Speaking of KS Case Managers - Dr. Milfred ‘Bud’ Dale – Submits Amicus To Appellate Court – Case Manager Bud Dale’s Report To Court and his Comments on Private List Serve About the ‘gravy train’ wagon. In His Own words…..

• Mother speaks on case management bill

• Fight for Daughter Could Change Law in Kansas

• Kansas Senate Bill 304

• Dr. Milfred 'Bud' Dale Amicus Brief - Karen Williams- Case Managers Kansas

 

Dr. Dale Case Manager Report to Court in the Claudine Dombrowski Case;

“..forcing a battered mother to not complain about sexual and physical abuse - it’s confrontational, and if mommy wants to see child again.. then mommy will do as told.”

2002 april 2 dr. dale evaluation forensic ordered by court to get mom out of SV from Dec. 2000 ex-parte order

In Bud Dale’s OWN WORDS Courtesy of TheLizLibrary Psychology in Family Court

Case Managers; CUSTODY EVALUATORS
AND  PARENTING COORDINATORS
IN THEIR OWN WORDS

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each ...

A Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

 Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale.

 

9. For example, the below commenting MHP — who has been a parenting coordinator (“case manager”)

on at least one case known to the author in which a severely battered woman lost custody of her daughter to the abusive father,and who regularly performs custody evaluations as well — appears oblivious to the impact of MHP fees (which typically are divided equally between the parents) on a parent with substantially lower income than the other:

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “If you want the parents to cooperate, why not add a provision that they must go back to mediation or to a parent coordinator if they cannot come to an agreement. As long as the mediator or parent coordinator changes a reasonable fee, the financial incentives for the parents to cooperate is maintained (assuming each wants to avoid paying a mediator or parent coordinator) and there is a solution for persistent disagreements that is fair…” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, October 24, 2005).

More examples:

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…issues of child support are totally separate from custody and parenting time determinations. Yet in one case… the attorney continually referenced the fact that I was ‘failing to consider and give weight’ to the fact that the father was $20,000 behind in child support… Fortunately, my appointment letter addressed that my role was separate from the financial issues… Indeed, I had not failed to give weight to the financial issues. I had totally ignored and disregarded them all along – because that’s what I was required to do by law. Some attorneys will attempt to backdoor this issue; that is, they will claim that the child support arrearage represents a character flaw or defect – which might or might not be true. By the way, researching the literature about how fathers get so behind in child support yields some interesting claims on both sides of the issue.”(Kansas doctorate-level MHP, February 12, 2006).

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…issues of child support are totally separate from custody and parenting time determinations. Yet in one case… the attorney continually referenced the fact that I was ‘failing to consider and give weight’ to the fact that the father was $20,000 behind in child support… Fortunately, my appointment letter addressed that my role was separate from the financial issues… Indeed, I had not failed to give weight to the financial issues. I had totally ignored and disregarded them all along – because that’s what I was required to do by law. Some attorneys will attempt to backdoor this issue; that is, they will claim that the child support arrearage represents a character flaw or defect – which might or might not be true. By the way, researching the literature about how fathers get so behind in child support yields some interesting claims on both sides of the issue.”(Kansas doctorate-level MHP, February 12, 2006).

72.The reason for this has been decades of MHP lobbying and propagandizing to the legislatures and legal community.

