"Auld Lang Syne" Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind ?


Mothers Are Vanishing – humanity is at a critical threshold, teetering on the balance of survival or destruction. We - alone or together can and will be the answer. as we bring in the new year. Know that this may be the beginning—or the end.

May your heart be full of love – your conscious clear. Let ‘truth, self respect and dignity’ be your guide and "Auld Lang Syne"

Happy New Year!


Claudine Dombrowski (mother of Rikki Dombrowski)

A Battered Mother Survives


Below you will find the lyrics for this traditional favorite in the English Translation (minimalist). I included a few interesting facts concerning this wonderful old song. I hope knowing the words to "Auld Lang Syne" in advance of the festivities, will help you to enjoy your New Year celebration even more.

- "Auld Lang Syne" is a Scots poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 and set to the tune of a traditional folk song." It's often sung to celebrate the start of the New Year, generally at the stroke of midnight.

- "Guy Lombardo is often credited with popularizing the use of the song at New Year’s celebrations in America, through his annual broadcasts on radio and television, beginning in 1929. The song became his trademark."

"Same Auld Lang Syne"

   As another year comes to a close, we are reminded of the many major events that have taken place in the world and in our lives; wars and fighting, new territories conquered, great heroes and heroines that we have lost, new friends we have made, babies that have born into our families- our children stolen by pedophiles and abusers, Friends and relatives that have passed on through this world and into their eternal destiny. (Betty Gail sales –Stumpf)

There have been good times and not so good times, but those are the building blocks that construct and build the multi-levels and form the layers of our lives. Memories created and forever etched in our minds, hearts thoughts and lives; this is the stuff that life is made up of, so we take the good and the bad and make the best of it, choosing to highlight the good and joyful times.

   The new year is rapidly approaching and as such, we plan our traditional New year's Eve parties. Bringing in the new year with good food, music, prayer, hugging and kissing; grateful and thankful to be in good company during this special time as we usher in a fresh new year full of possibilities and potential.

   Countdown to the new year begins at 10 seconds before midnight, then as the clock strikes 12:00, it's time to share your rendition of the classic traditional song, "Auld Lang Syne".

The only problem that can exist now is the possibility that you might not know or remember all the lyrics or words to the song, since it's not a tune that is sung on a regular basis throughout the year. The lyrics (words) to this traditional classic are as follows:

"Auld Lang Syne" English Translation (minimalist)

Should old acquaintance be forgot,

and never brought to mind ?

Should old acquaintance be forgot,

and old lang syne ?



For auld lang syne, my dear,

for auld lang syne,

we'll take a cup of kindness yet,

for auld lang syne.


And surely you’ll buy your pint cup !

and surely I’ll buy mine !

And we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,

for auld lang syne.



We two have run about the slopes,

and picked the daisies fine ;

But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,

since auld lang syne.



We two have paddled in the stream,

from morning sun till dine† ;

But seas between us broad have roared

since auld lang syne.



And there’s a hand my trusty friend !

And give us a hand o’ thine !

And we’ll take a right good-will draught,

for auld lang syne.





Who Will Protest Against the DSM Harm? Integrity, Concern, and Action is needed for DSM Protest


Paula Caplan, Ph.D. on psych diagnosing


Who Will Protest Against the DSM Harm? Integrity, Concern, and Action is needed for DSM Protest Published on December 19, 2011 by Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D. in Science Isn't Golden

The good news: More people than ever before are learning that psychiatric
diagnosis is not grounded in good science and causes a vast array of harm
to people who have turned for alleviation of their suffering to those who
are called helping professionals.

The bad news: The forces keeping the psychiatric diagnosis juggernaut
rolling and misleading the public are more powerful than ever.
I have written about these concerns here before, as well as elsewhere
(They Say You're Crazy: How the World's Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide
Who's Normal and Bias in Psychiatric Diagnosis, as well as at
psychdiagnosis.net), so I will not repeat most of what I have already
said. Today I focus on the danger of assuming that organized protest
against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is
well in hand and likely to be effective in stopping the harm. There is no
reason to believe that this is the case.

You may have heard about the petition started by several divisions of the
American Psychological Association, who express concern about possible
harm to children, adolescents, and the elderly and ask for an external
group (the DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association) to
evaluate the proposals for the next edition, called DSM-5. This petition
has garnered thousands of signatures and the support of additional
American Psychological Association divisions. Although it is wonderful
that these brave divisions have at last spoken out about the devastation
caused to untold numbers of people over the many decades of the DSM's
existence, it is stunning that they would specifically omit mention of
harm to adults who are not elderly.

When I wrote petition coordinator David Elkins to inquire about this, he
did not respond to the question. (Note added December 19: Please see in
Comments section after this article that Dr. Elkins has now responded
there to the question I had emailed him about this awhile back. I am
delighted to hear that his group is also concerned about adults who are
not elderly, and I hope they will take pains to make clear in the future
that they are concerned about everyone who has been hurt by psychiatric
diagnosis. This does not change the other concerns in this essay, and in
his comment here below, Dr. Elkins did not address those.) It is hard not
to wonder whether this is due to the association of Allen Frances with
this petition.

Former Psychiatric Manual Chief Demonizes Those Hurt By His System
Frances, the psychiatrist who headed the work on DSM-IV -- on which I
served as a member of two committees before resigning in horror at the way
they ignored, distorted, and even lied about the scientific basis for
their diagnoses -- recently wrote in an article called "The user's revolt
against DSM-5: Will it work?" in the November 10, 2011, Psychiatric Times
that he was worried that the "harmful anti-psychiatry movement" would
damage this petition campaign.

He pointed out that, although "DSM-5 is such a mess," nevertheless,
psychiatry "is essential and extremely helpful -- DSM-5 is nor more than
an unfortunate and temporary aberration." His intense need to defend and
protect psychiatry in general is clear.

I simply could not believe my eyes when I read Frances' opening statement
in that article. He wrote: "When it comes to DSM-5, experience has proven
conclusively that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) will not
attend to the science, evaluate the risks, or listen to reason. A user's
revolt has become the last and only hope for derailing the worst of the
DSM-5 suggestions."

I thought of the many years during which he steadfastly ignored the
questions that were raised about the woeful state of "science" in his
edition of the DSM, his dismissive attitude when concerns were raised
directly with him about the patients whose lives had been ruined because
of psychiatric diagnosis, and his claim, when asked, "Is there at least
some evidence that more people have been helped than harmed," that "Well,
of course there's no way of knowing that." Hardly the response of someone
who understands that science is useful in answering exactly such

Frances' disdain for those adults (who include some proportion but by no
means the majority who are elderly members) who joined the anti-psychiatry
movement because they were so profoundly harmed by the traditional mental
health system is revealing... and terrifying.

Are the only good ex-patients those who stuff deep inside themselves the
ways the system hurt them? And I have to wonder, does he not grasp the
point that, even though he believes the anti-psychiatry movement is
harmful, he might want to refrain from publicly tarring a movement that
includes such sterling organizations as MindFreedom International, The
Icarus Project, PsychRights, the National Empowerment Center, and the
International Society for Ethics in Psychology and Psychiatry (which
includes some survivors as well as some professionals)?

