Abused Swan

Missing Kids, Mother Have Crossed into Mexico

2012-03-10T12:11:00.003-05:00

Updated: Friday, 24 Feb 2012, 7:18 PM MST
Published : Friday, 24 Feb 2012, 7:18 PM MST

SALT LAKE CITY - The FBI has confirmed that three Idaho children, taken last week by their non-custodial mother, have crossed into Mexico.
The investigation indicates 35-year-old Bertha Guerrero and her three kids left the U.S. as early as Sunday evening.
A witness says the three children, ages 9, 7, and 5, appeared unharmed and with their mother.
They crossed the border in a gray, 4-door Pontiac 6000, Nevada license plate 389XPR.
The children were living in foster care in Caldwell, Idaho and were taken by their non-custodial mother over the weekend. Guerrero apparently drove through Nevada and Arizona into Mexico.
The investigation is ongoing. A state arrest warrant was issued in Idaho that allows for nationwide extradition.

Neglect Hotline

2012-03-10T11:44:00.001-05:00

Be aware! If someone reports you to Child Protective Service, you will be put on the central registery. Inorder to get off the list you will have to hire an attorney to get off the list. They will not inform you that you are on the list either.

March 6, 2012

----

LANSING — A new call-in system for reporting abuse and neglect made its debut Monday in Michigan, another step toward compliance with a court-ordered mandate for the state to improve conditions for children needing protective services.

The new system establishes a single phone number statewide for reporting abuse or neglect related to children and adults. The number is staffed around-the-clock, including weekends and holidays. Decisions on whether to investigate a child abuse case are expected to be made on the spot, no matter what time of day or night, before being directly referred to county-level child protective services staff.

The statewide complaint intake system is based in Kent County, where a six-county pilot program testing the system has run since September. The statewide system replaces one where calls were made to individual Department of Human Services county-level offices, which sometimes led to inconsistent results.

"The virtue of having a statewide, centralized intake is that you have consistency in the standards that the state is applying on the law of abuse and neglect," said Maura Corrigan, director of the Michigan Department of Human Services. "You don't get local variations in standards."

The new, toll-free phone number will be available to both the general public and those mandated by law to report suspected child abuse and neglect such as teachers and doctors.

The centralized system is likely to increase the number of child abuse complaints lodged with the state.

Corrigan, a former Supreme Court justice, has made complying with terms of a settlement related to child protective services and foster care a high priority since becoming the Department of Human Services director in early 2011. A whiteboard hanging in the DHS office notes several of the settlement goals and the agency's progress toward meeting them.

The central call-in system goal will be met nearly two months ahead of the required compliance schedule.

A New York-based group called Children's Rights sued in 2006 to force the state to make improvements in foster care and child protective services. A settlement agreement was reached in 2008, and modified last year to give the state some more flexibility in meeting requirements.

Michigan has hired hundreds of new workers to reduce caseloads in foster care and protective services. Ninety-five percent of foster care workers are required to have no more than 15 cases each by October 2013. Neglect workers shall have no more than 12 open investigations by the end of 2013.

There also are strict deadlines for medical assessments for each child. Michigan also is trying to recruit more foster parents.

The phone number for reporting abuse and neglect is 1-855-444-3911.

Grandparent visit rights backed under Ga. bill

2012-03-10T11:36:00.001-05:00

ATLANTA (WTW) — The right of grandparents to visit their grandchildren caught up in custody or divorce cases would be strengthened under a bill passed by Georgia lawmakers.
House lawmakers voted 154-0 on Wednesday to pass the bill sponsored by Republican Rep. John Meadows of Calhoun.
The bill seeks to increase the visitation rights of grandparents whose grandchildren are involved in cases involving child custody, divorce or the termination of parental rights. It would encourage judges to allow children to visit their grandparents when that grandparent has financially supported the child for a year or regularly visited with the child.
The bill would allow judges to rule that the child's interests would be harmed without some "minimal" contact with their grandparents. Those visits would total at least 24 hours in a month.

Juror Compensation Reimbursement Fund

2012-01-03T15:42:00.000-05:00

By Lynn Monson
Legal News

The state’s Juror Compensation Reimbursement Fund has once again come to the rescue in providing money for trial court operations around the state.

Gov. Rick Snyder on Nov. 30 signed legislation transferring $2.6 million from the juror fund to the state’s Court Equity Fund. It is the fourth time in the last seven years that the state has used the juror fund to pad the Court Equity Fund, which provides money to trial courts in all of Michigan’s 83 counties. The previous transfers were $4 million in 2005; $2.25 million in 2008; and $1.4 million in 2010.

The Juror Reimbursement Fund was established in 2003 so the state could pay back counties for an increase in the statutory minimum compensation for jurors. It has reimbursed counties a total of $14.7 million since 2007. The fund gets its revenues from fees citizens pay when clearing their driver’s licenses and when demanding jury trials.

"Since its inception, revenue to the fund has consistently outpaced payouts," Snyder’s office said in a press release announcing that he had signed Senate Bill 759, now Public Act 234 of 2011,
Keeping funds flowing into the Court Equity Fund is important for counties and their trial courts around the state. They received a total of about $54 million from the fund for fiscal year 2011, according to the State Court Administrative Office.

The Court Equity Fund, established in 1996, disburses money quarterly to county governments based on a formula that includes the caseload of the circuit and probate courts, along with the number of judgeships in each county. The caseload part of the formula looks at the new cases filed for the most recent three years in the circuit and probate courts in each county and compares that to the total filings for the state over the same time period.

Money for the Court Equity Fund comes from the state general fund and several sources of restricted revenue from local trial court fees and assessments. A formula determines what percentage of various fee collections go directly to the Court Equity Fund and what percentage goes to what’s called the State Court Fund. Another formula for the State Court Fund determines how much it forwards to the Court Equity Fund.

Here’s a breakdown of the sources for the $54 million that the Court Equity Fund distributed to counties for fiscal 2011:

• $11.4 million from the Justice System Fund, which collects money from trial courts for civil infractions, misdemeanors and felonies.

• $3.1 million from the Civil Filing Fee Fund, which, as its name says, gets money from the trial courts’ civil filing fees.

• $2.2 million from Court Fee Fund, which captures money available from the Judges’ Retirement System.

• $24.3 million from the State Court Fund, which is the catch-all collection of funds from the other above-mentioned funds.

• $10.4 million from the State General Fund.

• $2.6 million from the just-approved transfer of Juror Reimbursement Compensation Fund monies.

This total Court Equity Fund payout of $54 million to the 83 counties for fiscal year 2011 is expected to drop to about $50 million for 2012, according to projections from the State Court Admini-
strative Office.

That decline is part of a longer trend in recent years. In 2006, the state distributed $65 million to the counties from the Court Equity Fund and it has dropped in each of the successive years.
As an example of what it means to the counties, in 2011 those receiving the top payouts around the state were Wayne County, $16.4 million; Oakland County, $5.4 million; Macomb County, $3.8 million; Kent County, $3.1 million; and Genesee County, $2.2 million. Under the state court projections for 2012, all county amounts would drop proportionally, with Wayne County, for example, dropping to $14.7 million for 2012.

The state’s decision to again tap the surplus in the Juror Compensation Reimbursement Fund, this time for $2.6 million, fits with a trend of less demand for the juror funds in recent years.

In 2007, the state paid the various court funding units around the state about $3.6 million, according to State Court Administrative Office figures. By fiscal year 2010, it was down to $3 million.
The the top three counties receiving juror compensation reimbursement from the state in 2010 were Wayne County, $867,000; Oakland County, $314,357; and Macomb County, $220,000.

http://www.legalnews.com/grandrapids/1138105

Commission Will Explore Improving Legal Representation For Indigent

2011-12-08T16:04:00.000-05:00

November 16, 2011

by Cynthia Price

Legal News

Michigan Executive Order 2011-12 states it well: “[A] primary interest of the state of Michigan is ensuring that criminal defendants receive effective representation and are accorded due process in every criminal prosecution, and that every court in Michigan serves as the state's backbone for a safe, secure, and just society.”

Citing the Michigan and the United States Constitutions, Governor Rick Snyder established the Indigent Defense Advisory Commission in that order (available online at www.michigan.gov/snyder). He charged the commission with recommending improvements to the system by which indigent criminal defendants are appointed legal representation.

Criticisms of Michigan’s system for providing representation to the poor at the trial level have abounded at least since the 1970s, when the Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kavanagh appointed a committee through the State Bar of Michigan (SBM) to study the problem. More recently, concerns were brought into focus by a 2008 report by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) called A Race to the Bottom — Speed & Savings Over Due Process: A Constitutional Crisis.

Deanna Kloostra, from Abused Swan.com, a web site for non-custodial mothers ask, “What about our family court system? Parents are fed up with the way the 17^th Circuit Court is run. Judges are not applying the law and parents are showing proof of tampering of documents, corruptions, and the judges using hearsay as evidence in cases.” In 2009 Deanna filed an impeachment request with Andy Dillon, former House Speaker, against Judge Patricia Gardner. Most parents do not know that in 1963 the Michigan Constitution was changed because of the corruption in Michigan was so bad. One of those changes was the ability to impeach politicians. Deanna was the first person since 1963 to file an impeachment. Andy Dillon denied Deanna’s motion so she filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals. She used the Deling v Lotus (Doc No 295272) case where Judge Gardner failed to apply the law when she changed custody from the mother to the father. The Appeals court did not receive transcripts from the lower courts where Judge Gardner gave Deanna supervised visitations. The transcripts would prove Gardner had no clear and convincing evidence to order the visitations and has violated the law. Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Elizabeth Gleicher was a judge on the Deling case and Deanna’s case. In 2008 Judge Gardner removed herself from Deanna’s case when she started her website claiming she was being harassed by Deanna. The last time Deanna seen or spoken to her children was a week before Christmas 2008.

The report, A Race to the Bottom — Speed & Savings Over Due Process: A Constitutional Crisis, was engendered by a resolution of the Michigan Legislature. A lot of media attention was paid to one of its conclusions: that Michigan ranked 44th out of 50 states in the amount of money spent, per capita, on indigent criminal defense. However, the report was in fact much more complex and detailed in its analysis of a system in crisis.

A Race to the Bottom was clear and direct in its assessment, finding (and stating in its opening sentence) that “the state of Michigan fails to provide competent representation to those who cannot afford counsel in its criminal courts.” Some of the flaws NLADA found were: “judges hand-picking defense attorneys; lawyers appointed to cases for which they are unqualified; defenders meeting clients on the eve of trial and holding non-confidential discussions in public courtroom corridors; attorneys failing to identify obvious conflicts of interest; failure of defenders to properly prepare for trials or sentencings; attorneys violating their ethical canons to zealously advocate for clients; inadequate compensation for those appointed to defend the accused; and, a lack of sufficient time, training, investigators, experts and resources to properly prepare a case in the face of a state court system that values the speed with which cases are disposed of over the needs of clients for competent representation.”

Deanna states, “The family attorneys do the same thing as the criminal court attorneys do and mothers are losing custody because they cannot afford counsel. Parents are filing reports with the Judicial Tenure Commission and nothing happens.” Deanna receives calls from mothers who are in the Kent County court system and educates them on what is happening in the system.

Though it is premature to predict what the commission will determine is the crux of the matter, members will certainly explore the aspect of the system which A Race to the Bottom found most significant: in Michigan, running the system is left to the counties.

Deanna has gone to the Kent County Commissioners, Attorney General, House of Representatives, and Congress members and no one has helped her in her case. In 2012 Deanna plans on running for Kent County Commissioner. Running the system is left to the counties and Deanna plans on making changes in the 17^th Circuit Court.

Gov. Snyder’s press release said that there is a need for the commission “because the quality of legal representation provided to defendants who are unable to pay for their own legal defense varies greatly across the state.”

This too has been an acknowledged point for decades. In 1986, Chief Justice (and former governor) G. Mennen Williams observed, “This system remains to be fully implemented, and it only can be fully implemented through state financing.”

A Race to the Bottom studied ten Michigan counties — Alpena, Bay, Chippewa, Grand Traverse, Jackson, Marquette, Oakland, Ottawa, Shiawassee and Wayne — based on recommendations by a Michigan advisory board convened for that purpose. Tracing the history of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel back to Powell v. Alabama in 1932, the report emphasizes that Gideon v. Wainwright specifically gives responsibility for ensuring that right to the states.

The report concludes, “Though some may argue that it is within the law for state government to pass along its constitutional obligations to its counties, it is also the case that the failure of the counties to meet constitutional muster regarding the right to counsel does not absolve state government of its original responsibility to assure its proper provision.”
NLADA Research Director David Carroll, a principal author of A Race to the Bottom, immediately congratulated the state on appointing the commission. “Governor Snyder’s leadership is greatly appreciated. His action in creating the Indigent Defense Advisory Commission is a critical first step in resolving Michigan’s longstanding, chronic structural right to counsel deficiencies,” he said, adding, “Although a state may delegate obligations imposed by the Constitution...the state has an obligation to ensure that its counties are capable of meeting the obligations and that counties actually do so.”

Deanna states that it is cost her clients between $20,000 to $30,000 to get divorced and the case continues for years. Attorneys know the financial abilities of the families seeking a divorce and they sure do make sure they get their fair share. Deanna wonders why attorneys are not regulated more and have stricter standards. Parents are losing everything because they cannot get justice in the system. Abusive fathers are gaining custody of the children and the mothers are being removed from the children’s life. Deanna know that fathers have been going through this unfair system for years, but in the end it is the children who are the ones who lose the most.