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE CALL TO ARMS]: “There is a new bill in the California state legislature which will be of some interest and concern to all of us who do custody evaluations, especially California psychologists. The bill prohibits the use of psychological testing in custody evaluations unless the court grants “a motion for a mental or psychological examination of a parent only for good cause shown…” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “…The legislator is sponsoring this bill on behalf of women’s rights groups, who think that parental alienation is diagnosed too frequently through the use of psychological testing…” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “This bill appears to prohibit considerably more than psych testing… “Controversial, nonscientific labels, such as parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation, or alienated child, are specifically excluded as allowable diagnoses and for court use.” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I am responding from a strategic and tactical point of view. In addition to being a forensic psychologist, doing CCE, I am also legislative chair of the Florida Psychological Association. In my experience…” (Florida doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I’ll go ahead and forward this to her if that’s ok with you.  the annual Legislative and Advocacy day is coming up mid-March, altho I’m guessing they’ve already selected the legislation they want psychologists to discuss with legislators… do you know how far along this bill is in the legislative process… I think CPA’s stand in general is to strongly oppose any bill that limits psychologists’ scope of practice…” (California doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “Perhaps a letter from those of us who write and teach about use of psychological tests in CCEs might be useful?…” (North Carolina doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I agree also and think a letter from professionals that know testing is a great idea.  It seems that if the legislature wants to “do something”  perhaps advocating for  required continuing education of so many hours in order to allow people to use the tests…” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, February 23, 2007).

115. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/index.html#myths-and-facts

116. As is usually recognized by the MHP, e.g. Pickar, supra, note 66b, but only when convenient or desired. Compare the following.

The first two commentators are uninterested in acknowledging past financial issues that have wreaked family havoc, and arguably bear on character as well as explain motives and feelings of the parties; the third is interested in supporting a father’s request to relocate, and so believes that it is within his province to gather and analyze data about prospective financial matters:

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “Tax returns?? Simple issues like one parent claimed 4 kids and there are only two, I can probably figure that out and that speaks to honesty and maybe tracking reality. But I agree that we should not be analyzing tax issues. If it is that complex I can’t think how that would be relevant to custody/parenting issues. If it is, both parent provide information and you hire a tax consultant to review it. I can’t imagine what could be relevant… I have a case right now where there are federal indictments on one parent to the tune of over 1/2 millions and all kinds of issues around money. Very little of it is relevant (except possible prison and honesty) and the other parent wants to make it all relevant. She brought me a notebook of financial records. That’s about her anger about the money – which is relevant to know how angry she is at dad and how that affects her children.”(Kansas doctorate-level MHP, November 23, 2005).

124. For an example of how background might influence the MHP’s investigation, perceptions and conclusions, see Lisa D. Cromer & Jennifer J. Freyd,What Influences Believing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures? The roles of depicted memory persistence, participant gender, trauma history, and sexism, 31 Psych. Women Q. 1 (2007). From the abstract: “Men believed abuse reports less than did women, and people who had not experienced trauma were less likely to believe trauma reports. Gender and personal history interacted such that trauma history did not impact women’s judgments but did impact men’s judgments. Men with a trauma history responded similarly to women with or without a trauma history. High sexism predicted lower judgments of an event being abusive. Hostile sexism was negatively correlated with believing abuse disclosures.” The study at the University of Oregon found that “young men who have never been traumatized are the least likely population to believe a person’s recounting of child sexual abuse.” (News release, Believing child sexual abuse claims, U. Or. Univ. News, February 13, 2007, at http://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=2.13.07-disbelievers.html)

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE PRECURSOR]: “I just haven’t noticed higher abilities in hypothesis testing among psychologists or other mental health professionals. I realize that you have to take a couple of courses in research and statistics to get a graduate degree (in most fields). It doesn’t seem to translate into skills in decision-making across the board. E.g. the recent thread on the Kansas custody evaluation and Virginia side trip. Some very off thinking and relevant point missing.
One might take arguments similar to that you have made and point out that psychologists just aren’t trained as investigators when it comes to obtaining information outside of psychological data (police officers are better.) And that lawyers are better trained at issue spotting and weighing information. And that judges have more experience decision-making.
I also point out that mental health training does not provide actual information and experience relevant to many of the issues that ought to be considered in a custody determination. For example, the financial aspects. For example, educational opportunities. For example, what it’s like to actually be a parent with day-in and day-out responsibility for children, how the home is run, the pragmatics of life. An unwed childless 28-year-old Ph.D. just out of school probably hasn’t a clue — and I for one see this lack influencing unworkable recommendations.
I also point out that skill in testing and coming up with psychological diagnoses does not qualify anyone ipso facto to translate that into parenting ability or even to understand with what kind of or which parent a child’s best interests is most likely to be fostered. There is very little translating dsm diagnoses into parenting abilities and child outcomes, especially when neither parent is perfect and foibles and personality defects have to be weighed…” (liz, May 2, 2005).