This would matter less if the APA petition had a prayer of leading to
change. I fervently hope I am proven wrong, but here are two of the major
reasons for doubt:

(1) In the mid-1980s, beginning at the Association for Women in Psychology
conference, I coordinated the first petition campaign in which any DSM
categories were challenged.

This was in regard to then-forthcoming DSM-III-R, whose Task Force was
headed by Robert Spitzer, who is now, like Frances, suddenly speaking out
about the lack of science and the harm from psychiatric diagnosis.
Did they suddenly discover this once they were no longer in command of the
manual? Our 1980s campaign ultimately netted signatures and letters from
individuals and organizations representing more than six million people
(in contrast to the thousands so far signing the Elkins petition), but
that did not stop the DSM authors from steamrolling ahead. And it
certainly did not stop Allen Frances from including in his edition,
DSM-IV, categories that he knew had led to harm.

How do I know he knew? I told him in a telephone conversation, and I sent
him documentation of harm. If another major lobby group, the American
Psychological Association, which long ago raised serious concerns about
the DSM but now refuses to challenge it as a body (hence the courage of
those of its divisions that started this petition) and in fact profits
from offering Continuing Education courses about the DSM that lack
critical components, would get on board with any anti-DSM petition, that
would carry considerable weight. Up to now, they have refused to do so.
In a recent press release (December 2, 2011), they stated that any
psychiatric classification system "must be based on the best available
science and serve the public interest." The disingenuousness of that
statement is striking, given that unless they have spent many decades
under a rock, they know full well that the DSM is unscientific and causes

Furthermore, according to the press release, they share the belief of the
petition's authors that "the purpose of any diagnostic classification
system should be to improve treatment outcomes." Yes, it should be. But as
I have learned through reading the research, diagnosis of mental disorders
does not help (except to get insurance coverage, and I have a proposal for
how to deal with that), does often cause harm, and does not correlate with

We learn from the press release that the American Psychological
Association has "called upon the DSM-5 Task Force to adhere to an open,
transparent process based on the best available science and in the best
interest of the public." They might as well shut themselves in a closet
and whisper that request.

(2) So many powerful systems have a stake in maintaining the fundamentals
of psychiatric diagnosis that it strains credibility to think that the
DSM-5 heads would turn over the evaluation of their work to some outside

Historically, under Spitzer and Frances, the DSM chiefs boasted about
"consulting" with many hundreds of professionals (note: they included
hardly any, if any, people who had been patients in their system) in
constructing their manuals, but I know from my experience and the
experiences of others that they compile an impressive list of all these
consultants but freely reject any opinion that goes against their aims, no
matter how grounded in science and/or humane concerns those conflicting
opinions might be.

Concerned about all of the above, a number of organizations and
individuals recently formed the PLAN T Alliance (Psychiatric Labeling
Action Network for Truth) and decided that it is time to stop asking the
DSM heads please to listen to reason, to look at the science, and to
consider the ways diagnosis hurts people. Instead, the PLAN T Alliance
decided to take action. Two actions are for those professionals who use
the DSM to boycott it and for Congressional hearings about psychiatric
diagnosis to be held.

The federal government through Medicare, Medicaid, the military, and
Veterans Affairs relies heavily on the DSM, as do many hospitals, clinics,
and other practices, which is the reason for the focus of the boycott on
the DSM. This should not be taken to indicate that the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD), which also includes some psychiatric
categories, is based on science and does not cause harm. But the initial
target of the boycott is the DSM, because it garners huge profits for the
American Psychiatric Association, which is actually a powerful, wealthy
lobby group. It remains to be seen what is done with the profits from the
ICD, but perhaps its publisher, the World Health Organization, uses them
for compassionate purposes. Find a Therapist

The rationale for calling for Congressional hearings is that no entity
regulates psychiatric diagnosis, and because of its lack of scientific
basis and the harm it causes, we need a national airing of whatever anyone
would like to say about it.

Those who report feeling relieved to be given a label for their suffering
can testify, as can those who report that they were harmed. (The former
ought, however, to be given the option of hearing from us, "We will listen
to you and believe that you suffer and will try to help you without
requiring you to accept a psychiatric label."). And this would lead to a
national conversation about how to prevent the harm and still provide help
and support for those who suffer. (Many such ways are already known, of

The PLAN T Alliance petitions are:

Boycott the DSM
Call for Congressional Hearings About Psychiatric Diagnosis

Another kind of action, one in which anyone can take part in various ways,
is MindFreedom International's "5/5 Against DSM-5," a protest that will
take place in and around May 5, 2012, in Philadelphia, when the American
Psychiatric Association will vote on whether to accept the proposed
contents of DSM-5 and send it to press.

MFI will have space near the convention for people to assemble to make
speeches, do performances, and there will be events right in front of the
convention area itself. Information will increasingly appear on the MFI
website at http://mindfreedom.org/

My own view, first expressed in 1995 in They Say You're Crazy, has long
been that lawsuits would potentially be the most effective way to stop the
harm from psychiatric diagnosis. In a later essay, I may write further
about this.

In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether the APA divisions' petition
or the above-described kinds of action will be effective, but not to act
is to be complicit with the destruction of people's liberty, health, and
peace of mind through psychiatric diagnosis.
Copyright 2011 by Paula J. Caplan
All rights reserved


From Tragedy To Action: The National Release of "Jana’s Story". Jana Mackey Kansas University Student & NOW Lobbyist Who Was Brutally Murdered In An Act of Domestic Violence....


The video "Jana's Story" is now available. Please see the link below. http://www.JanasStory.org/

This powerful video is about the dramatic impact of domestic violence. Most importantly, however, this short film is about hope, inspiration, and encouragement for others to take action. Today, Jana's light shines brighter than ever. VIEW IT. SHARE IT. and LIVE IT by taking action and making a difference.




National Release of "Jana’s Story" Video Set For December 6th

On December 6, 2011, Jana's Campaign will release its long anticipated video "Jana’s Story".  This powerful video brings to light the dramatic impact of domestic violence.  The story of Jana’s life and death are illustrated in the hopes of encouraging others to take action.  See the video at www.JanasStory.org. VIEW IT. Witness the powerful story of Jana’s life.  SHARE IT.  Help us tell Jana’s story and spread the word.  LIVE IT.  Take action and make a difference.

The timing of this video release has been scheduled to coincide with The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence.  This campaign begins on November 25, the International Day Against Violence Against Women, and ends on December 10, International Human Rights Day. 

These dates symbolically link violence against women and human rights, and emphasize that such violence is a human rights violation.  Since 1991, this annual campaign has mobilized more than 3,700 organizations in 164 countries to raise awareness about the multiple forms of violence women face.  The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence is hosted and sponsored by the Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University.

Jana’s Campaign would like to thank all those who have made this video production possible. 

Jana's Campaign

10,000 Angels - Justice For Mother and Child


Courtesy MamaLiberty 10,000 Angels


Mindy McCready sang about 10,000 angels in 1996 and now they sing for her.  Protective mothers who also know all too well about family courts, DCF and abusers what Mindy has been through with custody of her son.  This is a victory that will not go unnoticed with the large community of protective mothers.  We applaud Judge Harrod for what we can only assume is reason and logic that a mother should be with their child, we couldn’t agree more.