The governor appointed former Judge James Fisher, who presided in Barry County Circuit Court for 16 years, to chair the commission. Fisher is now Of Counsel to Grand Rapids law firm Law Weathers.

Wanting to allow all voices on the commission to be heard before hazarding a guess about the direction the commission will take, Fisher says cautiously, “Obviously, one of the big issues is going to be the question: will we maintain a county-based system with, perhaps, state standards, or are we going to recommend that we go to a state-run system? That’s a basic issue. There will probably be rather strongly held opinions one way or the other.”

The State Appellate Defenders Office does offer a model for Michigan-wide indigent representation. It establishes performance standards for appointed appeals attorneys, in addition to taking on “at least 25 percent” of indigent appellate cases, dependent on funding levels, before distributing the remainder to private attorneys registered through the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System.

Deanna states, “I have been to West Michigan Legal Aid and Cooley Laws Access to Justice for help and been turned down.” Deanna’s current judge Daniel Zemaitis is an instructor at Cooley Law and Judge Gardner donated money to get the Access to Justice program up and running. Deanna stated, “You cannot have a student go over my file and see the corruption of these two judges and then expect them to represent me in court.” Opposing counsel in Deanna’s case is Mary Benedict, remember the Ryan v Ryan’s case in 2008. The Guardian Ad Litem in Deanna’s case is Donna Mobilia, the same GAL in the Deling case.

Recommendations from the commission are due July 15, 2012, but Fisher says he hopes to have, at a minimum the raw materials for the report back completed by the end of May.

The commission meetings are open to the public and a schedule has already been set through March 2012. Fisher says that each will take place at 9 a.m. at the State Bar of Michigan offices in Lansing on a series of Fridays: Dec. 2 and 16, Jan. 20, Feb. 17 and March 23.

Also a former prosecuting attorney in Barry County, Fisher has a degree in engineering from the General Motors Institute as well as a law degree from Wayne State University. Why is he willing, after retiring from a distinguished career, to expend so much time and effort on this commission? “I really care about our court system and our judiciary and our justice system,” Fisher says, “and I know this is a very thorny issue that’s been around for years. I think it’s a daunting challenge in this economic environment to come up with suggestions that might improve the way we provide attorneys to indigent criminal defendants, so I agreed to take it on.”

Fisher cannot say enough about how supportive Law Weathers is in both this endeavor and additional consulting that he will be doing to help courts develop concurrent jurisdiction plans, along with the Hon. Alton Davis. Fisher is well-known for having established a unified trial court in Barry County, and such concurrent jurisdiction plans are the key to helping other Michigan trial courts who are interested in a unified court system — one of the recommendations of the Judicial Crossroads Task Force.

Fisher says the Indigent Defense Advisory Commission saw its first job as quantifying what is actually happening at the trial court level, so he has just completed sending out a survey to all of the courts in Michigan. “To the best of my knowledge, there’s never been a survey of the entire state to find out exactly what every trial court is doing in terms of an indigent defense delivery system, so we’re trying to get the baseline information.”

“For the last several years I have wanted to have a survey for the parents in the 17^th Circuit Court and plan on implementing this when I become a Kent County Commissioner,” Deanna says.

The commission will hear from stakeholders including the SBM, and look at how other states run their systems, before determining what issues loom largest and then developing recommendations on those issues.

Fisher hopes that commission decisions can be made by consensus, but says he does not yet have a clear idea of whether that is “overly idealistic,” since the commission has only held its first meeting Oct. 18. “I’m impressed by the caliber of the people the governor has appointed, by their apparent dedication to this issue,” Fisher says.

The remaining 13 members of the commission include four lawmakers appointed by legislative leaders, and 10 governor-appointed members representing the judiciary, prosecuting attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, SBM, local governments, and the general public.

Establishment of the commission has met with widespread approval. Kary Moss, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which has also released a report on the issue, called it “a step forward in addressing a serious constitutional problem.” And SBM President Julie Fershtmann comments, “This Commission is a significant step forward in guaranteeing that Michigan has a criminal justice system that works for all and upholds core Constitutional rights for Michigan’s citizens.”

Deanna says, “What about family court and our children!” It is no secret that New York was trying to take over Child Protective Services in Michigan. Parents are fighting for their children and the elected officials are ignoring them and not moving fast enough. Parents want justice and want the corrupt judges, attorneys, and CPS workers to pay for what they have done to their children. Deanna will be joining Best Interest of The Child Summit on February 11, 2012 www.bestinterestsummit.com and hopes that the Governor and his commission will be attending.

You can contact Deanna Kloostra at

616-325-0444

deannakloostra@yahoo.com

Court rejects courtroom commandments case

2011-10-03T11:34:00.000-05:00

U.S. News

Published: Oct. 3, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Struggling Economy Complicates Divorce and Child Custody Cases says Survey

2011-10-03T11:03:00.000-05:00

Housing Debt and Relocation Needs are Growing Obstacles According to Nation's Top Matrimonial Lawyers

By American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML)

Published: Monday, Sep. 26, 2011 - 8:47 am

CHICAGO, Sept. 26, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ -- The weak U.S. economy is creating difficulties for couples seeking a divorce and parents trying to abide by child custody arrangements. An overwhelming 85% of respondents to the latest survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers have cited an increase in divorce settlement complications over housing debt during the past three years. In addition, 53% of members are also noting an increase in child custody cases involving relocation requests being filed by parents who are finding it necessary to move.

"Resolving divorce and child custody issues is never easy, but the current economic climate has certainly added more complications to the process," said Linda Lea Viken, president of the AAML. "The effects of a couple's housing debt are presenting greater obstacles for attorneys, as well as the increasing number of parents who are facing the reality of a need to move. We are seeing a notable rise in child custody relocation requests being filed with the courts. The traditional reasons for these petitions have either been the pursuit of employment opportunities or to be with a new partner."

Overall, 85% of AAML members reported an increase in divorce settlement complications over housing debt during the past three years, while only 14% found no change. In addition, more than half of respondents at 53% noted an increase in child custody cases involving relocation requests during the same time period. Interestingly enough, only 21% of the attorneys have seen an increase in child custody relocation requests actually being granted by the courts, while 66% have said there has been no change in the number of approvals over the past three years.

About AAML

Founded in 1962, the mission of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) is to provide leadership that promotes the highest degree of professionalism and excellence in the practice of family law.

Comprised of the top 1,600 matrimonial attorneys throughout the nation, members are recognized experts in the specialized areas of matrimonial law, including divorce, prenuptial agreements, legal separation, annulment, custody, property valuation and division, support, and the rights of unmarried couples.

SOURCE American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML)

Divorce: A pocketbook issue for women

2011-09-24T10:10:00.000-05:00

By Cindy Weiss, CLAS Today

Kenneth Couch

From supermarket tabloids to the New York Times, the financial costs of divorcing are widely publicized with every celebrity split-up. Now a scholarly study has documented divorce's significant impact on women's economic security.

Kenneth A. Couch, professor of economics who studies the economic effects of unexpected lifecycle events, has presented the results of an unusually long-term study, covering 40 years in the lifespan of more than 2,000 women, showing that "family structure matters a lot" for their economic well-being.

In short, marriage has such a significant economic benefit for women that even divorcees who develop their own careers can't match it.

The study, developed in a collaboration with the Social Security Administration, analyzes the economic impact on about 600 women from the time of their divorces in the 1970s, when divorce in the U.S. was at its peak, into their retirement, as late as 2008.

It shows that economic pressure forced divorced women into the job market. This created large jumps in their own income at first, since many of them had reduced or given up their jobs while they were married, perhaps in anticipation of having children or because they were expected to expand their care-giving roles.

Seventy percent of divorced women in the U.S. remarry, however. When they do, their job status and personal income again drops, going back to what it would have been if they had been married all along.

The divorced women in the study who did not remarry maintained their careers and higher personal earnings to the end of their working years. "They really ramped up their work effort for the rest of their life," Couch says, giving them a larger individual Social Security benefit at retirement.

But at retirement, the households of the married women who had earned less money during their working lives collected more in Social Security benefits because of the extra boost from their spouse's benefit. Where divorced women who never remarried had an average monthly benefit of around $1,000, the figure more than doubled, to $2,231, for continuously married women who enjoyed the combined effect of their husband's benefit, too.

Divorced women who remarried had a similar advantage compared with those who did not: Their benefit, combined with their spouse's, came to more than $2,000 monthly.

In the long run, staying married, or remarrying after a divorce, translates into greater economic security for women.

"It seems like most people understand there are advantages to forming durable relationships and staying in them," Couch says.

Still, while divorce rates have fallen since the early 1980s, divorce "remains a high probability life cycle event" with a significant impact on women's earnings and Social Security benefits, according to the study.

Divorce and poverty

Recently released U.S. Census figures on divorce rates tend to confirm the economic advantage of marriage for women. In 2009, during the recession, women who divorced in the previous year were more likely to receive public assistance than men, and they reported lower household income. They were also more likely to be poor than recently divorced men.

Couch's study was presented at a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco "Conference on Unexpected Lifecycle Events and Economic Well-Being" that he helped organize last spring. The collected papers, edited by Couch and Mary C. Daly of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, will be published by Stanford University Press, with chapters on the economic impact of unexpected changes in family structure, health, and job loss.

The basic research can be used to inform government policy responses in areas such as unemployment benefits, or how divorce law addresses financial assets and child support, Couch says.

Couch is well known for studying what happens to people when the unexpected event of job loss occurs. When the recession hit, he was asked by the SSA to work with its staff, analyzing the impact of the job losses that have occurred during the current recession as well as the effect of changing family structure on the well-being of Americans. He has spent part of the past two years in Washington, DC working with the SSA.

His co-authors on the divorce study – "Impact of Divorce on Women's Earnings and Retirement over the Life Course," are Christopher R. Tamborini, an SSA research analyst; Gayle L. Reznik, an SSA economist; and John W.R. Phillips, a health scientist administrator at the National Institute of Aging.

Through 'Divorcee Sale', Fashionistas Snag Other Women's Pre-Divorce Designer Clothing at a Big Discount

2011-09-24T09:57:00.000-05:00

By ALBERTO ORSO

Sept. 23, 2011

Dolce and Gabbana. Prada. Ralph Lauren. New York City mother Michelle Lewis has a closet full of designer clothes. And she says now she needs to get rid of them all.

As stylish as the clothes may be, they are unwelcome reminders of her past marriage.

"When I wear them, I remember the time of when they were purchased for me. And since my life has evolved and moved on, it's just time to let that go," Lewis, who divorced and has subsequently remarried, said during an interview with"Good Morning America" in which she discussed her decision to purge her closet of many of the things her ex-husband bought for her.

What gets sent away and what stays in Lewis' closet is not always an easy decision. She has a real attachment to some of the garments.

One item in particular -- a little black dress -- was purchased for her by her then-husband in happier times, on a special trip to Las Vegas. "It's a little bit sexier than I would normally choose for myself," she said. "It's something I have a lot of great memories about, but something I don't see fitting in my current life."

That's where Jill Alexander comes in.

Alexander is the creator of The Divorcee Sale, a company she founded to help women clear their closets of the past -- all while making them a little money.

Women have turned to her because it's often hard for them to face how their lives have changed.

"You go to these women's homes and they have closets of Chanel bags that they no longer need, gowns they no longer need, fur coats that they no longer need. ... Life changes when you go through a divorce," Alexander said. "One consigner who was previously married and had 60 designer gowns ... well, her life has completely changed and she no longer needs the gowns and would rather get the money and buy things that she can wear for her new life."

Alexander organizes sales across the country. The latest sale in New York -- which runs today through Sept. 25 at the Mondrian Hotel -- offers luxury merchandise from several divorcees at prices well below retail. For example, a pair of Christian Louboutin shoes would normally cost $800; at the sale, they're offered for $425. Bags, dresses and beautiful jewelry are all similarly discounted.

Shoppers say the fashion finds are amazing.

In addition to giving women great fashion for less, the sale is special for another reason. Part of the proceeds from every sale is donated to various charities, including the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

"Women, the sisterhood, are coming together," said Myra Biblowit, the foundation's president. "We get through divorce, we get through breast cancer, and you go on to a healthy and beautiful life in glorious fashions."

Former DCF (DHS) Worker Charged In $1.3M Food Stamp SCam

2011-08-26T12:02:00.002-05:00

.By The Associated Press

A former state welfare worker has been charged in a $1.3 million scam for stealing personal information to get food stamps, which she traded for cash.

Meera Khan's indictment on Thursday culminates a two-year investigation. She faces numerous charges including grand theft and racketeering which she allegedly committed while working with the Department of Children and Families.

According to the indictment, Khan used welfare victims' personal information to obtain food stamps. She conspired with "unscrupulous businesses" to convert the food stamps to cash and collected insurance premiums and other fees for processing food stamp benefits.

Khan worked with DCF for nine years before resigning.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said residents "have a right to be frustrated and enraged" by public employees who enrich themselves in such a way.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/25/2374460/former-dcf-worker-charged-in-13.html#ixzz1W9gbN7Bj

Michigan DHS Audit Finds Millions In Questionable Purchases

2011-08-18T08:51:00.000-05:00

POSTED: Tuesday, August 16, 2011

LANSING, Mich. -- A lack of financial controls resulted in millions of dollars in questionable purchases by Michigan's welfare department, according to a state audit released Tuesday.