124. For an example of how background might influence the MHP’s investigation, perceptions and conclusions, see Lisa D. Cromer & Jennifer J. Freyd, What Influences Believing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures? The roles of depicted memory persistence, participant gender, trauma history, and sexism, 31 Psych. Women Q. 1 (2007). From the abstract: “Men believed abuse reports less than did women, and people who had not experienced trauma were less likely to believe trauma reports. Gender and personal history interacted such that trauma history did not impact women’s judgments but did impact men’s judgments. Men with a trauma history responded similarly to women with or without a trauma history. High sexism predicted lower judgments of an event being abusive. Hostile sexism was negatively correlated with believing abuse disclosures.” The study at the University of Oregon found that “young men who have never been traumatized are the least likely population to believe a person’s recounting of child sexual abuse.” (News release, Believing child sexual abuse claims, U. Or. Univ. News, February 13, 2007, athttp://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=2.13.07-disbelievers.html)

125. [ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE QUERY]: “My 8 year old son is complaining a lot about being bored in school, to the point it seems to be affecting his overall happiness… I experienced similar problems throughout elementary and high school.. Will talk with the school but am seeking ideas to help him cope…” (Doctorate-level MHP father, April 21, 2005).

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “While such “purity balls” are not something that I and my daughters (ages 14 and 12 next week) have ever or would ever participate in, I can indeed tell you that as a father I feel a desire to help protect my daughters from predators and even poor choices on their part.” (Idaho doctorate-level MHP father, April 19, 2006).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I asked my stepdaughter what stores my granddaughter likes… One of the stores she mentioned was Victoria’s Secret. Why would a high school junior want to buy anything in Victoria’s secret? Has it changed in terms of what it sells? I know they all like to dress like streetwalkers, but this is ridiculous.” (Minnesota masters-level MHP mother, February 28, 2005).
[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “School is important for kids… why not look and take the time to get good data from people who see them more than we do? And who see them sometimes more than their parents do. I’m going to stop now and call my son’s school. Seems there is an academic counselor… who is helping my son with sending emails to college soccer coaches. She’s helping my son and deserves my support… the students at school call this counselor, “Momma.” And I know why. Aren’t some kids just luckier than others?” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP father, May 10, 2005).

…When There Still Isn’t Enough Work, Doing Trainings for Everyone (especially those that push make-work ideas) and Reviewing Other MHPs

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I do CCEs and I function as a court-appointed “Case Manager” in Kansas. Kansas calls parent coordinators “Case Managers” to avoid confusion – lol. I have also twice attended AFCC sponsored training on parent coordination. The Colorado group (Christie Coates, Robert LaCrosse, And Betsy Duvall) did a 2 day training in St. Louis in November, 2003, and Joan Kelly did a 2 day training in Chicago in June 2004. Both of these training programs emphasize the “Divorce Impasse” Model that Janet Johnston put together. This is a model that I find helps in CCEs and parent coordination/case management. The second AFCC task force has just completed its task of developing model standards for parent coordinators (See AFCC website or request backchannel)…” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, May 16, 2005).

“Do a Bonding Assessment”

[ANONYMOUS LISTSERVE COMMENT]: “I do not know of a research based protocol for a ‘bonding assessment.’ It seems the folks that do them around here do an observation of touching, smiling, eye contact, warm interactions etc which are good and important and look at basic needs and are they met. I was wondering if there are protocols that are considered ‘standard of care’ and or are reseach based.” (Kansas doctorate-level MHP, January 14, 2007.)