All Smiles



By LUCHINA FISHER (@luchina) and YUNJI DE NIES Dec. 6, 2011

Country singer Mindy McCready left an Arkansas courthouse a “happy girl” Monday without divulging details about a juvenile court judge’s ruling on what will happen to her and her five-year-old son Zander.

“I can’t talk about it, but I can tell you all I’m a happy girl. I’m a happy girl right now,” she said to reporters gathered outside the Izard County courtroom of Judge Lee Harrod.

“I love Judge Harrod, I’ll tell you that. I love that man. He’s a good man,” she said before being driven away from the courthouse.

Later Monday evening, McCready sent a text message to HLN’s Jane Valez Mitchell that the host read on air.

“WE WON!!! ZAN STAYS,” McCready wrote. “Court details sealed but we love Judge Lee W Harrod.”

Details on when the singer may be able to take Zander back home to Nashville, and whether McCready will get permanent custody of her son remain unclear.

“The next step would be for the judge to decide,” Amy Webb, director of communications for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, told ABC News.

Florida Department of Children and Families officials had been expected to request in the hearing that Zander be sent back to Cape Coral, Fla., where McCready’s mother, Gayle Inge, is his legal guardian.

“We will not discuss details of this case per the judge’s order. Of course we continue to work with all involved parties to ensure this child’s safety and well-being,” a Florida DCF spokeswoman told ABCNews.com.

McCready’s rep offered no information either. “All proceedings and documentation surrounding the hearing are sealed,” Kat Atwood said in a statement to ABCNews.com. “No further information is available at this time.”


activism, child abuse, Child Custody Issues, Children's Rights,domestic violence, Family Courts, Government Corruption
Tags: abused children, CPS, family court, Florida DCF, mat


Teri C. Stoddard Attacks, Accuses & Sides w/Child Molesters


Please click the link below and support this news media for naming names, truth telling and calling out the queen of pro pedo pro abusers.


A woman who sides with pedophiles and child molesters is threatening readers, sources and news staff of The Ellis County Observer and Freedom of the Press Group LLC.  This is once again another opportunity to show the tactics and strategies of sick mongrelized filth. Teri C. Stoddard has been e-mailing one of our sources in California, Anthony Lingle, about associating with this Web site (and our two California sister Web sites.) Our other California sources, Connie Bedwell (SaveAaliyah.com) and Presley Crowe(SaveOurSkye.org) can vouch for this woman’s sordid history. Stoddard’s first sentence to Anthony Lingle in an e-mail sent Nov. 27 was:

Teri C. Stoddard and her “experimenting” son. Sick

Stoddard responds:
“The news story I commented on where someone misunderstood what I meant was YEARS ago. And now you’ve twisted it to say I was talking about my own son.”

“I will say that I think you’re wrong about Shane [Crowe]. How can you believe a woman whose own attorney says she’s lying????? There are many liars, men and women, in our movement. The trick is figuring out who is who. If I am right, your reputation is being hurt by you associating with the anti-male, anti-truth “protective mother” types. They’ve had a bad reputation for years. I am not writing any of this to “hassle” you. I am trying to help you.”

Those who have followed the case against Shane Crowe and his daughter Presley’s two interviews and other documented information would find Studdard’s comments highly offensive. Background on Presley Crowe and her sister Skye’s story: http://theamadorarrow.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/shane-crowe-demands-stories-photos-be-removed/

Anthony Lingle’s E-mail Exchange with Teri C. Studdard:

Teri C. Stoddard

  • Anthony, come on. I never said anything bad about you. Why are you going there?

Teri C. Stoddard

Is that movie really based on your story?

  • Anthony Lingle

    10 hours ago

    Anthony Lingle


  • Teri C. Stoddard

    10 hours ago

    Teri C. Stoddard

    • Did he talk to you before he filmed it?

  • Anthony Lingle

    10 hours ago

    Anthony Lingle


  • Teri C. Stoddard

    8 hours ago

    Teri C. Stoddard

    • That movie is about william fain. that blog/article says it’s about you.

  • Anthony Lingle

    8 hours ago

    Anthony Lingle

    • i told you that i sent him info about my case and the movie is about a case just like mine and the blog says Lingle’s story is also the subject of a true-story documentary titled, “Father’s Rights.” Watch it here:

  • Anthony Lingle

    8 hours ago

    Anthony Lingle

    • you r missing the point here
      i am not going to sit here and pick apart this with you this is what i said for you look at not the point of the movie but yes i sent him info about parts of my case and how it went down not trying to make a movie for me or get paid just info about rights in the court room about fathers but if you look it is atrue story of him and his fight for his daughter and the laws he had change so stop trying to make something out of nothing it the point of right and the system to give people a clue how it happen to fathers…………………..

  • Teri C. Stoddard

    35 minutes agoSent from Mobile

    Teri C. Stoddard

    • Who are you arguing with? All I said was the blog was inaccurate. If I were you I’d ask the blog owner too fix the wording, to keep your reputation clean, that’s all. Since it’s a blog not a news article people might think you’re in on the lie.

  • Anthony Lingle

    30 minutes ago

    Anthony Lingle

    • ok

    • what blog r u talking about please sent it me


‘Monsters’ Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective Launched by Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline


Verizon and National Domestic Violence Hotline Launch ‘Monsters,’ a Short Animated Video That Depicts Devastating View of Domestic Violence From a Child’s Perspective

Monsters 1Monsters 2


Video (below) Aimed at Encouraging Public to Support Domestic Violence Prevention Efforts and to Call for Help


BASKING RIDGE, N.J. —“Monsters,” a provocative new video, portrays the alarming impact of domestic violence on families and children, as seen through the eyes of a young girl. Produced and funded by theVerizon Foundation and supported by the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the video encourages the public to get involved in domestic violence prevention and education efforts, and also emphasizes that help for victims and their families is just a phone call away: 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233).

Verizon Wireless customers can quickly reach the National Domestic Violence Hotline by dialing #HOPE. The hotline offers confidential help 24/7. To help support the hotline’s efforts, Verizon Wireless, through HopeLine has donated $75,000. HopeLine collects no-longer-used wireless phones and recycles or refurbishes them to support domestic violence victims and survivors.

The video, two minutes and 34 seconds long, graphically describes how domestic violence affects children. The child’s voice states:

“A child who lives with domestic violence lives in darkness. …She struggles to separate her nightmares from reality because there’s very little difference. The child who lives with domestic violence isn’t afraid of the dark. She’s afraid of her dad because the monster doesn’t live in her closet – it’s just down the hall.”

Studies suggest that between 3.3 million and 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence each year. And according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, witnessing violence between parents or caregivers is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. The video notes that girls who witness abuse are more likely to be abused later in life, and boys are twice as likely to abuse their own partners – “because that’s the world they know.”

Rose Kirk, president of the Verizon Foundation, said:

“To end this devastating cycle of violence, we must motivate silent bystanders to take action. People need to understand that when they look the other way, they condone this deplorable behavior. Verizon is committed to preventing domestic violence by educating our employees, customers and the public about the importance of stepping in to help someone in need. We believe that this provocative video will help us accomplish this life-saving goal.”