The audit of the Michigan Department of Human Services' automated accounting system found state workers used taxpayer money to buy the workers' cars for welfare clients and to buy hundreds of dollars worth of gift cards.

The audit also showed the same state employees in many cases created invoices, processed invoices and then approved the checks to pay the invoices.

The department also reimbursed state welfare employees for the purchase of personal computers and other electronic items without documenting the items were ever provided to state welfare clients, or in some cases, ever bought in the first place.

Copyright 2011 by ClickOnDetroit.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Child Support Court Sees More Non Custodial Women

2011-08-17T13:39:00.000-05:00

by Amanda Thomas/Times-Georgian Times Georgian

Single dads are not the only ones being labeled "deadbeats" these days when it comes to paying child support.

Carroll County's Child Support Problem Solving Court has seen a recent increase in non-custodial mothers entering the program.

"There has been a small increase of female participants in the Carroll County Problem Solving Court," said Ravae Graham, deputy director of legislative affairs and communications for the state Department of Human Services. "With that said, the selection process does not take gender into consideration. We just had more females accepted into the program out of that group of non-custodial parents."

As of July 7, there were five female participants compared with 35 male, according to Graham.

Even with a slight increase in female child support court, mothers still account for the majority of custodial parents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 report, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support." Mothers accounted for 82.6 percent of custodial parents while 17.4 percent were fathers, a proportion statistically unchanged since 1994.

Graham couldn't provide any concrete reasons why custodial fathers are less hesitant to pursue child support than mothers.

"The decision to pursue child support is very personal, and the emotions involved when the mother is the non-custodial parent can be complicated," she said.

While there is a substantial difference in the number of custodial mothers and fathers receiving child support, the statistics on who received full payments in 2007 were not. The proportion of custodial mothers who received full payments was 47.1 percent, compared to 45 percent for fathers.

Graham acknowledged that moms may have additional barriers in paying child support; however, she noted that these barriers are addressed through problem solving court for men and women.

Carroll County Superior Court Judge John Simpson noted that some women who end up in problem solving court had gotten involved with drugs, leaving family members to take care of their kids. Some of those families have to seek public support, such as food stamps.

"That is another thing child support recovery does," Simpson said. "It recovers funds from those parents that have to pay those items of public welfare out."

If the family is on welfare, child support obtained from non-custodial parents by the enforcement agency is used to reimburse the government for benefits paid to these families, according to information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

"The other thing that is occurring is women don't always get custody of the children - that was sort of a paternalistic view for many years in the court, that a young child absolutely belongs with the mother," Simpson said. "But we're taught as judges now - and rightly so - that it should be in the best interest of the children in whichever parent can do best, and sometimes the mother doesn't get the custody."

He also offered possible reasons for why more custodial fathers aren't seeking support.

"When we're talking about very poor fathers, they probably are reluctant to," Simpson said. "They sometimes don't know their rights and sometimes they may be reluctant to pursue them with an official authority."

He noted that some of them may have had problems with the law, making them hesitant to contact officials and pursue their rights as a custodial parent. He reiterated that once someone seeks public assistance in raising a child, the government gets involved in pursuing funds from non-custodial parents.

"If they get notice from these agencies that TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds have been paid out in benefit of the child, they'll go after either parent - man or woman," Simpson said.

Simpson hasn't discerned a clear pattern as to whether mothers have a harder time paying child support than fathers.

"I think that the people we have in child support court - men and women - are a part of the poorest people in our society," he said. "Within our child support court, most of our people don't have a high school diploma and so I would say you would probably just move over to the general issue of the economy."

He pointed out that those who don't have a good education are having the most trouble finding work.

"Transportation is a big problem across the board for men and women," Simpson said.

As far as addressing these issues, problem solving court is offering solutions.

"We are requiring everybody to get their GED if they don't have a high school diploma, and we're trying to get everybody that we can into the technical college working on a skill, learning to be welder or to drive a truck," Simpson said. "We want them to feel like there's two economies out there. One is secondary and its more like day-to-day labor [that provides] no job security, the person is subject to being laid off at any time... then there's the primary labor market where they have more security and they have a skill and they can get some benefits."

Problem solving courts aims to help non-custodial parents pay child support consistently and continually.

"We want them... to be able to pay it a year from now and to really change their life and to stop this intergenerational problem that we have," Simpson said. "Many of our people, their children don't get child support and, unfortunately, these children are apt to have children at a very young age, many times outside of marriage, so the pattern repeats."

Read more: Times-Georgian - Child support court sees more non custodial women

Michigan Report Calls For Eliminations of 49 Judges

2011-08-17T13:34:00.000-05:00

Published: Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 12:22 PM Updated: Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 1:45 PM

By Brandon Howell
MLive.com MLive.com

View full sizeMichigan State Court Administrative Office, 2011 Judicial Resources ReportFifty-five of Michigan's 83 counties would have fewer trial court judges under a recommended cut from the Michigan State Court Administrative Office.

LANSING -- The Michigan State Court Administrative Office presented a report Wednesday calling for the elimination of 45 trial court judgeships across the state -- a reduction of nearly 8 percent of the state's 584 trial judges.

The report also recommends eliminating four judgeships on the state's court of appeals, including two spots that already are vacant.

The office's Judicial Resources Recommendations, a study conducted every two years, found that there are 14 too many judges in Michigan. The proposed changes are based on caseload statistics gathered by the office suggesting the present workload no longer justifies so many judges.

The report also identified growing areas in Michigan and found that 31 judges are needed elsewhere.

"Simply put, we have a lot of judges in the wrong places," Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. said. "Too many in some areas of the state and too few in others."

Young delivered the report's results along with Michigan State Court Administrator Chad Schmucker at a press conference Wednesday.

The report was also delivered to Gov. Rick Snyder and the Legislature Wednesday. It needs to be approved and adopted before the recommendations become law.

Despite the needs in other jurisdictions, the State Court Administrative Office calls for no new judges.

"We'll look at that again in two years when Michigan's economy improves," Schmucker said.

The Judicial Resources Recommendations called for the elimination of one judge in 43 of Michigan's counties, including Ingham, Kalamazoo and Genesee counties.

Angela Wittrock
MLive.comMichigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Young, Jr. (left) presents a report along with Michigan State Court Administrator Chad Schmucker (right) at a press conference Wednesday at the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing.

Ten counties, including Bay and Midland counties, are recommended to lose two judges and only two -- Oakland and Wayne counties -- are suggested to eliminate between four and six.

Michigan's 28 remaining counties -- including Jackson, Kent, Muskegon and Washtenaw counties -- were recommended no judgeship contractions in the report.

Suggested eliminations would save the state an average of $157,500 per judge in salary and benefits, Schmucker said.

Local governments -- particularly counties -- would also enjoy savings produced from eliminated benefits, as well as personnel some judges are afforded, such as secretaries and bailiffs.

"There should be significant savings to the local funding units as these judgeships are eliminated," Schmucker said.

The Judicial Resources Recommendations also calls for the elimination of four judgeships on the Michigan Court of Appeals as it saw its workload decline by 22 percent from 2006 to 2010.

Two of the Court of Appeals' 28 seats are already vacant.

Schmucker said the state would save more than $700,000 annually under those proposed changes.

The State Court Administrative Office's recommended cuts have been endorsed by the Michigan Judges Association, the Michigan Probate Judges Association, the Michigan District Court Judges Association and the Michigan Judicial Conference.

The cuts also have the unanimous backing of the Michigan Supreme Court.

"This unanimous endorsement is another indication of the confidence with which the Supreme Court places in the quality of the work product in this report," Young said. "Rare does one see public officials support the elimination of their own positions."

Schmucker said the report includes judges who are already set to retire. He said it's hard to predict how long it will take for the recommendations to be fulfilled as judges cannot be ousted mid term.

Judges can't run for re-election after turning 70 and they leave the bench at an average age of 62, according to Schmucker.

Assuming those terms remain the same, Schmucker said he expects to see a "high percentage" of judgeship eliminations to have taken place within six to eight years.

Young said the report is not the end of an effort to right-size Michigan's judicial system.

"We are asking all courts to look for all (ways) to share costs," he said. "Some will consolidate.

"Increasing the size of government is easy," Young added. "It turns out it takes political courage to reduce it."

Can we get Judge Gardner, Feeney, Zemaitia, and Carpenter out!!!!!!!

Divorce Court Mopping Up The Mess

2011-08-17T13:27:00.000-05:00

Most people never have their day in court. They have no need. They commit no crimes. They avoid lawsuits. And they never testify at a trial. Most of us never even serve on a jury, despite being summoned every few years.

The closest most people come to a courtroom is watching "Law & Order," unless they get divorced or have ringside seats to the breakup of the marriage of a relative or friend. Then they sink into the quagmire known as our family law system. Nearly everyone who enters this system gives it low marks. The so-called "winners" and the "losers." Everyone agrees. The polite way to say it: the system is deeply flawed. Privately, attorneys, judges, and litigants bemoan: the system sucks.

Alec Baldwin speaks for those victimized by a system that too easily places itself in the service of a parent's vindictive wish to erase the other parent from the child's life. Advocates for victims of domestic violence believe the system fails to adequately protect abused spouses and their children. Fathers' rights advocates are convinced that courts remain mired in the early 20th century model that relegates fathers to the role of material provider while leaving child-rearing to mothers. Libertarian feminists want to break down the influence of gender role bias. Mother's rights advocates worry that courts view fathers as saints if they spend a little extra time with their children, and fear that mothers with high-powered careers enter a custody dispute with two strikes against them.

In the face of massive dissatisfaction on so many fronts, it is gratifying to know that help is on the way. And from a source that may surprise you: the people who created this system and earn their living from it.

We have a love-hate relationship with the legal profession. Books, films, and television serve up lawyers as heroes ("To Kill a Mockingbird") and as devils (Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate"). When involved in a divorce, you probably think of your spouse's lawyer as evil incarnate. But, when you hire your own lawyers, they become your gladiators.

Some of these gladiators have come to realize that the adversary system, designed to establish guilt or innocence, does violence to families embroiled in child custody disputes. To transform a system of justice widely viewed as unjust (a "psychological meat grinder" according to one victim), the American Bar Association Section on Family Law, partnering with the University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, last summer inaugurated a massive initiative that is now poised to bring family law into the 21st century.

Bringing together sixty top family law experts -- judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys along with about five mental health professionals (disclaimer: I am one of the non-lawyers privileged to participate in this initiative) -- the group's mission, under the banner "Families Matter," is to generate proposals for radical reform that rectify the destructive impact of the family law legal process.

The project will take several years. But early signs point to a key reform: rather than treat each case with a one-size-fits-all approach, family courts need to adopt a lesson from medical emergency rooms: triage. Essential to efficient use of limited resources is early identification and fast-tracking intervention with families most at risk for violence and severed parent-child relationships. These are the cases that take up residence in the system, clogging the courts with repeated visits to the courthouse, each parent desperately trying to protect children from the harm perceived as the handiwork of the other parent. It is no exaggeration to say that getting to these cases sooner will prevent many tragedies. Fewer parents on the edge will take the law into their own hands. Fewer children will languish unprotected against violence. Fewer children will succumb to manipulations aimed at drafting them into paying allegiance to one parent at the expense of their relationship with the other. Losing a parent is a price children should not have to pay for their parents' breakup.

Change is coming. To help the next generation avoid blood-letting in family courts, it is not a moment too soon.

8-16-2011 by Dr. Richard Warshak is the author of Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing (HarperCollins), the classic and best-selling parental alienation resource in the world, and co-author of Welcome Back, Pluto: Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Parental Alienation , the leading resource for families whose children struggle to stay out of the middle of parental conflicts. You may find him at www.warshak.com and his blog, Plutoverse.

Richard's book Divorce Poison is awsome. I read it years ago and he can give an accurate on what Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) really is.

False Claims of Child Abuse In Michigan Bill Introduced.

2011-08-13T19:43:00.000-05:00

By Sanne Specht

Mail Tribune

Local experts played a key role in rewriting a bill introduced by State Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, which originally was viewed with alarm by those who work to protect children.

The bill, recently signed into law and designed to discourage punitive or vindictive reporting of child abuse, underwent significant changes as it made its way to the governor's desk. The changes were necessary to protect children and to assure the public that reporting suspected abuse is not only the right thing to do, it is safe for them to do so, experts say.

Don't Turn Away

What you can do:

Act on suspicions: By acting on suspicions of child abuse, you may save not only one child, but perhaps countless others.

Get involved: Volunteer and financially support organizations that fight child abuse.

"This bill started out as a major disaster and a blow to child victims. But it has been reduced and narrowed to a much less harmful form," said Ashland resident Randy Ellison, an adult survivor of child sexual abuse and board president of Oregon Advocates and Survivors in Service.

House Bill 2183, which was signed into law by Gov. John Kitzhaber in July, makes it a violation — punishable by a $720 maximum fine — to knowingly make false allegations of child abuse to police or the Department of Human Services. The state must prove that the intent of the false report is to influence child custody, visitation or child support, Ellison said.

One of the bill's main targets was adults who use malicious allegations of abuse in bitter divorce or child custody cases, said Esquivel.

"People getting divorced can make ugly accusations," Esquivel said. "It happens more often than you might think."

When Esquivel and House Judiciary Co-chairman Wayne Kreiger, R-Gold Beach, initially presented their bill before the House, the proposed fine was $6,250 and the violator faced a misdemeanor criminal charge which could have resulted in jail time.