For more about the GREAT Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale please visit the following links.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html

http://washburnlaw.edu/news/2009/2009-03cflc-horizons.php

Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final Technical Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

Entire article follows below the excerpts or read here

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

High rates of domestic violence exist in families referred for child custody evaluations. These evaluations can produce potentially harmful outcomes, including the custody of children being awarded to a violent parent, unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation between violent parents and their children, and mediation sessions that increase danger to domestic violence victims. Past research shows that domestic violence is frequently undetected in custody cases or ignored as a significant factor in custody-visitation determinations. Previous research also indicates that violence—and its harmful effects on victims and children—often continues or increases after separation.

Today the family law arena is increasingly identified as needing reform to protect battered women and their children (Goodmark, 2011). Research has documented the ongoing and sometimes escalating dangers faced by victims and their children after they leave violent relationships. Homicidal threats, stalking, and harassment affect as many as 25 to 35 percent of survivors who have left a violent relationship (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Hardesty & Chung, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes,2000a). In addition, as many as one fourth of battered women report their ex-partners threatened to hurt or kidnap their children (e.g., Liss & Stahly, 1993). Many abusers also use the legal system to maintain contact with and harass their ex-partners (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).

Domestic abuse survivors and their children may experience serious harm as a result of family court decisions. Offenders may be able to continue their abuse of their ex-partners and children due to unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation arrangements (Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Radford & Hester, 2006); sole or joint custody of children may be awarded to a violent or potentially violent parent rather than a non-violent one; and mediation may be recommended or mandated in a way that compromises victims’ rights or places them in more danger. Tragically, in some cases post-separation contacts end in the homicide of a mother and/or her children.(Saunders, 2009; Sheeran & Hampton, 1999). Ironically, battered mothers’ attempts to protect their children may be used against them in custody and visitation decisions.

One widely cited educational booklet from the American Judges Association states that, “studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases” (American Judges Association, n.d., p. 5)

Gender Bias in the Courts

Battered women are at higher risk of negative custody-visitation outcomes due to gender bias by courts, as documented by many federal, state, and local commissions that have studied such bias since the 1980s (e.g., Abrams & Greaney, 1989; Czapanskiy, 1993; Danforth & Welling, 1996; Dragiewicz, 2010; Meier, 2003; Zorza, 1996)4. Negative stereotypes about women seem to encourage judges to disbelieve women’s allegations about child abuse (Danforth & Welling, 1996; Zorza, 1996). A lack of understanding about domestic violence also leads judges to accuse victims of lying, blaming victims for the violence, and trivializing the violence (Abrams & Greaney, 1989;Maryland Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias, 1989).

Gender bias is frequently uncovered in custody disputes (Rosen & Etlin, 1996) and often leads to mistrust of women—in particular to the belief that they make false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence. Dragiewicz (2010) provides a comprehensive summary of gender bias reports pertaining to custody decisions. In addition to the tendency to disbelieve or minimize women’s reports of abuse, or to disregard evidence for it, Dragiewicz also describes other problems uncovered during investigations. These include mothers being punished for reporting abuse.

Half of men who batter also physically abuse their children (Straus, 1983.

Beliefs About False Allegations of Domestic Violence in Relation to Other Beliefs and Recommendations

Among evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence are usually false was part of a constellation of beliefs, including beliefs that false allegations of child abuse and parental alienation by DV survivors are common. DV educators need to provide accurate information on: the rates and nature of false allegations and alienation; the ways in which survivors are reluctant to co-parent out of fear of future harm; the mental health consequences of DV; and the importance of understanding coercive-controlling forms of violence. In addition, the significant relationships between beliefs about custody and broader beliefs about patriarchal norms, justice, and social dominance suggest links to deeper values. Professional educators can use value awareness exercises that may help change beliefs and behavior. These recommendations apply to judges as well, since their beliefs about DV and custody were significantly related to the outcomes recommended in the case vignette.