According to some studies, less that 1 percent of domestic violence cases are reported to the police.

Dyanne Purcell, CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, said: “It takes an incredible amount of courage to come forward and ask for help. The more established domestic violence is in our national dialogue, the more likely victims will be able to seek help and make a lasting change.”

The video concludes with the child narrator making a poignant plea for the public to help:

“Maybe you don’t wake up every day shaking, or jump every time the phone rings. But maybe you should look a little harder. Maybe it’s a friend, a co-worker, or your neighbor. …Your help could make all the difference. We need everyone to bring domestic violence into the light.”

Kirk said, “Please share the link to the ‘Monsters’ video with your family, friends, neighbors and colleagues. It’s a simple action that may have a huge impact.”

The “Monsters” video can be viewed athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=367JvtoTm34.

About the National Domestic Violence Hotline

The National Domestic Violence Hotline was established in 1996 as a component of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed by Congress and is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Hotline is a nonprofit organization providing crisis intervention, information and referral to victims of domestic violence, perpetrators, friends and families. The Hotline answers a variety of calls and is a resource for domestic violence advocates, government officials, law enforcement agencies and the general public. http://www.thehotline.org

About Verizon Foundation

The Verizon Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Verizon, uses its technology, financial resources and partnerships to address critical social issues, with a focus on education and domestic violence prevention. Verizon has invested more than $28 million in domestic violence prevention. For more information on the foundation, visit www.verizonfoundation.org.

About Verizon

Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE, NASDAQ:VZ), headquartered in New York, is a global leader in delivering broadband and other wireless and wireline communications services to consumer, business, government and wholesale customers. Verizon Wireless operates America’s most reliable wireless network, with more than 106 million total connections nationwide. Verizon also provides converged communications, information and entertainment services over America’s most advanced fiber-optic network, and delivers integrated business solutions to customers in more than 150 countries, including all of the Fortune 500. A Dow 30 company, Verizon employs a diverse workforce of nearly 196,000 and last year generated consolidated revenues of $106.6 billion. For more information, visit www.verizon.com.

VERIZON’S ONLINE NEWS CENTER: Verizon news releases, executive speeches and biographies, media contacts, high-quality video and images, and other information are available at Verizon’s News Center on the World Wide Web atwww.verizon.com/news. To receive news releases by e-mail, visit the News Center and register for customized automatic delivery of Verizon news releases.


Rhode Island: RIFC Chief Judge Bedrosian, “Naming Names” Corrupt Family Court Crisis, Abusers Getting Custody, Mothers being ‘locked’ in court rooms.


We frequently get mothers who want information published below follows such information “Naming Names” this is from RI

From: Rebecca L. McLaughlin

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:07 PM

To: damonmdlaw@aol.com ; patd2929@cox.net ; asenteio@yahoo.com ; ashy_cashy@hotmail.com ; angeltorres4@gmail.com ; bdaypartiesri@yahoo.com ; bkerr@projo.com ; Beth Flanagan ; Joann URI ; boston.mail@ic.fbi.gov ; boredalert@aol.com ; chairperson@americanmotherspoliticalparty.org ; charles smith ; cahirparkcottages@eircom.net ; marie-pierre dargnies ; david.deabreu@zurichna.com ; dgreybeard@yahoo.com ; Pamela Elizabeth ; ekruse@courts.ri.gov ; ghppas@yahoo.com ; murshili hatti ; hyde.judy@gmail.com ; info@bvadvocacycenter.org ; info@dayoneri.org ; info@ebccenter.org ; indrek.reile@ttu.ee ; ironlion2010@gmail.com ; info@ncjwri.org ; jeff@solidk9training.com ; jane@abusefreedom.com ; kirk.feather@gmail.com ; kato.lee@verizon.net ; louise@monroe.necoxmail.com ; letters@providencejournal.com ; lee102586@yahoo.com ; momaxoxo@yahoo.com ; mkmbrat70@aol.com ; mrc.donato@gmail.com ; nbc10newsalert@jaremail.mediageneral.net ; nancypickett@comcast.net ; officer.matsumoto@gmail.com ; orodrigues@wfri.org ; otmanzellou@gmail.com ; onemac2@aol.com ; paulcazeaux@gmail.com ; pbnurse1@yahoo.com ; quatta@hotmail.com ; robert.sherwin@morganstanleysmithbarney.com ; rdst150@hotmail.com ; rsmith375@aol.com ; Ronald Carter ; rongolinger@aol.com ; sjohnson@womenscenterri.org ; settipanelaw1@aol.com ; settiguy@aol.com ; secretaryofstatemollis@sos.ri.gov ; stp.sdc@gmail.com ; tjemma@cox.net ; tknmu@cox.net ; Thom Voorn ; victor_wong@brown.edu ; vanwhiting@yahoo.com ; vvolz@sojournerri.org ; wcri@womenscenterri.org ; wbhurley@comcast.net ; y6677y@yahoo.com

Subject: Enjoy - R.

Republican Attorney Damon D'Ambrosio goes ballistic in April 2011 (Wayland Square - East Side)

Date: 2011-11-16, 1:06PM EST

Reply to: theflorencedevelopmentgroup@hotmail.com

Republican Attorney Damon D'Ambrosio [later suspended??????] went ballistic on RIFC Chief Judge Bedrosian for harming his client and her son intentionally, unethically and corruptly. He filed many motions against the RIFC Chief Bedrosian in Supreme Court for locking his client up in the courthouse for visits with her son, and not allowing his client to see or talk to her son for six weeks [let's talk about the truth] when all opposing parties were very well aware of the harm they were causing an innocent little precious boy "O." D'Ambrosio didn't sleep for days...and...days...and days, mostly without pay because he was determined to stop all of the above from harming an innocent mother and child.

His favorite saying was during that time in reference to Genesis 1:1, he "hoped opposing client could reap what he sowed." "You will reap what you sow! ... Genesis 1:11." Opposing client and Chief Legal Council for DCYF, and of course, with opposing council's knowledge, committed some of the most henious crimes against an innocent little precious boy "O," by committing blatant perjury and fraud to the RIFC in front of the RIFC Chief Judge. Bedrosian must make one of the ultimate decisions of her career continue to harm an innocent little precious boy, loved [by his mother not father], to keep politically fornicating as she so appears to need to do, or free the mother and child as she should do. D'Ambrosio, along with his clients "O" and his mother produced one of the most judicary arguments, thus far, in the case of RIFC 03-2979, that does not in any way imply that D'Ambrosio's client's first Attorney Quatrucci was anything but the best.

D'Ambrosio was also the Attorney on Case P08-6157 in the Superior Court representing "O's" mother, it is a case against Temple Habonim who's President and Rabbi from 2005 turned their back on "O's" mother after their contractor forced himself into the home she rented on the grounds of Temple Habonim. There is no doubt that "O's" mother has a huge mouth and a very loud voice, but she is not dangerous nor a liar. "O" says that is her best asset and to keep screaming and fighting for him. You can lock my mommy up he says but you can't shut her up. This case is still active, despite opposing attorney's efforts to dismiss the case based on the order from Family Court. That case is also about heinous calculated intentional corruption that destroyed the life that "O" and his mother once had in Barrington, Rhode Island, where "O's" mother has been active, and still is, her entire life. DCYF's Chief legal council also committed perjury and fraud to the police along with her brother "O's" father in that investigation as well, and of course many other politically fornicating monsters. That case was the beginning of the destruction of "O's" life and they will pay "O" monetarily for the damage, legally. And if there is a God they will all go straight to h... and hopefully suffer 10 times more on their way there.