The changes are a relief to child abuse experts who said Esquivel's bill, as written, would have had a chilling effect on a crime that is already under-reported.

Ellison testified in Salem against the proposed legislation, along with representatives from the Oregon District Attorneys Association, the Oregon Network of Child Abuse Intervention Centers, the Oregon School Employees Association, Children First and the Child Advocacy Section of the Oregon Department of Justice.

Ellison said he remains concerned the new law will be misinterpreted by the public, which could have a quelling effect on everyone from teachers to neighbors to relatives who might suspect child abuse, and be afraid to report due to misunderstandings.

The law does not punish those who might make a false reports based on honest mistakes. Only those that are due to malicious intent, Esquivel said. It was never his intent to limit reporting of actual child abuse, or cause consternation amongst child welfare experts. He also does not oppose the changes that were made to his bill, Esquivel said.

Ellison said holding people accountable for false reports is appropriate. But there was already a law on the books that made it a crime to knowingly make a false report of any crime to the police or other agency. ORS 162.375 states that initiating a false report is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,250 fine and 30 days in jail. Ellison questions the need for a new law that "pulls out that one type of false reporting and makes it a violation," he said.

"They wanted to call attention to it," Ellison said, adding he remains concerned about the potential fallout for mothers trying to protect their children from an abusive father.

"Basically this is a bill designed to protect husbands in divorce cases," Ellison said. "This is a bill written by men for men."

There could be unintended consequence of keeping children trapped in abusive situations because adults are fearful of making a report that, while true, might not be able to be proven, he said.

"If a woman is out and away from an abuser, it may be the first time ever she feels safe to report (her partner committed child abuse)," Ellison said. Esquivel's bill had the support of at least one Oregon senator. According to news reports, Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, testified he was once the victim of a trumped-up claim of child abuse.

Ellison said he had sympathy and empathy for anyone victimized because of a false report of abuse. But statistics show child abuse is the most under-reported crime next to domestic abuse, he said.

People should not be worrying about being wrong when deciding to report or not, Ellison said. People need to report suspected abuse. If people are in doubt, they should err on the side of reporting, he said.

Esquivel said he encourages people to report child abuse.

"You won't get in trouble unless you have malicious intent," Esquivel said.

Reach reporter Sanne Specht at 541-776-4497 or email sspecht@mailtribune.com.

Inspector General of Kentuckey Documents Abuse of CPS and Wants Judges Investigated

2011-08-03T08:56:00.000-05:00

Power Court Program For Non Custodial Fathers

2011-07-26T10:00:00.000-05:00

3rd Circuit Court holds first graduation of Power Court Program

By Jo Mathis

Legal News

Nine Wayne County men next week will become the first graduates of a program aimed at helping parents meet their child support obligations.

The non-custodial parents each spent at least six months tackling individualized ''action plans'' designed by the Wayne County Friend of the Court's POWER (Providing Opportunities for Work, Education and Respect) Court.

By helping these non-custodial parents secure education and employment, POWER Court keeps fathers active in their children's lives, explained Zenell B. Brown, Wayne County Friend of the Court.

Brown explained that if a parent isn't paying child support, his child typically then goes on public assistance as a primary means of financial support. And if there's no financial support, there's typically no emotional support, either.

''The parent isn't present in that child's life,'' said Brown. ''So it's in the best interest of the child to have somebody who's financial there and emotionally there for them.''

POWER Court is a voluntary problem-solving docket of the Third Judicial Circuit Family Court bench. Appropriate candidates are those who may have trouble paying child support because of lack of employment or education. POWER Court gives them resources to address those underlying issues, and to hold them accountable to look for work or improve their education.

Non-custodial parents owe about $9 billion in back child support in the state of Michigan; $5 billion are Wayne County cases, according to Brown. Wayne County is collecting from only about half of parents who owe money, she said.

In some cases, payers -- most often fathers -- take their paychecks ''under the table'' in order to avoid those automatic withdrawals from Friend of the Court.

''Oftentimes we'll see people cut hair, but not have an actual barber's license, or they'll have a barber's license, but cut hair in their basement,'' said Brown. ''Usually when you have that situation, the best source of information is the other parent. Once you've identified that person as someone who doesn't have a formal job ... you monitor them and have them make payments on their own.''

Stephanie Witucki, a Friend of the Court referee who handles child support, noted that while they were in POWER Court for up to 12 months, the men about to graduate were taught how to find a job, fill out a resume, enroll in a GED program, etc.

''There are a lot of resources out there that people are not taking advantage of simply because they don't know about them,'' said Witucki. ''In this program, we're constantly trying to expand people's options in terms of job training or GED.''

Brown said Friend of the Court looks at individual cases to consider whether the payer's child support obligation is realistic in light of the person's current circumstances.

''We'll do modifications when appropriate,'' she said.

The men enrolled in POWER Court contributed a collective $10,000 in ''good faith payment obligations'' to their children's support over the last year.

''It's not a significant amount of money,'' said Brown, ''but it is people who are understanding that Friend of the Court is not out here to be oppressive or to say everybody's a deadbeat dad, but to actually assure they have the resources to get to work and to make the child support payments which are so important. So we're very proud of them.''

The graduation was held at 9 a.m. Thursday, July 14 in Courtroom 1519 at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, 2 Woodward Avenue.

Published: Mon, Jul 18, 2011

2011-07-22T10:41:00.000-05:00

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PATRICK KLOOSTRA, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

V

DEANNA LYNN KLOOSTRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

In this postdivorce custody dispute, defendant Deanna Lynn Kloostra appeals as of right

challenging a December 2010 order denying her motion to modify custody. We affirm the trial

court’s order, and remand for the continuation of these proceedings.

Patrick and Deanna Kloostra married in 1991 and divorced in 2001. The marriage

produced three children, who currently range from 12 to 21 years of age. The judgment of

divorce awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with Deanna having primary

physical custody. A specific parenting time schedule set forth in the judgment governed

Patrick’s parenting time. Over the course of the next two years, the parties fought multiple,

bitter battles regarding parenting time and child support. The circuit court ordered the parties to

mediate their disputes, and in January 2003, entered a new parenting time order.

Unfortunately, the 2003 order failed to resolve the parties’ unrelenting conflicts. Due to

the seriousness of the parties’ allegations and counter-allegations, the circuit court appointed a

guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the three children. Finally, after arguing still more

motions and attending countless hearings, the parties stipulated to a 2005 custody order granting

Patrick physical custody of all three children. The stipulated order afforded Deanna limited

parenting time.

Despite that Deanna had stipulated to the 2005 custody order, she persisted in challenging it. Patrick, too, sought to modify the order based on changed circumstances. Following an August 2008 hearing, the circuit court ordered supervision of Deanna’s visits with her children. The factual basis for supervised parenting time is unclear, because the circuit court record does not include the hearing transcript. (The reason for this is because Judge Patricia Gardner does not have any evidence that Denna harmed her children and has no information on the record. Judge Patricia Gardner does not have jurisdiction to order such and failed to provide Deanna with an evidentiary hearing and violated her constitutional rights. Predictably, however, this order fueled more controversy. Deanna visited her children in a supervised setting for only a short period of time. After two different supervising agencies refused to facilitate Deanna’s parenting time, the visits ceased. Deanna has not seen her two younger children for more than two years.

In April 2009, the original circuit court judge assigned to the case requested to be

relieved of her responsibility, asserting that she “has been the target of abuse and criticism by the

parties or others,” and that the parties’ “focus … has been the harassment of the judge rather than the best

interest of the children.” Two other circuit judges declined to undertake the matter, based on their bias or

prejudice toward the parties or their counsel. In May 2009, Judge Daniel

V. Zemaitis accepted the assignment.

Undaunted by these developments, Deanna filed a flurry of new motions, including a

request for a new parenting time schedule. After entertaining argument on these motions, Judge

Zemaitis continued his predecessor’s supervised parenting time order. Nevertheless, Judge

Zemaitis agreed to conduct an evidentiary hearing addressing the appropriateness of the

currently-assigned parenting time supervisor. Judge Zemaitis’s order provided that Deanna

would bear responsibility for arranging the evidentiary hearing. But instead of proceeding in that

direction, Deanna filed a motion to modify custody, characterizing the existing custody and

parenting time orders as a denial of due process. Judge Zemaitis heard oral argument regarding

Deanna’s custody motion, urged Deanna to arrange for the previously-ordered evidentiary

hearing, and expressed that in the absence of new evidence, she had not established proper cause or a

change in circumstances to change custody as required by Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499,

508; 675 NW2d 847 (2003).

Deanna now challenges the circuit court’s ruling, contending that it violates her

constitutional rights. Child custody orders “shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge

made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of

discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich

871, 876-877, 526 NW2d 889 (1994).

The Child Custody Act “is intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an

established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive change of

custody orders.” Heid v AAASulewski (After Remand), 209 Mich App 587, 593-594; 532 NW2d 205

(1995). Before a circuit court may consider whether an established custodial environment exists or review

the best interest factors, it first must determine whether the movant has established either proper cause or a

change of circumstances. Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509. This Court described in Vokvarka that “in order

to establish a ‘change of circumstances,’ a movant must prove that, since the entry of the last custody order,

the conditions surrounding custody of the child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s

well-being, have materially changed.” Id. at 513 (emphasis in original). We pointed out in Vodvarka that time

always produces some alterations in a child’s “environment, behavior and well-being,” but that

“normal life changes” do not suffice to demonstrate changed circumstances; instead, “there must

be at least some evidence that the material changes have had or will almost certainly have an

effect on the child.” Id. at 513-514. The circuit court must make findings of fact with respect to

whether a movant has established proper cause or a change of circumstances to warrant an

evidentiary hearing regarding a proposed custodial change, and these findings “should be

affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Id. at 507, 512

(internal quotation omitted).

In this case, we discern no error in the circuit court’s conclusion that Deanna failed to

establish a change of circumstances or proper cause to change custody that would merit an

evidentiary hearing concerning the children’s custody. We also find no merit in Deanna’s

constitutional arguments. Throughout this protracted litigation, she fully participated in all

proceedings. Because Deanna has been afforded a robust and meaningful opportunity to be

heard by the court, her due process rights remain intact.

We have no doubt that additional motions will follow the issuance of this opinion.

Accordingly, we take this opportunity to clarify that this opinion expresses no view concerning

the ultimate resolution of Deanna’s pending motion to alter the existing parenting time order.

Based on Judge Zemaitis’s exemplary handling of this most difficult matter to date, we are

confident that further parenting time requests will undergo careful consideration consistent with

this Court’s recent decision in Shade v Wright,__ Mich App __; ___ NW2d __ (Docket no

296318, issued December 2, 2010), slip op at 6, which instructs that “a more expansive

definition of proper cause or change of circumstances is appropriate for determinations regarding parenting

time when a modification in parenting time does not alter the established custodial environment.”

Affirmed and remanded for continued proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do

not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Michael J. Talbot

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion In Deanna Kloostra's Case A Joke

2011-07-22T10:20:00.002-05:00

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PATRICK KLOOSTRA, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

DEANNA LYNN KLOOSTRA,
Defendant-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

In this postdivorce custody dispute, defendant Deanna Lynn Kloostra appeals as of right

challenging a December 2010 order denying her motion to modify custody. We affirm the trial

court’s order, and remand for the continuation of these proceedings.

Patrick and Deanna Kloostra married in 1991 and divorced in 2001. The marriage

produced three children, who currently range from 12 to 21 years of age. The judgment of

divorce awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with Deanna having primary

physical custody. A specific parenting time schedule set forth in the judgment governed

Patrick’s parenting time. Over the course of the next two years, the parties fought multiple,

bitter battles regarding parenting time and child support. The circuit court ordered the parties to

mediate their disputes, and in January 2003, entered a new parenting time order.

Unfortunately, the 2003 order failed to resolve the parties’ unrelenting conflicts. Due to

the seriousness of the parties’ allegations and counter-allegations, the circuit court appointed a

guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the three children. Finally, after arguing still more

motions and attending countless hearings, the parties stipulated to a 2005 custody order granting

Patrick physical custody of all three children. The stipulated order afforded Deanna limited

parenting time.

Despite that Deanna had stipulated to the 2005 custody order, she persisted in challenging

it. Patrick, too, sought to modify the order based on changed circumstances. Following an

August 2008 hearing, the circuit court ordered supervision of Deanna’s visits with her children.

The factual basis for supervised parenting time is unclear, because the circuit court record does

not include the hearing transcript. (The reason for this is because Judge Patricia Gardner does not have any evidence that Denna harmed her children and has no information on the record. Judge Patricia Gardner does not have jurisdiction to order such and failed to provide Deanna with an evidentiary hearing and violated her constitutional rights. Predictably, however, this order fueled more controversy.

Deanna visited her children in a supervised setting for only a short period of time. After two

different supervising agencies refused to facilitate Deanna’s parenting time, the visits ceased.

Deanna has not seen her two younger children for more than two years.