Friendly Parent Statutes

The friendly-parent standard works against survivors because any concerns they voice about father-child contact or safety for themselves are usually interpreted as a lack of cooperation (Zorza, 1996).

Survivors are therefore placed in a no-win situation: If they do not report abuse, then protections for them and solid grounds for custody are not available; yet reporting the abuse may be viewed as raising false allegations in order to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (Dore, 2004). Research shows that parents who raise concerns about child sexual abuse can be severely sanctioned for doing so (Faller & DeVoe, 1995). The sanctions include loss of custody to the alleged offender, restricted visitation, and court orders not to report further abuse or take the child to a therapist (Faller & DeVoe, 1995; Neustein & Goetting, 1999; Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Voices of Women, 2008). In practice, friendly-parent provisions, together with statutes presuming joint custody, tend to override presumptions against awarding joint legal custody with the abuser (Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005).

Further compounding victims’ experiences are contradictory messages from criminal courts, family courts, child protection investigations, and visitation services (Hester, 2009). For example, criminal courts support victims’ testimony about the abuse, but in family court the same testimony might be interpreted as non-cooperation. To overcome these inconsistencies some states have introduced integrated DV courts (Aldrich & Kluger, 2010).

Labeling Survivors as “Alienating Parents”

Similar to the emphasis on cooperative parenting, use of the label “parent-alienation syndrome” (Gardner, 1998) or, more recently, “parental-alienation disorder” (Bernet, 2008; Bernet, von Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010) can also place battered women in a no-win situation.

Battered mothers are vulnerable to these labels when they make formal child abuse allegations or raise concerns about the possible abuse of the children by an ex-partner. Many child abuse professionals believe that mothers coach their children to make false allegations in contested custody disputes (Faller, 2007).

Practitioners who apply parent-alienation syndrome (PAS) or parent-alienation disorder formulations tend to automatically label a parent as an “alienator” without a thorough investigation of the allegations (Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2000; Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2001; Meier, 2009). As a result, battered mothers may be viewed as both pathological and abusive.

Fathers’ Rights Groups

The influence of fathers’ rights groups on evaluators and judges is unclear outside of anecdotal accounts (Kurth, 2010). Some types of groups lobby for the presumption of joint custody and co-parenting and doubt the validity of most domestic violence allegations(Dragiewicz, 2008;Williams, Boggess, & Carter, 2004). For example, the National Fathers’ Resource Center (NFRC), along with Fathers for Equal Rights, “demands that society acknowledge that false claims of Domestic Violence are used to gain unfair advantages in custody and divorce cases” (NFRC, 2006). They further state:

Fathers’ organizations now estimate that up to 80% of domestic violence allegations against men are false allegations. Since society offers women so many perks for claiming that they are victims of DV (we call these perks “warm milk and cookies”), false or staged DV allegations now appear to be even more frequent in family court cases than false sex abuse allegations. . . . Simply stated, women know, and are often advised by their attorneys, that if they want to get custody of the children, they had better try to nail dad with some sort of domestic violence accusation (NFRC, 2006).

Underlying the patriarchal beliefs and victim blaming are likely to be deeper, “core” beliefs (i.e. general, value-laden beliefs) about justice and equality. For example, the belief that the world is basically a just place has been related to various forms of victim blaming or denigration. It asserts that good things can happen only to good people and bad things can happen only to bad people (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). Likewise, holding a basic belief that hierarchies are an inherent part of society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and having inequality as a core value (Ball-Rokeach, 1976) are related to beliefs supporting gender inequality. 

In 2007, ten mothers and a victimized child (now an adult) and national and state organizations filed suit against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They claimed that the human rights of abused mothers and children were not protected because custody was awarded to abusers and child molesters (Klein, 2007).

 

 

Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final