"O's" mother is representing him and herself in FC and SC for the moment, her motto is "bring it on," "hit me with your best shot," "go f... yourselves." She found her dog Lola who was lost in the first few months of the custody battle, and after 4 1/2 yrs. as she promised "O" she found their dog Lola, and she has promised "O" that she will get him back too. If you know "O's" mother she always always keeps promises she makes, especially to her children. "O" is also one of the bravest boys his mother has ever met. Despite the constant inner turmoil he feels and pain from of the loss of his mother and the life he had before John Pagliaro committed a home invasion while "O" was there; he continues to fight, to stay healthy, do his school work and be a very good boy. His mother promises him constantly that she starts the fight to bring him home every morning the moment she opens her eyes. He constantly begs her and recently indicated that it must be 7 yrs., when will he ever get out of the courthouse and be able to go home with his mother and dog Lola.

"O" deserves insurmountable restitution from Judge Bedrosian, Judeg Suttle, JDC, Governor Caceri and Governor Chafee [who are more worried about a man that committed a murder than about an innocent child being harmed by the RIFC] Temple Habonim, opposing legal council McKiernan, Hessler DCYF's Legal Council ["O" paternal aunt who is at the helm of destruction of "O's" life], "O's" father, Patrick Lynch, Lynch's sister Margret, Susan Lincoln from East Bay Mental Health [at least they did what was ethical and professional and humane, not Lincoln, EBMH, they settled out of court with "O's" mother], Officer Traverse and Chief LaCross from Barrington, neither could solve anything never mind a corrupt home invasion where the victim had bruises, Louis Pulner, City Solicitor, Jay Litman,Chair of Temple Habonin, Rabbi Rosenberg and Patricia Buff, "O's" mother's family for committing fraud and perjury to DCYF and the FC ["O's" mother has made it very clear to her family she will never ever speak to any of them again unless the march down to the RIFC and tell the truth, depsite their constant efforts to contact her she will not, as she promised, never ever speak to them again], Pawtucket Police Department, domestic violence programs throughout the State of RI, RIFC Staff inlcuding Jerimiah, Tassoni, DCYF for allowing "O" to be in abusive situations, Cynthtia Roeberg from DCYF who took the stand in the custody case and blantantly committed perjury and fraud, Pagliaro contractor for Temple Habonim who ultimately destroyed "O's" life with his mother and dog Lola, and everyone else who turned their back on "O" and his mother shall "reap what they have sowed" as well.

So as you can see D'Ambrosio's suspension was not only about some of his character defects, which he admits freely, openly and honestly; it was also about his unending excellent devotion to his client "O," his belief in the justice system, the US and RI Constitution, and his ethical and professional character assests as well. D'Ambrosio also has another major character defect he did not charge most of his clients, which also caused him much turmoil. PS he is in need of a job, he can be reach at damonmdlaw@aol.com, although he can not do legal court work he can do some legal research, writing briefs, etc.

Footnote: McKiernan was not reprimanded for taking his penis out while completely intoxicated on East Avenue in Pawtucket, RI which was reported to the JDC after drinking at Patrick's Pub on Smith Street, during the day with a young witness. Isn't that corruption as well? Curtin says behavior not a violation.

There are always two perceptions to every story!!!!!!


Rhode Island is without any resources for women like "O's" mother including domestic violence program's that can protect her and her son, opposing council and DCYF Chief Legal Council ["O's" paternal aunt] is on the Sourjourner House Board of Directors, "O's" case is clearly about corruption, there is no where in the State of RI that "O" and his mother can go to seek justice and refuge from the abuse, she has tried endlessly for almost 6 yrs., except for one program headed by Anne Grant who has got to be one of the bravest, amazing women in Rhode Island, she is a retired minister, coordinates the Parenting Project at Mathewson Street United Methodist Church and writes http://custodyscam.blogspot.com, littlehostages.blogspot.com - custodyscam.blogspot.com/2011/01/hague-domestic-violence-project.html - http://www.rhode-island-divorce-lawyer.com/2008/07/ask-more-questi.html, without Anne most of the men and women would have given up. She has brought amazing men and women together to fight the RIFC. "O's" mother headed the first training programs for police, counselors, guards, etc. in the State of RI for Domestic Violence, which she was trained for by the State of Massachusetts while she was she overseeing a program in the Bristol County House of Corrections providing services to domestic violence perpetrators and sex offenders.

And she can't find anyone to help her. It appears that programs like Anne Grant's that are not funded by any outside sources are the best, Mathewson Street United Methodist Church which allows her a space to work and meet people, she funds it all on her own and runs it all on her own, endlessly every minute of the day. Please send donations to the RI Parenting Project or Anne Grant at 134 Mathewson Street Providence, RI 02903, Anne works endlessly to fight for innocent parents/care takers and children, as well as to the FDGroup, 49 Medway Street, Providence, RI 02906, which is owned by "O's" mother [not-tax-exempt] to help us to continue to fight for children in the State of RI. All monies will be given directly to the men and women who are fighting for their children and other children, supplies, staff employment, etc. Thank you. And please purchase "without providence" you will not be disappointed.

Other exceptionally amazing women in Rhode Island besides "O's" mother and Anne Grant are Patrice Livingstone who has not seen her daughter for over 2 yrs. who is beyond the legal age of 14 because of corruption as well, Phyllis Stafford who lost her child to corruption, Melanie Baron-Kent who is one of the bravest women of all of us who also fought for her son for 5 yrs. did unsubstantiated prison time because of fraud and perjury committed against her repeatedly by former husband, etc., who recently gained custody of her son [like "O's" mother she worked for DCYF and gave of her life endlessly to protect children], Karen Ricci who has battled the FC mostly alone for 9 yrs. and is without a doubt one of the most amazingly brave heroines who recently gained custody of her youngest daughter [her husband and childhood best friend hijacked her children like "O's" mother except it was "O's" mother's sister who had an affair with "O's" father during the custody trial, paternal aunt, neither see "O" anymore], Kathy Lee of Massachusetts who also continues a vicious battle to gain custody of her son for over 5 yrs. because she reported sexual abuse by the child's father and the courts gave him custody, Faith Torres who fought a gag order issued by the RIFC with the help of the ACLU, she has regained custody of 3 out of 4 of her children, and many others who have not given permission to be named. I added this again: "And let's not forget Melanie Baron-Kent's mother Louise who just published an amazing book about her daughter's fight for her own life, her endless days and nights worrying sick about how to protect her daughter and grandson from the horror which took over there lives for many years, how the son-n-law tortured their family endlessly and how the police ignored their constant screams for help, "without providence: A CHILD IN THE HANDS OF AN ABUSIVE FATHER" by Louise Baron-Kent, recently published by Tate Publishing & Enterprises. To purchase a copy please go to withoutprovidence.tateauthor.com. The book should be a best seller which is written by an amazing social revolutionist who broke the silence for all of us in Rhode Island who have children who are in the hands of an abusive parent.