In April 2009, the original circuit court judge assigned to the case requested to be

relieved of her responsibility, asserting that she “has been the target of abuse and criticism by the

parties or others,” and that the parties’ “focus … has been the harassment of the judge rather than

the best interest of the children.” Two other circuit judges declined to undertake the matter,

based on their bias or prejudice toward the parties or their counsel. In May 2009, Judge Daniel

V. Zemaitis accepted the assignment.

Undaunted by these developments, Deanna filed a flurry of new motions, including a

request for a new parenting time schedule. After entertaining argument on these motions, Judge

Zemaitis continued his predecessor’s supervised parenting time order. Nevertheless, Judge

Zemaitis agreed to conduct an evidentiary hearing addressing the appropriateness of the

currently-assigned parenting time supervisor. Judge Zemaitis’s order provided that Deanna

would bear responsibility for arranging the evidentiary hearing. But instead of proceeding in that

direction, Deanna filed a motion to modify custody, characterizing the existing custody and

parenting time orders as a denial of due process. Judge Zemaitis heard oral argument regarding

Deanna’s custody motion, urged Deanna to arrange for the previously-ordered evidentiary

hearing, and expressed that in the absence of new evidence, she had not established proper cause

or a change in circumstances to change custody as required by Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich

App 499, 508; 675 NW2d 847 (2003).

Deanna now challenges the circuit court’s ruling, contending that it violates her

constitutional rights. Child custody orders “shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge

made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence or committed a palpable abuse of

discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich

871, 876-877, 526 NW2d 889 (1994).

The Child Custody Act “is intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an

established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive change of

custody orders.” Heid v AAASulewski (After Remand), 209 Mich App 587, 593-594; 532 NW2d

205 (1995). Before a circuit court may consider whether an established custodial environment

exists or review the best interest factors, it first must determine whether the movant has

established either proper cause or a change of circumstances. Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509.

This Court described in Vokvarka that “in order to establish a ‘change of circumstances,’ a

movant must prove that, since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding

custody of the child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have

materially changed.” Id. at 513 (emphasis in original). We pointed out in Vodvarka that time

always produces some alterations in a child’s “environment, behavior and well-being,” but that

“normal life changes” do not suffice to demonstrate changed circumstances; instead, “there must

be at least some evidence that the material changes have had or will almost certainly have an

effect on the child.” Id. at 513-514. The circuit court must make findings of fact with respect to

whether a movant has established proper cause or a change of circumstances to warrant an

evidentiary hearing regarding a proposed custodial change, and these findings “should be

affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Id. at 507, 512

(internal quotation omitted).

In this case, we discern no error in the circuit court’s conclusion that Deanna failed to

establish a change of circumstances or proper cause to change custody that would merit an

evidentiary hearing concerning the children’s custody. We also find no merit in Deanna’s

constitutional arguments. Throughout this protracted litigation, she fully participated in all

proceedings. Because Deanna has been afforded a robust and meaningful opportunity to be

heard by the court, her due process rights remain intact.

We have no doubt that additional motions will follow the issuance of this opinion.

Accordingly, we take this opportunity to clarify that this opinion expresses no view concerning

the ultimate resolution of Deanna’s pending motion to alter the existing parenting time order.

Based on Judge Zemaitis’s exemplary handling of this most difficult matter to date, we are

confident that further parenting time requests will undergo careful consideration consistent with

this Court’s recent decision in Shade v Wright,__ Mich App __; ___ NW2d __ (Docket no

296318, issued December 2, 2010), slip op at 6, which instructs that “a more expansive

definition of proper cause or change of circumstances is appropriate for determinations regarding

parenting time when a modification in parenting time does not alter the established custodial

environment.”

Affirmed and remanded for continued proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do

not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Michael J. Talbot

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

Single Father Households Increasing In Texas

2011-07-19T13:08:00.000-05:00

by Elizabeth Brennon on Jul 18, 2011

Over the past several decades, Americans’ traditional view of the family has changed. Gone are the June Cleavers, Harriet Nelsons and Margaret Andersons of the world. Now, single parents are becoming more commonplace. In 2010, the United States Census Bureau reported nearly 34 percent of families with children had only one parent in the household. These figures are up from 29 percent in 2000. While most single-parent households are headed by women, the new data also revealed a significant and continuing increase in the number of single fathers raising children.

Ten years ago in Tarrant County, Texas, three out of every 100 households were headed by single fathers. Today, that number has increased to four out of 100. In other parts of the Lonestar State, the numbers are as high as 6 out of 100 households.

Other areas of the nation have noted marked changes as well. Maryland now has about 47,200 single-father households–an increase of nearly 6,000 since the year 2000. This 14 percent rise is consistent with Michigan’s, which now reports 91,000 households headed by single dads. In Wisconsin, 15,000 more households are headed by fathers than in the previous census. This change represented a 35 percent increase. With an additional 51,206 male-headed households in California, the number is 17 percent higher there than it was in the year 2000.

Some experts attribute the increase to more work opportunities for women in our cultural landscape. In addition, many men have opted to be more involved with their children and are not criticized for playing these more active roles in their children’s lives.

Regardless of the reason for single-parent households, child custody issues can be complex. Some may feel rights are generally in favor of mothers; however, studies show that men and women are equally effective in raising children. Also, the courts have eliminated "tender years presumptions," which once discriminated against fathers who wanted to raise children.

Still, complex custody matters often require the help of experienced legal counsel. If you are considering divorce and have child custody or support questions, it is best to contact an attorney to discuss your situation.

Article provided by Zollie C. Steakley, PLLC

Visits http://www.familycourtnetwork.com/ to find out more in your state. Single Father Households Increasing in Texas

Muskegon County, Michigan- Friend Of The Court Embezzling

2011-07-19T12:58:00.000-05:00

Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 10:06 AM Updated: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 10:10 AM

By John S. Hausman
Muskegon Chronicle The Muskegon Chronicle

Muskegon County Jail Lisa Renee Hovis

A botched coverup of an inability to do the job: that, not greed, was the motive behind an account clerk's small-scale embezzlement of money from Muskegon County's Friend of the Court, authorities concluded.

And with that background, a visiting Kent County judge sentenced Lisa Renee Hovis to three days in jail with credit for one day already served; two years on probation; and 50 hours community service. Seventeenth Circuit Judge Christopher P. Yates also ordered Hovis to pay $512.22 restitution, a total that includes costs of investigation.

Because she is recovering from recent back surgery and is still using a walker, Yates allowed her to serve her remaining jail sentence any time in the next 60 days.

Hovis, 44, of Twin Lake on May 18 pleaded no contest as charged to one count of embezzlement by a public official of more than $50, a felony.

“I think what you did was much more a mistake than intentional theft,” Yates said to Hovis after pronouncing sentence late Monday afternoon. “You really seemed to be in over your head on the job.”

According to the presentence investigator's report, Hovis — a recent hire in Muskegon County 14th Circuit Court's child-support division in 2009 — often had trouble balancing her cash box, Yates said. At times it would come up short, at other times over. Sometimes, the judge said, Hovis would even put in cash from her own purse to try to make the box balance.

“On balance, it seems to me that you were doing a job that you couldn't do,” Yates said.

Although the sentence was relatively lenient, the judge said, he did want to impose some jail time “so that you understand that you never want to go there again ... to make sure that you get a sense of how awful the jail is.”

Hovis was technically an employee of all four of Muskegon County's circuit judges, leading to the case's transfer to Yates. Yates came to Muskegon County for the sentencing.

Hovis received child-support payments from clients as part of her job. Hovis became a court employee in August 2009. Soon the Friend of the Court administrator noticed repeated discrepancies and contacted the Muskegon County Sheriff's Office in December 2009. Hovis was placed on administrative leave soon after and was criminally charged in October 2010.

Email: jhausman@muskegonchronicle.com

Overhaul Of Michigan's Child Welfare System

2011-07-19T08:04:00.000-05:00

On Monday, a Michigan judge might relax an aggressive schedule for a top-to-bottom overhaul of the state's child welfare system.

Representatives of the Michigan Department of Human Services, a New York child advocacy group, and a federal court monitor have been preparing for a periodic progress report in a 2008 settlement designed to better care for thousands of Michigan children.

The state has repeatedly missed crucial benchmarks.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds scheduled a hearing Monday to consider a "modified consent decree."

Details were not immediately available, but the hearing may signal a drastic change. In December, the state faced the possibility of a contempt of court ruling after it repeatedly failed to meet the conditions of the agreement that began with a 2006 lawsuit by New York-based Children's Rights.

The group criticized the state for what it described as life-threatening poor care for children. Years of budget cuts, the loss of experienced social service workers and the state's failure to tap into federal funding contributed to the crisis, according to the suit.

But since the beginning of the year and a change in leadership at DHS -- it is now headed by Maura Corrigan, a former Michigan Supreme Court justice -- caseloads have shrunk, fewer children are waiting for adoption and new technology for field and office workers will help track cases and address critical data gaps.

"What has been accomplished since January is monumental," said Janet Reynolds, executive director of Michigan Federation for Children and Families, which represents private, nonprofit foster care and adoption agencies.

The 2008 agreement, though well-intentioned, set standards too high for a state in financial crisis, said Jack Kresnak, president and CEO of Michigan's Children and a former Free Press reporter.

"Scaling back the requirements will mean we might be able to meet them. ... We need to put this behind us," he said.

Contact Robin Erb: 313-222-2708 or rerb@freepress.com

http://www.freep.com/article/20110715/NEWS06/107150370/Judge-may-relax-child-welfare-system-overhaul-timetable

William M. Windsor Banned From Filing ANy Lawsuit In America

2011-07-16T06:53:00.000-05:00

July 15, 2011….Atlanta, Georgia

William M. Windsor has been BANNED from filing any lawsuit anywhere in America.

Mr. Thrash asked "counsel" to stand and identify themselves and who they represent. Christopher Huber said he was representing the United States, who he claims is a Defendant even though they aren't. I then stood and said: My name is William M. Windsor, and I am representing myself and all of the Americans all over the country who have been victimized by our corrupt federal judicial system." I figured I would just call a Spade a Spade from the outset! I would have loved to have seen the looks on the faces of the Defendants' gallery. You could have heard a pin drop!

Mr. Thrash then refused to allow me to state objections, and he gave each side only 20 minutes to present arguments. Thrash had previously ordered that I could bring no more than 100 pieces of paper into the room, and I was denied subpoenas for witnesses. His previous orders are all on appeal, so he was without jurisdiction to hold the hearing, but these corrupt people have no concern whatsoever about the facts or the law. NONE.

Mr. Huber gave about a 10-minute argument, which was basically that I have filed eight lawsuits, and courts have declared me to be vexatious. That is as far from the truth as anyone can get, as I have well-documented.

I was then allegedly given 20 minutes, but it seemed to me that he tried to cut me off a little early, but he allowed me to complete all I had planned to say anyway. At the bottom of the online article, I added my script that I spoke from. As soon as I get the transcript, I will post it there.

I began by asking the judge if an order had already been prepared announcing the outcome of the hearing. BEET RED was his face! He snapped at me, and said: "I'm not going to answer any of your questions."

At our house, we call this "calling waisties” on someone. I figured he had already prepared the order and it wouldn't matter what I presented. By asking him, he probably wouldn't immediately file an order after the hearing ended. Be sure to read to the end to find out how this plays out....

I did not mince words, but I was as respectful as one can be while telling a judge that he is a criminal. Mr. Thrash's face seemed to get redder and redder, but he held his tongue during my presentation. At all other times, he was like a viper, cutting me off in a nanosecond.

I probably spent 10 minutes objecting to him violating every rule in the book. Then I spent about 7 minutes talking about what the case is about -- the fact that the federal judicial system employees in Atlanta operate a criminal racketeering enterprise. Once again, you could have heard a pin drop. If you were sent to observe the hearing by the judge you work for, the hearing just took on a whole new meaning for you. The smartest of them should realize that they could go to prison, too. If there is an honest one, they might come forward....

At one point, I said: Your honor, I have researched you. I have run reports and analyzed every single case you have presided over involving pro se plaintiffs. [I held the papers up.] I was surprised to discover that you have an absolutely PERFECT record! In your entire career, you have NEVER ruled in favor of a pro se plaintiff. [pause for effect.] NOT ONE! You have the same perfect record on jury trials. No pro se plaintiff ever received their jury trial. You dismiss 90% of the cases that come before you, and the other 10% lose at summary judgment because they didn't think to file a motion to dismiss (or wanted to run up the legal fees). [You could have heard a lot of pins drop on that one. Now the observers are thinking, oh my God, he is digging into all the dirt.] Then I said, your honor, your record really surprised and disappointed me, but I then did the same analysis for every federal district court judge in Atlanta, and I discovered that they all have perfect records, too! There is not one case of a pro se plaintiff ever winning in federal court in Atlanta.

I made it absolutely clear that I have undeniable proof of criminal racketeering by him and the federal judges and judicial staff in Atlanta. I looked him right straight in the eye and told him he's a crook who has violated numerous criminal statutes.

Toward the end, I commented on the reported government plot to have me assassinated. I said I found it hard to believe at first, but stranger things have happened. Several judicial corruption activists have been murdered mysteriously. Then, I paused for effect, and after several seconds of dead silence, I said: "The truth of the matter is that killing me would be the smartest thing the government could do. That's the only way you will stop me. Rest assured that I will spend the rest of my life exposing all of you and bringing you to justice. I am now connected with over 10,000 people around the country, and we are organizing. We are going to return justice to our federal judicial system. We are owed fundamental rights, and we will get them back."

Mr. Huber had nothing to add at the end, and Mr. Thrash immediately announced that he was entering a permanent injunction that denied me the right to file any lawsuit in any court anywhere in America. He read right from the pre-written order that he should not have had except in a Kangaroo Court. I hope several of the observers will write their observations for us to read, because it was something to see. Here’s what Jeff Goolsby wrote to me:

“It was clear that Judge Thomas W. Thrash had reached a decision before the hearing began. He did not do anything that would have been necessary to compose and prepare his order based on Mr. Windsor’s presentation. Immediately he announced his decision and clearly read from a previously prepared document. I was seated on the far right side of the courtroom and it was easy to see what he was doing. It appeared to me that the hearing was for the purpose of damage to Windsor.

