court; JEAN F. SHEPHERD, judge. Opinion filed September 16, 2005. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Brant M. Laue and Chadler E. Colgan, of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant.
Sherri E. Loveland, of Stevens & Brand, L.L.P., of Lawrence, for appellee.
Before MALONE, P.J., GREEN and BUSER, JJ.
GREEN, J.: William David Kimbrell (David) appeals the trial court’s decision regarding parenting time with his 16-year-old son Evan Kimbrell. The issue in this case is whether the trial court can condition a noncustodial parent’s right to parenting time with his or her minor child upon the desires of the child.
We determine that this cannot be done.
K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) makes it clear that a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time with his or her minor child “unless the court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health.” Conditioning parenting time on the wishes of a minor child improperly gives the child the authority to determine a noncustodial parent’s rights to parenting time and visitation and can have the effect of completely denying the noncustodial parent’s rights to parenting time.
0COMMENTSAuthor: Claudine Dombrowski |
A Kansas Judge consistently has shown how unethical Family Courts are. The story is simple, a mother, Claudine Dombrowski, loses custody to her abuser and the Family Court think that she will go away. They hope she will give up. They are counting on her shutting up. But there is a problem with that, this woman has friends. She has lots and lots of friends that have gone through the same corruption of Family Courts and unethical Judges, Court Whores and the like. This Judge has gone as far as not allowing this mothers child from attending her loving Grandmothers funeral. This Judge wants to make problems because of a tribute video?
Not on my watch…… You cannot shut us all up Judge….we will not allow you to tarnish the memory of “Granny”….hold us all in contempt…..and watch out for falling houses. See the rest of the article here:http://mamaliberty.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/wheres-a-pair-of-ruby-slippers-when-you-need-them/
Children and mothers never truly part, bound in the beating of each other's heart. ~ Charlotte Gray
The moment a child is born, the mother is also born. She never existed before. The woman existed, but the mother, never. A mother is something absolutely new. ~Rajneesh
Entry Filed under: activism. Tags: abused children, abusive men, battered women,corruption,Court, court whores, Don Hoffman, family court corruption, Judge David Debenham, M. Jill Dykes, misogynists, mother rights, parental alienation, protective parent, Rape, restraining orders, woman haters.