All of the above have been traumatized, humiliated, been called lairs, loud, dangerous, obstructive, discriminated against, bullied by state judges and magistrates, clerks, capitol police, attorneys and others, brutally terrorized and horrified by the abuser and the system, maintains sanity despite outrageous judgments, ignored and laughed at, lose of finances, jobs, careers, friends, family, nights of sleep, hasn't posed a danger to the community nor coerces, threatens or intimidates anyone, is labeled alienating, unreasonable, labeled mentally ill, has to dispose of body fluids on demand, gave up all of their lives everything, i.e. reputation, financial security, submit to drug tests and intrusive forced paid by themselves for psychological and psychiatric evaluations to protect their children's rights and life, etc. These men and women are heroes and heroines.

Other educational resources available below [again there is no where to turn in RI because the politically corrupt are running most of the programs]:










NFOJA - National Forum On Judicial Accountability

The Official Network of Community Forums on Judicial Accountability (CFOJA)


The pictures below are of "O" and his mother while locked up in the RIFC supervised visitation program "O" is motioning with his tongue a scream to get him and his mommy out of the courthouse that she is innocent and the best best bravest mommy, he also says she is going to be famous one day [angels work there...complete kind angels]; D'Ambrosio whom "O" refers to as the sheriff who knew D'Ambrosio was going to be suspended a month before he did...how did a 10 year old know that D'Ambrosio was going to be suspended a month before D'Ambrosio? Corruption!!; and "O's" mother after she was locked up in the RIFC for telling the truth again with another man from the RIFC program who was also locked up with his daughter and consequently one of D'Ambrosio's clients, however, ironically, during the national protest [www.goveabuse.org] D'Ambrosio showed up and told him he had to go into the courthouse unexpected hearing, he received unsupervised visits that day. The final picture is of the bravest women and a man I know who daily from the moment their eyes open are at war with the abusers and the system that supports abuse of thier children and other's children. It is not a place of horror this war they face everyday, it is a place of justice, love, laughter, dignity and respect, which makes them feel liberated and useful in a very dreary dreary system. Please help us fight for the innocent children in the State of RI's corrupt FC and DCYF.

So, as you can see the newspapers forgot to include the other side of the story of D'Ambrosio's suspension. Republican liberal social activists who are in the RIFC are not allowed to protect their clients, especially if they go after the RIFC Chief Judge in the Supreme Court. Best to D'Ambrosio who is doing just fine except he needs to find employment, again, he can be reached at damonmdlaw@aol.com; he is very talented and motivated to succeed.

· Location: Wayland Square - East Side

· it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests





PostingID: 2705612540


U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System


(Battered Mothers, Abused Children are Being Further Battered and Abused by the US Courts failure to let Domestic Violence Mothers Leave With Their Children. Many Ask, “Why Doesn’t She Just Leave?” When it comes to Domestic Violence, besides all the other very unsafe reasons those with children will loose their children to the very animal who hurt them and their children. Many mothers,(most) have never seen their children again after the Courts gave their child[ren] to the Abusers. Most Children, if the survive, end up just like they were taught raised and reinforced by the Courts, as abusers themselves for boys and victims for girls. That is not county all the other trauma related issues. This has passed beyond just injustice but has stepped full fledge in Human Rights Violations. It truly is like the holocaust, the destruction of women and their children by the USA, Sanctioned Genocide Against Mothers and their Children. Right in Plain View, See: Mothers Day Law Suit filed Against the U.S. at the Inter American Commission Human Rights. (still pending)

From Times –Up!! Attorney Barry Goldstein


photo courtesy of Family Court Crisis-Abusers Getting Custody!

By Barry Goldstein

Protective mothers have been complaining about mistreatment by the custody court system, but have routinely been dismissed as “disgruntled litigants.” As recently as the beginning of the Battered Mothers Custody Conferences in 2004, there was little professional support for protective mothers. The mothers’ complaints have now been confirmed and supported by the domestic violence community, many women’s organizations, numerous governmental agencies, many in the academic community and a substantial body of research such as contained in our book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Last summer at the NCADV Conference, Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan and some of his colleagues presented their findings from a major Department of Justice study that confirms the findings in our book and other research that the present custody court practices for domestic violence cases are deeply flawed. The publication of these findings has taken longer than expected as Dr. Saunders and the Justice Department seek to carefully present the information in a clear and accurate manner, but they should soon be available on the Department of Justice web site. Many of us who seek to reform the broken custody court system are excited about this study because it should be difficult for the courts to dismiss or ignore because of where it comes from. Significantly, the findings are incompatible with a continued belief that the present practices are working for the benefit of the children the courts are supposed to protect.

Custody Courts Frequently Disbelieve Valid Abuse Complaints

Custody courts have a particularly poor record in responding to domestic violence cases. The research demonstrates that court professionals reject a high percentage of valid complaints by protective mothers. This problem has been confirmed in many ways. It is confirmed based on the frequency of mistaken outcomes. Although battered mothers make deliberately false allegations only one or two percent of the time, in contested custody cases the alleged abuser wins custody or joint custody over seventy percent of the time. Subsequent events regularly confirm courts’ mistakes. This occurs when men found safe by the court professionals are later convicted or otherwise found to have to have committed domestic violence, sexual abuse, murder or other similar crimes.

The revelations of the Courageous Kids Network further demonstrate the frequency in which courts fail to recognize valid complaints of abuse. Courageous Kids are young adults who have aged out of their custody orders and decided to speak out about the harm caused by these orders. The context is important in understanding their stories. These are cases in which the court disbelieved the mothers’ abuse allegations and gave the fathers complete control. The children have been threatened, coerced and punished if they continue to complain about their father’s abuse or seek a relationship with their mother. In other words the fathers have had tremendous assistance in silencing the children. Accordingly the children now speaking out represent a small minority of those mistreated by fathers the court believed were safe. The descriptions by the Courageous Kids demonstrate the fathers deliberately sought to hurt the mother and children based upon their belief system that the mother had no right to leave them. The children have had little or no contact with their mothers often for many years so we know the mothers could not be influencing the children’s decision to speak out about the fathers’ abuse. These are all too common examples of cases in which the court professionals failed to believe valid allegations of abuse.

The research not only demonstrates the fact that the custody courts get a large majority of domestic violence cases wrong, but also that the standard practices used by court professionals are deeply flawed and make it difficult for judges to recognize legitimate complaints about domestic violence and child abuse.
Court professionals routinely discredit allegations of abuse based upon factors that are not probative. At the same time these professionals do not understand the importance of looking to the abusers’ patterns of controlling and coercive behavior in order to recognize domestic violence. The court professionals often make the mistake of considering each incident and each allegation separately. Genuine domestic violence experts understand the importance of context in recognizing domestic violence, but the mental health and other professionals relied on by the courts do not understand the importance of context and thus make it more difficult to recognize valid allegations of abuse.