“It was a clear absolute appearance of bias, and he did commit bias against Mr. Windsor, which follows his usual handling of pro se plaintiff lawsuits based on his reputation of ruling against every pro se plaintiff totaling 138 cases.

“All of the things that Mr. Windsor recounted that Judge Thrash had done to him appeared typical and indicates that Judge Thrash should be impeached and removed from office for violation of his oath of office and law violations.”

This hearing was a visual presentation of corruption at its worst. Complete denial of due process. A ruling issued totally to try to protect the criminal racketeering enterprise (federal courts in Georgia) from being brought to task.

This is exactly what I expected, so don't feel bad for me. Just get mad. There's still a lot of other acts before the fat lady sings, and no one will ever stop me from fighting and exposing these crooks. I made that very clear to all in attendance.

The minute the hearing ended, Gary, Jeff, and I went straight to the Clerk of the Court's Office where I filed an appeal. I beat Judge Thrash’s order (that shouldn't have been prepared in advance) to the Clerk. That was the plan. Jeff and Gary commented how they saw the judge reading from an order that was written in advance.

So, they want to stop me any way they can. They have to stop me because they will go to prison, lose their jobs and reputations, and much more when I succeed in exposing them. I told Mr. Thrash that if I reach a jury, they will absolutely crucify him and all of the other Defendants. And they will.

More here: http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=416:windsor-banned-from-filing-a-lawsuit-anywhere-in-america&catid=120:news-reports&Itemid=222

Please join my cause: http://www.causes.com/causes/593708-support-the-constitution-bill-of-rights-honesty-in-government

bill@billwindsor.com Office: 770-578-1094

Parental Rights Amendment

2011-07-12T10:52:00.000-05:00

Just Put It On Our Tab, Your Honor

2011-07-12T08:15:00.000-05:00

Just put it on our tab, YOUR HONOR

by Brian Dickerson - Detroit Free Press on July 10, 2011

When Judges violate the law, taxpayers pay the bill

Twice in the last six weeks, Dearborn District Judge Mark Somers has been summoned to other judges’ courtrooms to answer allegations that he fired court employees in violation of Michigan law.

Twice, Somers testified that he did nothing wrong.

And twice, jurors -- 16 in all, sitting in two different civil trials -- unanimously concluded otherwise, awarding two former employees more than $1.1 million in damages.

With attorney fees and interest, Somers’ liability will almost certainly exceed $2 million -- even if a third ex-employee comes up empty when her whistle blower lawsuit against Somers goes to trial.

But Somers isn’t sweating. He’s still pulling down his $138,000 salary as chief judge of Dearborn’s District court. The assistant state attorney general who has defended him in all three lawsuits never sends him a bill. And Dearborn taxpayers will likely bear the cost of any damages ultimately collected by the plaintiffs -- just as taxpayers and municipal insurers in Birmingham, West Bloomfield, and Southgate were left holding the bag when lawsuits against judges in their communities were settled in the plaintiffs’ favor.

What is more galling is that none of those judges has ever been removed from office, suspended or even publicly reprimanded by any disciplinary body.

Jurors have found the judges’ conduct -- and their credibility as witnesses in their own defense -- wanting. But neither the Judicial Tenure Commission nor the Attorney Grievance Commission -- the organization responsible for policing the ethical conduct of judges and lawyers -- concedes thst these judges have done anything unethical.

So much for holding the men and women who oversee Michigan courts to a higher standard.

Detroit attorney, Joel Sklar, whose client was awarded $734,000 in her lawsuit against Somers, marvels that judges who have violated the law in their own courthouses continue to sit in judgment of others.

“You wonder,” Sklar muses,” whether they think their black robes make them invincible, or just invisible.”

A lack of credibility

In 2006, a jury awarded $3.1 million in damages to Michelle Horton, a former Bloomfield Hills District Court employee of the year who complained that the court’s sitting judges had colluded to fire her illegally.

Witnesses testified that the judges had turned on Horton in solidarity with the newly elected colleague who suspected her erroneously , as it turned out -- of plotting to embarrass his wife. Jurors learned that, at one point, the Bloomfield Township detectives has staked out the Capital Grille to determine if Horton was accepting free drinks from lawyers with business before the court.

All three judges implicated in Horton’s allegations testified under oath that they had done nothing wrong -- a fact the attorney defending the district court underlined in his closing argument.

“Let’s think about all the people who have to by lying to make (the plaintiff’s case) work,” the defense lawyer, Mark Paxton, told the jury. “Judge (Kimberly) Small has to be lying. Judge (Marc) Barron has to by lying.”

But it took the jurors only a couple of hours to agree that Horton was the one telling the truth. West Bloomfield and six other municipalities who fund the Bloomfield District Court vowed to appeal the jury’s $3.1-million judgment, but quietly agreed to a seven-figure settlement on the condition that Horton’s attorneys agree not to reveal its value.

Taking the Fifth

Jurors never go to hear Southgate District Judge James Kandrevas’ response to allegations that he fired his court clerk, Lori Shemka, after she blew the whistle on Kandrevas’ unethical conduct.

Shemka charged in a lawsuit that she was fired just days after she alerted the State Court Administrator’s Office that Kandrevas was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into a secret bank account he and another court employee controlled.

In a 2010 deposition arising from the clerk’s whistle-blower suit against the court, Judge Kandrevas invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 222 times. The court’s insurer subsequently settled the lawsuit against him for $300,00.

Answering to a higher authority

The two juries that awarded more than $1.1 million to former Dearborn District Court employees heard testimony that Somers was a zealously religious man who questioned defendants about their church attendance and retaliated when a deputy court administrator complained when he was proselytizing from the bench.

The deputy, Julie Pucci, alleged that Somers unlawfully eliminated her position after learning that she was living with her fiance, Dearborn District Judge William Hultgren. Judges awarded her $732,000 including $200,000 in punitive damages.

Pucci’s federal court judgment came less than a month after a Wayne County Circuit Court jury awarded $463,000 to a former probation officer Simone Calvas. Calvas testified that she had incurred the devout Somers’ displeasure by associating with Pucci and conceiving twins out of wedlock.

Dearborn city attorneys have taken public position that the city, which was not a defendant in Pucci’s lawsuit, is not liable for any damages awarded to her. But a multitude of legal authorities and precedents suggest otherwise.

Discipline on the QT?

Late last week, I asked Tom Ryan, a former State Bar of Michigan president who currently serves as chairman of the Judicial Tenure Commission, why the JTC has taken no disciplinary action against any of the judges who jurors determined had violated the law.

Ryan answer by reminding me that the commission “has a number of weapons to deal with these situations,” including private “letters of reprimand” and “letters of caution,” and that voter should not conclude that the absence of any public disciplinary action means that he and his JTC colleagues have been looking the other way.

But why, I asked Ryan, should the JTC hesitate to make a public example of judges whose misconduct has been exposed in public trials?

“Those are the rules under which we operate,” Ryan answered. “It was determined that confidentiality was critical for the protection of the judiciary and the public.”

Begging your pardon, counselor, but all judges work for the public -- and no one is served when the JTC and the bar conspire to sweep illegal judicial conduct under the rug.

“There is,” as Ryan observed, “a ballot box” at which voters dissatisfied with the performance of elected judges can take action to remove them from office.

But attorneys are notoriously (and understandably) reluctant to challenge any sitting judge. And the JTC and the bar betray their profession when they refuse to call out judges who violate the law.

I covered each of the trials I’ve described in this column; I saw what jurors saw, and I understand why those jurors decided they couldn’t trust the defendant judges who testified before them.

But journalists shouldn’t bear the burden of policing bad judges alone -- and taxpayers shouldn’t be left holding the bag when juries occasionally hold one of them accountable.

· CONTACT BRIAN DICKERSON: 313-222-6584 OR BDICKERSON@FREEPRESS.COM

New Illinoise Law Restores Parental Rights

2011-07-06T08:21:00.000-05:00

New Illinois law restores parental rights

Muriel Clair, WGN Staff

WGN News

12:59 p.m. CDT, July 5, 2011

CHICAGO— For the first time in Illinois, a mother has adopted her own children under a new state law that reunites families.

The new law restores parental rights to rehabilitated birth parents who previously had their rights terminated by the court and whose children were put up for adoption by blood relatives.

More than 14 years ago, Yolanda Miller, mother of 11 children, had a chronic substance abuse problem. She was hooked on crack cocaine and unable to properly care for her children. The Department of Children and Family Services removed the children from the home, a court terminated her parental rights, and the children were put up for adoption by relatives,

But Miller, who says she never stopped loving her children, never lost sight of her responsibility.

"I knew my mom took over, and I knew that it wasn't my mom's job to raise my kids," Miller told reporters at the Thompson Center today. "That was my job."

Miller's parental rights to four of her children have been restored. The four of them -- two teenaged boys and 27-year-old twin girls -- were with their mother this morning as she talked about her hard-fought battle against addiction.

"This is a law whose time had come," said State Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), the sponsor of the new law. "Clearly Yolanda's children wanted to be adopted as adults to their mother, and wanted to be their mother's child again. So that speaks volumes, I think. And their mother wanted very badly for that to happen -- so badly that she got her life in order."

Yolanda Miller has five more adult children who wish to have her rights to them restored. A court date is pending.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-mother-adopts-her-own-kids-under-new-state-law-july05,0,3633495.story

Mobile Bar Code for Abused Swan

2011-06-15T15:06:00.000-05:00

Abused Swan now has a mobile bar code.

Run your cell phone reader over the code and go to Abused Swan's web site.

Abused Swan

2011-06-09T17:51:00.001-05:00

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

National Family Rights Protest August 12, 2011

2011-06-04T14:08:00.000-05:00

“Government Abuse IS Child Abuse for Profit”

When: Friday, August 12, 2011

Where: See State/PLC tab for your area

Who: United States- Child/Family Rights Groups

Why:“We the People” are no longer tolerating;

· Unjust Laws

· TAXPAYER dollars (billions) used to separate, and financially demolish families.

We the People” demand reformation of:

· OUR FAMILY COURT SYSTEMS including:

· Assigned Judges- (must be abolished)

· Court Appointed Guardian-ad-litem (must be abolished-severely limited at a minimum)

· Family courts / records must be made public

· Court Gag orders are a violation of 1st amendment

· Adoption incentive payments (must be abolished)

Re; Adoption / Safe Families Act 1997

Every effort must be made for children to stay with Grandparents / family members instead of foster care.

· Grandparents / family must have visitation rights without current criminal treatment

· Families must be given assistance instead of removing their Children example; removal due to gas shut-off

· Parents must be restored freedoms to raise their children

· Immediate access in all cases for children’s records

· Option to have a Jury, when requested in family courts

We the People” demand reformation of: OUR FAMILY COURT SYSTEM including:

Assigned Judges- must be abolished

· We are stripped of our right to elect public servants (judges)

· Assigned judges cannot be voted out of office as they are ‘assigned’ to hear cases after pretending to retire.

· They have zero incentive to administer justice or follow law or legal procedures because they cannot be voted out of office after they ‘retire’ THEREFORE, we have been stripped of our legal right to elect (vote) for our judges

· Assigned judges are ‘DOUBLE-DIPPING’. Pretend to ‘retire’

but are assigned to family court cases, collecting approx; $485.00 per ‘day’ while collecting their retirement pay- all paid by taxpayers

· Court appointed guardian-ad-litem / advocate for child / lawyer for child

· Child Protective Services aka; CPS/ DHS / DFS/DSS/Foster Care and Adoption Services

http://www.govabuse.org/

2011-05-26T08:58:00.001-05:00

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

Non Custodial Mother's Day 2011

2011-05-19T13:59:00.002-05:00

Non Custodial Mother's Day 2011

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

Mother of the year, this year, is all non custodial mothers! Celebrate Non Custodial Mother's Day on October 28th. Support women's rights America, and support non custodial mothers by celebrating this holiday and making it a national day.

PARENT EQUALITY ACT

2011-04-20T11:46:00.000-05:00

OHIO PROTECTIVE PARENTS ASSOCIATION1933 Wedgewood Circle, Springfield OH 45503PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT“All Parents and guardians regardless of custody determination shallhave equal access to participate in programs and resources of the child’slife and related activities and All Parents and guardians shall enjoyParental Equality” The PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT ensures both parents equal access to participatein the child’s enjoyment of life and related activities.Author: Assembly “name here”Sponsor: Ohio Protective Parents Association; Lady Justice League, The Parental Equality Act To Eliminate Custody DiscriminationBACKGROUND The problem of custody abuse is pandemic across the nation. Custody litigationis big business and best interest of the child is eclipsed. A formula of frauds isused by unethical attorneys representing an abuser where they collude withothers within the justice system to stack the deck against the protective parentthus neutralizing their efforts to protect the children. In the end courts end upplacing children in the custody and control of the abuser while the protectiveparent’s loss of equal protections holds them hostage on the sidelines. Theprotective parent is labeled non-custodial and although never being ruled “un-fit” is regarded as such in the eyes of the community. Schools often favor thecustodial parent and overzealously apply privacy laws with the effect it excludesthe non-custodial parent from programs and services such as records and parentteacher conferences. This is primarily due to misconceptions of what “custody”implies as opposed to the view of Parental Equality supported by existing stateand federal laws.SOLUTION:The PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT removes the incentive to “win”custody by use of such abusive legal practices which are a pervasive problem inour family courts. For without the ability to dominate over and deny the “a non-custodial” parents rights there is little motive to “win” custody over theprotective parent in the first place.EXISTING LAWYour state’s law here ( Example Ohio Revised Code3109.051(H)(1))

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LAW: To eliminate Custody Discrimination and ensure both Parents Enjoy Equal Accessto services and accommodations that benefit parent and child. The PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT reinforces existing policies and mandates, toguard against “

de jure

custody segregation; that masquerades as providingseparate but equal accommodations but is inherently unequal. In Brown v. Boardof Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), separatepublic schoolsfor blackand white students were ruled unconstitutional. Here also if the non-custodialaccommodations and treatment is inferior to that of the custodial parent., thatbefore he/she may enjoy the activity is placed at a significant psychological andsocial disadvantage from custodial parents which violates of theEqualProtection Clause

of the

Fourteenth Amendmentof theUnited StatesConstitution. The PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT corrects the harmful misinterpretation that only acustodial parent is deemed worthy of participating in the child’s education andactivities, or that a non custodial parent is “un-fit" to parent. Discrimination onthe basis of “custodial status” is a pandemic problem across the nation but alsoimpacts the entire family and excludes other important relationships of the child,including grandparents, other extended family members, and others in thechild’s support system. The PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT complements and unifies existing laws in a waythat clearly states both parents are entitled to enjoy equal access to activitiesand accommodations granted to parents of children. The PARENTAL EQUALITY ACT removes the incentive to engage in abusive and/orharmful practices which are a pervasive problem in our family courts. Withoutthe ability to dominate or deny“ a non-custodial” parents rights there is littlemotive engage in such tactics.. ________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATIONKimberley Bukstein(651) 558-6864 rule11stillapplies@hotmail.comOhio protective Parents Association (OPPA) ; The OHIO PROTECTIVE PARENTSASSOCIATION is a judicial watchdog and advocacy group dedicated to promoting justice for parents, children, and families that have been adversely impacted byabusive legal practices, ploys or scams in relation to custody proceedings. Westrive to prevent re-victimization, provide peer support, raise public awareness,and effect systems change.OHIO PROTECTIVE PARENTS ASSOCIATION, 1933 Wedgewood Circle, SpringfieldOH 45503

Ohioprotectiveparents@gmail.com

Think Our Children Are Not Being Sold!

2011-04-15T15:28:00.000-05:00

And we wonder why our nation is going broke. Do you adopt for money?
Or do you adopt for love?

SMITHFIELD, N.C. (CNNMoney) -- The Wards couldn't believe the news
when their tax preparer called to tell them they're getting a $54,000
refund this year.

Thelma Ward was speechless. She had to hand the phone to her husband
so she could dance around the living room floor in shock.

2784Email Print "I was thanking God like never before," she said.
"We're just overwhelmed -- that amount was so huge it was
unbelievable."

Even their tax preparer said she had to check the math -- 10 to 15 times.

"We couldn't believe it when we totaled everything up. We were like,
that can't be right," said Dee Carter, owner of the local H&R Block
where the Wards have brought their taxes for more than 10 years. "We
had never seen anything like it before, so we had to check it over and
over again."

So what's bringing this windfall? The federal adoption tax credit.

In the past few years, the Wards have expanded their already big clan
of seven children by adopting five new kids. For each of these adopted
children, they are eligible for a one-time tax credit of up to
$13,170.

The credit has been around since 1997, but this tax season it is
refundable for the first time -- which is the tax equivalent of
hitting the jackpot.

A refundable tax credit lets you get the cash even if you owe no
taxes. A non-refundable credit just offsets any taxes you owe, and
then rolls anything remaining to the next tax year.

The Wards adopted the five children over a span of three years, so
they've filed for the tax credit each year. But because they didn't
make enough money, the tax credit simply rolled over from year to year
and accumulated.

This year, because the credit became refundable, they are getting all
the previous years' leftovers in a lump sum. (The couple had an
earlier adoption, in 2004, but unused credits can only be carried for
up to five years.)

While the Wards haven't received the refund check yet, H&R Block
calculated that the unused adoption credits from the past five years
add up to $45,560 -- making up the majority of the $54,000 refund
they're expecting.

"When this was first coming through the tax reform legislation, we
just kept looking at it going, 'Wow, this is really, really
significant for people adopting,'" said Kathy Pickering, executive
director of The Tax Institute at H&R Block. "It's not a large
population who can claim it, but for those who do, it can really
change their lives."

A typical private adoption runs about $30,000, so the credit was
intended to help families by reimbursing expenses, such as court fees.
But the tax law allows parents who adopt "special needs" children to
receive the entire credit even if they had no expenses.

All of the Wards' foster children qualified as special needs, so
Thelma was able to claim the full credit even though there were no
adoption expenses. This is not unusual for foster children; about 80%
of these kids are considered to have "special needs."

They tried to deduct what?!
"People adopting from the foster-care community are typically lower
and moderate income, and most don't have a significant tax liability,
so the credit never helped them," said Mary Boo, assistant director of
the North American Council on Adoptable Children. "The expenses they
have are life-long, so the government really stepped up this year to
help these people."

It's significant to the Wards, who only make about $39,000 per year.

"We didn't get into foster care to adopt anyone, but when we started
being foster parents we couldn't let a child leave us without a place
to call home," said Thelma.

She had to quit her job at a daycare to take care of her new children.
And her husband, David, who works at a concrete company, had to take a
significant pay cut last year to keep his job. The one saving grace:
As foster parents, they receive about $3,300 a month from the state of
North Carolina until the children turn 18.

"Any little bit helps, but it still doesn't cover it," said Thelma,
who has had to learn to stay on a tight budget to afford giving her
children the care they need.

Kelli, only three years old, has a serious heart condition and has
required medical attention since she was born. She is scheduled for a
major heart surgery this month.

7 best apps for filing taxes
Octavius has a heart murmur and is in and out of the doctor's office
constantly. And all of them -- including Joquavius, Zoie and Mckayla
-- require either speech therapy, psychiatry or special classes for
learning disabilities.

This attention really adds up, both emotionally and financially. So to
save money, Thelma focuses on the little things, like using coupons
everywhere she can, selling her children's clothes at consignment
stores, buying everything used and holding yard sales.

While the kids are at school, Thelma goes to three grocery stores to
do her weekly shopping. But the family's weekly grocery bill still
totals around $400, including the more than three gallons of milk and
four loaves of bread the children go through. It usually takes five or
six trips to the car to get all the groceries unloaded.

The Wards hope to use their windfall refund to take their big family
on a vacation, pay bills, and buy new windows for their home -- which
needs a little repair after housing so many foster children over the
past years.

"We'll have to see what we can afford," said Thelma. "Money comes and
money goes, so we want to make sure we spend it all wisely."

Many more families are also finding themselves in the enviable place
of planning what to do with such a windfall. Tax preparer H&R Block
said 8,000 of its own clients have already claimed the credit, and the
company expects 150,000 total taxpayers to claim it this year.

How I'll spend my refund
That's a 50% jump from the 2009 tax year -- but not because adoptions
have increased that much. Instead, many people who had no tax
liability in previous years, and thus wouldn't have been helped by the
credit, are now filing. And some of the refunds it has seen range as
high as $90,000.

A couple from Alabama, Tina and Kenny Thomas, recently adopted five
kids from foster care and are now expecting a check for a whopping
$65,000, thanks to this credit. Like the Wards, they had absolutely no
idea it existed until they went to their tax preparer.

"We went in having no clue about the credit, and we even thought we
may have to pay money," said Tina Thomas. "We never, never would have
expected it."

But before you run out to adopt a child in order to cash in on this
credit, know that the IRS is a stickler for documentation and isn't
doling out refunds like this to just anyone.

"If you're claiming the credit because of the nature of the credit and
the size of the refund, there are many documentation requirements that
Congress included along with it," said Eric Smith, a spokesman for the
IRS. "It is a generous credit for those who qualify -- that's why
policymakers want to make sure the people who deserve it get it, and
those who don't, don't."

How Does A Bad Judge Stay In Office

2011-04-15T11:10:00.000-05:00

How Does A Bad Judge Stay In Office?

By Deanna Kloostra, February 1, 2011

Judge Gardner removed herself form the Karen Holmes case in 2009 claiming bias. In 2010 Judge Zemaitis gave sole custody to this mother based on the recommendations of Dave Bosworth, with the Friend of The Court, and the next day the father commits suicide. (Thank you God, that he did not decided to take his daughter with him.) Judge Zemaitis stated, “That was a very selfish thing for him to do.” Was it selfish or was it because of something else? This father had several Personal Protection Orders, even one that Judge Gardner personally signed. Karen had filed four complaints with the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC). To read more go to www.garddog.org.

In the Haner v Haner case, Judge Gardner gave Jennifer’s former spouse custody of the children. Judge Zemaitis came into the case and Jenifer received sole custody of her children, only a small filed can be obtained for review at the clerk’s desk.

Ann Lotus Deling had Judge Gardner give custody to her former spouse also. She went to the court of appeals and on October 7, 2010 the court of appeals in their opinion commented, “We note that this Court has in several previous cases reversed the trial judge in this case, Judge Patricia Gardner, for failure to conduct requisite hearings, to properly apply the law before changing or modifying custody.” The court of appeals sited four cases; one of them was Karen Holmes case mentioned earlier. In the Ann Lotus Deling case, the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) is Donna Mobilia. Donna is an attorney who sits on the State Bar of Michigan’s Family and Domestic Violence Committee. Being an attorney Donna knew that Gardner did not apply the laws correctly to this case.

Then we have the Ryan v Ryan’s case where the Court of Appeals said Judge Patricia Gardner 's decision to terminate parental rights was "clearly erroneous" given the evidence. In a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard of its proper role, ( Gardner ) stripped (the parents) of their basic constitutional rights to manage and care for their child without state interference. Judge Gardner ordered the parents to undergo counseling and sent their daughter to a foster home even thought the parents were never found to be unfit. Mary Benedict was the attorney in the Ryan v Ryan case. Mary Benedict called Judge Gardner at home and had a “secret meeting.” The Court of Appeals not only criticized Judge Gardner, but also criticized attorney Benedict, saying she failed to check into the facts of the claims made before filing the suit. Mary’s action was called into question, and so was her good faith and competence. Several people were deeply troubled that this matter was allowed to proceed in the trial court for as long, and in the manner in which it did. Several people are deeply troubled on how Judge Gardner handled the case. The case was about the intentional misuse of the legal system to circumvent laws designed to protect and maintain the integrity of families.

In the Low v Low case, the mother Ruth lost custody of her children because the father retired and then did not pay his child support. Once again the mother lost her home ended up losing custody of her children to the father. The father moved to Ohio and continues to move the children. Ruth does not get regular contact with the children and the children do not show up for visitations. Ruth is currently living with friends and is unable to obtain work or pay for her child support. Judge Gardner garnished her bank account and took what little money she had left.

In the Kloostra v Kloostra case, the mother Deanna had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against the father in 2000. In 2005 Donna Mobilia was ordered by Judge Gardner into the case as the GAL. Donna’s investigation report recommended that Patrick have custody of the children even though there is a psychological evaluation that states that the middle son is emotionally abused by his father.

Emotionally abusive parent’s, typically use the oldest child to gain information from the non abusive parent and eventually alienates that child from the non abusive parent. This is exactly what has happen with Deanna’s relationship with her oldest child. According to the MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT CUSTODY ACT (CCA) states “There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, may not be awarded sole legal custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child. The 17Th Circuit Court has eared since the inception of this case and Deanna’s children and Deanna could have been spared unnecessary emotional trauma. The GAL is to have knowledge and understand of abuse where children are concerned. Deanna has written Donna twice and the Chief Judge once asking what Donna’s qualifications are and her understanding towards domestic violence, and they are ignored. Recently Deanna has filed a request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Deanna was ill and unable to represent herself or afford legal representation. West Michigan Legal Aid denied Deanna’s request for help several times. Deanna was under duress at that time and needed to find out what was making her ill. Deanna gave her former spouse custody of her children unable to fight against Donna. A year later it was discovered Deanna’s illness was due to mold being in her home that was detrimental to her health. The mold attacked the joints in Deanna’s hips and she attended physical therapy twice. After five years Deanna is finally in good health.

In May 2008, Deanna started a web site for non custodial mothers at www.abusedswan.com August 1, 2008 Judge Gardner sends Deanna to supervised visitation without any evidence of harm. After visitation failed at the YWCA because Deanna was being harassed, parental boundaries were being stepped over, and they were not following safety protocols, Judge Gardner sent Deanna to Journies Inc. Deanna was made a 100% pay to receive services even though Judge Gardner knew Deanna was living on $400 per month after paying child support obligations. Judge Gardner denied Deanna Access to Visitation funding by State and Federal monies. Journies denied visitations because Deanna could not afford to pay $40 per hour per week. Judge Gardner abused her discretion and then removed herself off the case claiming bias, and Donna Mobilia the GAL just sits back and allows it to happen.