One of the big obstacles to recognizing valid abuse complaints is the common use of mental health and other professionals without expertise in domestic violence. The main purpose of considering domestic violence in custody cases is to protect the safety of children. Nevertheless the evaluators relied on by custody courts rarely know how to conduct a safety assessment or what behaviors have been associated with higher lethality and other dangers. The evaluators do not understand domestic violence dynamics and often are unfamiliar with the effects of domestic violence on children or other information based upon the specialized body of scientific research that could be used to better understand domestic violence issues and recognize truthful allegations of abuse.

The new Department of Justice study helps explain why the evaluators and other professionals relied on by custody courts routinely fails to recognize domestic violence. The study found that most evaluators and other professionals relied on by the courts do not have adequate domestic violence training and those with inadequate training are more likely to believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation. The professionals who believe this myth, in turn are more likely to make recommendations that harm children. In other words judges have little chance to protect the children under their control as long as they rely on these unqualified professionals and tend to believe their deeply flawed analysis.

Judges often become defensive when protective mothers or their attorneys request that any evaluator or other court professional be required to have domestic violence expertise in order to be appointed. We have repeatedly seen judges refuse to listen to domestic violence experts offered on behalf of protective mothers. The courts often focus on the need for a mental health degree even though the academic training for most mental health professionals included no or virtually no domestic violence instruction and the law does not require advance degrees to qualify as an expert (a common example is a mechanic without a high school degree who can testify as an expert in automotive repair based on experience and training).

In recent years most court systems have encouraged and usually required some domestic violence training for court professionals. This is a good thing but has often been implemented in ways that undermine the purpose. Many of the trainings include substantial misinformation such as the belief most contested custody cases are “high conflict” when the research establishes a large majority are really domestic violence cases. Some of the trainings even include Parental Alienation Syndrome (sometimes by another name because of its deserved notoriety) even though it was recently again rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V because there is no scientific basis for it. Many of the trainings fail to include domestic violence advocates or other genuine experts in domestic violence.

We have also seen some really good programs used to train court professionals, but I have heard many trainers complain that some of the judges, evaluators and lawyers pay little attention to the valuable information presented. In one Queens County, New York case I cross-examined an experienced evaluator who went to a really excellent domestic violence training in order to qualify as a parent coordinator. They provided numerous excellent research studies that could have helped him recognize domestic violence and protect children. During my cross-examination it became clear he never read the research and was unfamiliar with the current scientific research he needed to understand the case. When I pressed him about the training he described it as “not a life changing experience.” This was a man who needed a life changing experience because he failed to recognize the obvious history of abuse by the father, demanded the mother cooperate with her abuser and when she continued to try to protect herself and her son, the unqualified evaluator recommended custody for the abusive father. The judge failed to discredit the evaluator based on his failure to read or consider the current scientific research provided at the training.

We need much more and better trainings for court professionals, but there is also the danger that attending trainings can give judges and other professionals a false sense of confidence in their understanding of domestic violence. The findings by Dr. Saunders and his colleagues that most court professionals have inadequate training in domestic violence confirms our concern that in most cases the professionals relied on by the court are not qualified to participate in a domestic violence case without the assistance of a genuine expert. Even if the judge has received good training the court is likely to be influenced by unqualified evaluators and other court professionals.

The failure to possess adequate training in domestic violence means that it will be difficult for these professionals to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence, but the widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse is a bias that strongly undermines the cases of protective mothers. These mistakes result in frequent findings denying the mother’s abuse allegations which is exactly what the other research has found. If a professional believes the myth they will expect to see false allegations and without training in how to recognize domestic violence they have little chance to get these cases right and protect the children. Even worse, courts having found against the mothers because of the deeply flawed practices and biases are severely punishing mothers and children because the mothers continue to believe their true allegations despite the disbelief of the unqualified court professionals.

A few months ago, in this forum, I wrote an article about the extreme decisions we often see in domestic violence cases. These are decisions in which the alleged abuser receives custody and the mother who was the primary attachment figure is limited to supervised or no visitation. The primary attachment figure is the parent who provided most of the child care during the first couple of years of the child’s life. When children are separated from their primary attachment figure they are significantly more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when older. It can never be right to separate children from their primary attachment figure unless she is unsafe such as a drug addict, someone who beats the kids or otherwise poses a danger. In most of these cases the father allowed or even demanded the mother provide child care until she decided to leave him. It should be obvious that her decision to leave a man she found to be abusive does not make the mother unsafe. Unqualified court professionals frequently limit the mother’s contact with her children based upon some version of alienation or pathologizing the mother based on psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in custody cases. We know the diagnosis is not safety related because the mother functions fine in all other aspects of her life except interacting with her abuser and the court professionals supporting him. These are not safety issues so these extreme decisions can never be beneficial to the children.

The reliance on court professionals with inadequate training and belief in the myth takes place in the context of many other common mistakes discussed in earlier research. The courts cannot protect mothers and children in domestic violence cases if they cannot recognize domestic violence when it is present. The frequent decisions that harm children are confirmed by later findings and information, the extensive research court professionals routinely fail to consider and the new Department of Justice study and they provide multiple confirmations of the present inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and child abuse when it exists.

Misuse of Mothers’ Anger and Emotion

Let’s look at this issue from the mother’s perspective and in the context of her experience. These are domestic violence cases. The father usually has a long history of controlling and coercive behaviors and the mother has finally gained the courage and resources to leave her abuser in order to protect her children. She is fearful because of the many threats he made of what he would do if she left and knowledge that the most dangerous time for a woman is after she has left. She is angry at the way he has mistreated her and often the children. She may be worried about her ability to support and protect her children because her partner has been telling her how useless she is throughout their relationship.

Even if the father’s physical abuse ends when he no longer has access to the mother (which makes unqualified court professionals believe he is now safe), he continues his domestic violence through litigation abuse and often other ways. The abusers often use any contact provided by the court to seek reconciliation and/or to harass and attack her verbally or psychologically. Many women expect the courts to protect her children because the evidence is so overwhelming and instead find the court pressuring her to cooperate with her abuser and punishing her if she tries to protect her children from a man they have found to be hostile and dangerous. In other words she has good reason to be angry and emotional and in fact this would be a normal reaction to her experiences.

The research contained in our book and elsewhere supports this understanding and analysis. We discussed the common mistake of custody courts that treat the mother’s actions as a litigant as if they were an indication of her behavior as a parent. Over forty states and many judicial districts have created court sponsored gender bias committees. These committees have found widespread bias particularly against women litigants. One of the common examples of gender bias was blaming women for the actions of their abusers. One of the typical examples of this bias is when courts blame mothers for their anger and emotion caused by the father’s mistreatment of them and their children. In many cases the abusers deliberately harass or pressure them shortly before a court appearance is scheduled in order to obtain an emotional reaction the court is likely to misunderstand. Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and so after their abuse that the judge does not see, come to court calm and cooperative. Court professionals are often fooled by this act.

The new Department of Justice study confirms what we said in our book and other similar research. Dr. Saunders found that court professionals frequently treat mothers’ anger and emotion as far more important than it actually is in terms of the well being of children. These professionals may be uncomfortable with the mothers’ emotions particularly if she criticizes their response to the father’s abuse. Clearly these are difficult and unpleasant issues to confront. The misinformation treating contested custody as if it were “high conflict” when it is actually domestic violence contributes to the misunderstanding of the mothers’ anger and emotion. The professionals are focused on forcing the parties to cooperate even though this is not the best approach for children. When the parties have difficulty cooperating and certainly in domestic violence cases, parallel parenting is a more effective approach for children. The problem, as demonstrated by the Saunders’ study is that these professionals are focused on their beliefs and preferences rather than research about what works best for children. The custody courts did not get into the practice of looking to current scientific research and particularly the specialized body of research about domestic violence because there was no such research when the initial court practices were developed. We now have substantial research that would help inform court decisions and avoid the frequent mistakes but court professionals rarely look to this research to help them make better decisions. This is why we rarely see custody courts weigh the benefits and harms to children of a proposed resolution. The Department of Justice study establishes that these flawed practices lead to decisions that hurt children.

Cottage Industry Supporting Abusive Fathers

We often hear complaints about corruption in the custody court system. This belief is supported by the many cases in which courts make findings that are far removed from a fair evaluation of the evidence and decisions that seem to be disconnected from the well being of the children involved. There are cases of outright corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, New York, but more often, I believe courts create the appearance of corruption because of bias, ignorance and deeply flawed practices. One of my concerns with complaints about corruption is that it makes it harder for judges in the broken system to hear the complaints and create the reforms that are needed. An important contributing factor to the widespread belief in corruption is the cottage industry that has been created to support abusive fathers.

Most contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to pressure their victims to return or punish them for leaving. Domestic violence is all about control so these abusive fathers usually have controlled the family finances and have these resources to support their custody litigation. Some lawyers and mental health professionals have figured out that they can make a large income by supporting practices and approaches that support abusers. We often see them advertise as supporting “fathers’ rights.” In many cases we see fathers’ attorneys and GALs promoting the appointment of evaluators who support abusive fathers. It is particularly frustrating when judges refer to these professionals who regularly support abusers as “neutral professionals.”

Protective mothers often have no chance when these biased professionals are appointed regardless of how strong their cases may be. Many of the mothers have complained that the evaluators and GALs make misrepresentations to the court in order to justify findings in favor of the abusive fathers paying their fees. When such professionals lie to the court about the evidence or to justify fees they did not earn, the mothers are justified in complaints suggesting corruption.
Many of these biased professionals strongly support PAS despite a lack of scientific justification. Significantly, PAS is based upon the assumption that virtually every complaint by mothers about the father’s abuse is deliberately false. The Department of Justice study found a problem with inadequately trained professionals who believe the myth that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse. The unqualified professionals supporting PAS are even worse assuming that virtually all such allegations are false. The courts have virtually no chance of making the right decision if they treat such biased professionals as having any credibility.
The Department of Justice study’s contribution to this issue is a finding that evaluators working for the court or the county made recommendations that worked better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. When Dr. Saunders described this finding at a workshop during the NCADV Conference I asked him if he thought the findings supported our concerns about the cottage industry that has developed to support abusive fathers. He agreed this was a good interpretation. Evaluators working for the court or county are not paid extra for each evaluation so they have no incentive to favor the wealthier parent.

Professionals often have fundamental conflicts of interest. Medical doctors who schedule tests or procedures will earn money from performing the services they recommend. Tests may be scheduled to shield the doctor from potential lawsuits rather than to benefit the patient. Lawyers who recommend going to trial, starting a lawsuit or making a motion will earn money when the client takes their advice. Similarly, mental health professionals benefit financially when patients accept recommendations for more services. The conflict of interest is largely unavoidable and the professionals are expected to have the integrity to act in their client’s best interests instead of their own. Unfortunately some of the evaluators and lawyers, particularly those supporting abusive fathers have not fulfilled this ethical obligation.

We have repeatedly seen problems in custody courts with mental health professionals and particularly ones sympathetic to abusive fathers making recommendations requiring protective mothers to use their unwanted and unneeded services. We see these biased professionals pathologizing mothers who have always taken good care of their children with diagnoses that are clearly wrong. This would include the frequent finding of rare conditions such as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, conditions like paranoia or delusional based on the mothers’ continued belief in the father’s abuse despite the failure of the court professionals to recognize his abuse and other emotional problems that magically seem to affect only her relationship with her abuser and the court. They seem oblivious to the fact that that she does fine in other parts of her life that under any unbiased circumstances would rule out the claimed diagnosis.

Some of these mistakes are clearly deliberate and qualify as corruption. Other cases may involve bias and ignorance and a lack of the needed qualifications as the Saunders’ study demonstrates. When the professionals who are part of the cottage industry engage in gender bias they usually do so without realizing it. Many actually believe in the theories and practices they use despite a lack of scientific basis. Some of this can be explained by confirmation bias where the professional focuses on information or accusations that support what the professional expects to find and ignores information that undermines their theories and assumptions. We see this kind of mistake frequently in domestic violence custody cases and the mental health professional is often unconscious that they are engaging in confirmation bias. In fact they are likely to become defensive and angry at the suggestion. The Department of Justice study demonstrates the harm of using professionals who are part of the cottage industry and the need for custody courts to screen court professionals to avoid relying on them. Even worse, courts often use these unqualified professionals to train other court professionals. This can only serve to spread misinformation which makes it harder for court officials to recognize the problems demonstrated by the Saunders’ study and other current scientific research.


The custody court system tends to look at each case and each issue or event in a case separately. This is based on a belief that just because a man slapped his wife on Monday does not mean he punched her on Friday. The court system uses stare decisis which means once a case or an issue has been decided the same parties cannot relitigate it. There are good reasons for these practices, but they work poorly in domestic violence cases because of the importance of context in understanding domestic violence. We often see cases where the court denies allegations of domestic violence and they may even have been right if there was insufficient evidence. Naturally the abuser continues his abusive behavior so more evidence becomes available, but many courts refuse to hear the new evidence or refuse to consider it in the context of the previous evidence because those issues were previously litigated. In doing this the court is denying itself the ability to recognize the pattern of the father’s abuse and protect the children. Domestic violence experts are confident that the custody court system is broken because we see the pattern of mistakes and harmful decisions, but the powers in the court system are offended at the criticism and cannot believe the problem because they refuse to look at the patterns.

The findings of the Department of Justice study, by itself, provides convincing documentation that the custody court system is getting a large majority of domestic violence custody cases wrong. It would be impossible for courts to get most cases right when most of the court professionals have inadequate domestic violence training, those with inadequate training tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, the courts are placing too much weight on mothers’ anger and emotion and the evaluators who earn additional money through appointment in custody cases are making decisions more harmful to children then those who do not have a financial incentive. This study was not made in a vacuum, but was produced in the context of a substantial and growing body of scientific research that establishes the custody courts are making bad decisions in contested custody cases that endanger children. The research also establishes that the standard practices used in the custody courts are deeply flawed and outdated.

I am hopeful that a study coming from the U. S. Department of Justice will be harder for the custody court system to ignore. They have a strong reputation and can only be considered neutral. Furthermore, the courts frequently seek grants and other funding from the Department of Justice. Protective mothers and their attorneys can cite this research and it should be harder for the courts to ignore. I can’t wait until it is published on the DOJ web site.


Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web sitewww.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com