Michigan laws. MCR 2.504(B) states the Court is required to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its decision on certain types of motions as in Jacobs v. Jacobs. Michigan Court Rule 2.517 In actions tried on the facts without a jury the court shall find the facts especially state separately its conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment. A brief, definite, and pertinent findings and conclusions on the contested matters are sufficient. The court may state the findings and conclusions on the record or include them in a written opinion. Pursuant to Michigan Child Custody Act MCL 722.27a. A child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record by clear and convincing evidence that it would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health. MCL 722.27 (1) (d) The trial court’s ultimate findings relative to custody must be based upon competent evidence adduced at the hearing as in Duperon v Duperon. The trial courts must arrive at its own conclusion in a custody dispute and cannot delegate its authority to the FOC or other experts.

Judge Zemaitis takes over the Kloostra v Kloostra case and tells Deanna she needs to have Michigan law and case law that tell him how to do his job, yet Patrick can change all his phone contact numbers, go into court and request that Deanna not have phone communications with the children. He presented no evidence of Deanna even upsetting the children or abusing the phone conversations. Deanna is held at a higher standard then all parties in the case even though she is a pro se litigant. When Judge Zemaitis denied Deanna phone contact with her children, at that exact point the children were completely concealed from her under the color of law.

Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally and expansively, affording them all opportunity in obtaining substance of justice, over technicality of form. Mary v. Grassell Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938). If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax or sentence construction, or a litigant’s unfamiliarity with particular rule requirements Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70L.Ed.2d 551 (1982). When interpreting pro se papers, this Court is required to use its own common sense to determine what relief the party either desires, or is otherwise entitled to S.E.C. v Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)

Judge Zemaitis admits that he helped get the Safe Connection Program in the community because it was well needed, but Deanna sent all of the Safe Connection funder’s information on her experience and 30 days later the program was closed after only being open for five months. Deanna has also gone to Cooley Law’s Access to Justice Program for help after it was suggested by a public defender. Deanna was told by Cooley Law that the case was too complicated to take and that they did not have the funding. Judge Zemaitis is an instructor at Cooley Law and Judge Gardner donates money to the program. Judge Gardner is also a part of the Inn of Courts and grooms third year law students.

Journies refused Judge Zemaitis order to facilitate the supervised visitation and Deanna was then told by Judge Zemaitis to find her own supervised visitation since she was acting as her own attorney. Deanna found someone with the proper credentials and then was told in an order after hearing written by Donna Mobilia she needed file an evidentiary hearing as to this person’s “inappropriateness.” Deanna refused to put this man through her living night mare and a year later found out that Mary Benedict has a personal vendetta against this person. Judge Zemaitis then suggest Judy Gabriel’s do the supervised visitations. Patrick refused the place Deanna requested, the Wyoming Park Library. The library has glassed in rooms and security. Plaintiff wants the visitations to be in Greenville and extra expenses paid for by Deanna even though he knows Deanna can not already afford the $20 per week cost being charged her. (Patrick lives on $5,000 per month while Deanna was living on $600 per month after child support was paid. Currently Deanna is living on unemployment benefits of $260 per month and has not seen her children in two years and is unable to speak with her children.)

The court contracts with the Human Resource Associates for psychological evaluations. On purpose, Deanna made her appoint with Jeff Kieliszewski to do the psychological evaluation because a non custodial mother she had been communicating with told her how bad Jeff’s psychological evaluation was for her. Jeff and Donna had communication without Deanna being present. Deanna is a pro se litigant and was not privy to the communication. Donna faxed two motions Deanna filed to Jeff for him to review. Deanna’s test results came out as expected, not in her favor. Data is missing and Jeff contradicts himself through out the report. Father has a history of domestic violence and he is not sent for a psychological evaluation or supervised visitations, this is considered bias by the courts.

December 10, 2010 hearing, father cornered Deanna’s friend on an elevator screaming at her and threatening to file harassment charges against her. This friend had never met nor spoken to Patrick. Several people witnessed this in the court house that day and security was alerted. Donna, Mary, and Judge Zemaitis ignored his actions as if they did not occur. Once again Deanna asked Judge Daniel Zemaitis the reasons for the supervised visitations Judge Zemaitis skirts his way around the question and refused to hold an evidentiary.

MCR 2.611 when findings of fact are made in an action tried by the court without a jury the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised.

Deanna is harassed at the Safe Connection program and then denied phone contact with the children even though there is no evidence of her inappropriateness. Deanna has jumped through hoop after hoop to see her children. This is outrageous behavior by all the parties in this case who are intentionally inflicting emotional distress on these children and their mother. This court has concealed Deanna’s children from her and is trying to coerce Deanna into shutting down her web site in order to see her children. We are currently aware of 28 non custodial mothers who have lost custody of their children to abusive fathers or illegally to foster care. Mothers are afraid to come forward for fear that they will be treated like this mother.

How does a bad judge stay in office? Because everyone turns a blind eye as to what is happening in our family courts. Follow the Kloostra v Kloostra case in the court of appeals. Go to http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/opinions.htm click on Docket Number. The Kloostra v Kloostra Leave to Appeal case number is 302015 and the Appeal of Rights case number is 302006. Attached to this email are the appeals for both cases.

To receive more information on Deanna’s case, others cases, or information regarding the 17TH Circuit Court, please go to www.abusedswan.com/17THCircuitCourt and sign up for updates to be emailed to you directly. It is time to stop the family courts from harming our children.

Charlie Sheen Winning Custody In Michigan

2011-04-15T11:02:00.001-05:00

Charlie Sheen Winning Custody In Michigan

By Deanna Kloostra

April, 2011

If Charlie Sheen lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan, he not only would get custody, the courts would help conceal the children from the mother. Mothers in Grand Rapids are afraid to speak out about the unfair court system in fear their children will be kept from them as the court has done to the mother who created www.abusedswan.com. Abused Swan is a web site that educates non custodial mothers about the failing court system. The web site started May of 2008 and December 2008 is the last time this mother has seen her children. The courts then stopped all phone contact with the children. This Mother is ordered to have supervised visitations and to pay for these visits when there is government funding. This mother pays child support, yes, she pays child support and lives off $400 per month while the father lives off $5,000 per month. Due to lack of economic means, this mother represents herself and currently the Court of Appeals has accepted her case. Someone should tell Charlie that if he wants custody, he should move to Grand Rapids, Michigan where he surely will get it.

17th Circus Court, where clowns gain custody!

Mothers Journal Thier Way Through Family Court

2011-03-02T16:25:00.000-05:00

Mothers Journal Their Way Through Family Court To Win

The Court Journal is no ordinary journal. The Court Journal sets you up to take legal action in Family Court! The Court Journal helps you with effective documentation regarding communication with the other party, Friend of The Court, caseworkers, and the police.

This 90 page journal will help you stay organized and help you build a strong and effective case. You will retain important facts and outcomes of situations.

http://familycourtjournal.blogspot.com/

You may also be interested in…..

http://familycourtworkbook.blogspot.com/

http://deannaswebaddressbook.blogspot.com/

http://advocatefxcourtcase.blogspot.com/

Not sold in any stores or anywhere else on the internet!

How Does A Bad Judge Stay In Office?

2011-02-04T14:34:00.000-05:00

This email’s purpose is to inform the public about Judge Patricia Gardner with the the 17TH Circuit Court, Family Court in Kent County , Grand Rapids , Michigan .

How Does A Bad Judge Stay In Office?

By Deanna Kloostra, February 1, 2011

Judge Gardner removed herself form the Karen Holmes case in 2009 claiming bias. In 2010 Judge Zemaitis gave sole custody to this mother based on the recommendations of Dave Bosworth, with the Friend of The Court, and the next day the father commits suicide. (Thank you God, that he did not decided to take his daughter with him.) Judge Zemaitis stated, “That was a very selfish thing for him to do.” Was it selfish or was it because of something else? This father had several Personal Protection Orders, even one that Judge Gardner personally signed. Karen had filed four complaints with the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC). To read more go to www.garddog.org.

In the Haner v Haner case, Judge Gardner gave Jennifer’s former spouse custody of the children. Judge Zemaitis came into the case and Jenifer received sole custody of her children, only a small filed can be obtained for review at the clerk’s desk.

Ann Lotus Deling had Judge Gardner give custody to her former spouse also. She went to the court of appeals and on October 7, 2010 the court of appeals in their opinion commented, “We note that this Court has in several previous cases reversed the trial judge in this case, Judge Patricia Gardner, for failure to conduct requisite hearings, to properly apply the law before changing or modifying custody.” The court of appeals sited four cases; one of them was Karen Holmes case mentioned earlier. In the Ann Lotus Deling case, the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) is Donna Mobilia. Donna is an attorney who sits on the State Bar of Michigan’s Family and Domestic Violence Committee. Being an attorney Donna knew that Gardner did not apply the laws correctly to this case.

Then we have the Ryan v Ryan’s case where the Court of Appeals said Judge Patricia Gardner 's decision to terminate parental rights was "clearly erroneous" given the evidence. In a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard of its proper role, ( Gardner ) stripped (the parents) of their basic constitutional rights to manage and care for their child without state interference. Judge Gardner ordered the parents to undergo counseling and sent their daughter to a foster home even thought the parents were never found to be unfit. Mary Benedict was the attorney in the Ryan v Ryan case. Mary Benedict called Judge Gardner at home and had a “secret meeting.” The Court of Appeals not only criticized Judge Gardner, but also criticized attorney Benedict, saying she failed to check into the facts of the claims made before filing the suit. Mary’s action was called into question, and so was her good faith and competence. Several people were deeply troubled that this matter was allowed to proceed in the trial court for as long, and in the manner in which it did. Several people are deeply troubled on how Judge Gardner handled the case. The case was about the intentional misuse of the legal system to circumvent laws designed to protect and maintain the integrity of families.

In the Lowe v Lowe case, the mother Ruth lost custody of her children because the father retired and then did not pay his child support. Once again the mother lost her home ended up losing custody of her children to the father. The father moved to Ohio and continues to move the children. Ruth does not get regular contact with the children and the children do not show up for visitations. Ruth is currently living with friends and is unable to obtain work or pay for her child support. Judge Gardner garnished her bank account and took what little money she had left.

In the Kloostra v Kloostra case, the mother Deanna had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against the father in 2000. In 2005 Donna Mobilia was ordered by Judge Gardner into the case as the GAL. Donna’s investigation report recommended that Patrick have custody of the children even though there is a psychological evaluation that states that the middle son is emotionally abused by his father.

Emotionally abusive parent’s, typically use the oldest child to gain information from the non abusive parent and eventually alienates that child from the non abusive parent. This is exactly what has happen with Deanna’s relationship with her oldest child. According to the MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT CUSTODY ACT (CCA) states “There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, may not be awarded sole legal custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child. The 17Th Circuit Court has eared since the inception of this case and Deanna’s children and Deanna could have been spared unnecessary emotional trauma. The GAL is to have knowledge and understand of abuse where children are concerned. Deanna has written Donna twice and the Chief Judge once asking what Donna’s qualifications are and her understanding towards domestic violence, and they are ignored. Recently Deanna has filed a request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Deanna was ill and unable to represent herself or afford legal representation. West Michigan Legal Aid denied Deanna’s request for help several times. Deanna was under duress at that time and needed to find out what was making her ill. Deanna gave her former spouse custody of her children unable to fight against Donna. A year later it was discovered Deanna’s illness was due to mold being in her home that was detrimental to her health. The mold attacked the joints in Deanna’s hips and she attended physical therapy twice. After five years Deanna is finally in good health.

In May 2008, Deanna started a web site for non custodial mothers at www.abusedswan.com August 1, 2008 Judge Gardner sends Deanna to supervised visitation without any evidence of harm. After visitation failed at the YWCA because Deanna was being harassed, parental boundaries were being stepped over, and they were not following safety protocols, Judge Gardner sent Deanna to Journies Inc. Deanna was made a 100% pay to receive services even though Judge Gardner knew Deanna was living on $400 per month after paying child support obligations. Judge Gardner denied Deanna Access to Visitation funding by State and Federal monies. Journies denied visitations because Deanna could not afford to pay $40 per hour per week. Judge Gardner abused her discretion and then removed herself off the case claiming bias, and Donna Mobilia the GAL just sits back and allows it to happen.

Michigan laws. MCR 2.504(B) states the Court is required to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its decision on certain types of motions as in Jacobs v. Jacobs. Michigan Court Rule 2.517 In actions tried on the facts without a jury the court shall find the facts especially state separately its conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment. A brief, definite, and pertinent findings and conclusions on the contested matters are sufficient. The court may state the findings and conclusions on the record or include them in a written opinion. Pursuant to Michigan Child Custody Act MCL 722.27a. A child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record by clear and convincing evidence that it would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health. MCL 722.27 (1) (d) The trial court’s ultimate findings relative to custody must be based upon competent evidence adduced at the hearing as in Duperon v Duperon. The trial courts must arrive at its own conclusion in a custody dispute and cannot delegate its authority to the FOC or other experts.

Judge Zemaitis takes over the Kloostra v Kloostra case and tells Deanna she needs to have Michigan law and case law that tell him how to do his job, yet Patrick can change all his phone contact numbers, go into court and request that Deanna not have phone communications with the children. He presented no evidence of Deanna even upsetting the children or abusing the phone conversations. Deanna is held at a higher standard then all parties in the case even though she is a pro se litigant. When Judge Zemaitis denied Deanna phone contact with her children, at that exact point the children were completely concealed from her under the color of law.

Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally and expansively, affording them all opportunity in obtaining substance of justice, over technicality of form. Mary v. Grassell Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938). If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax or sentence construction, or a litigant’s unfamiliarity with particular rule requirements Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70L.Ed.2d 551 (1982). When interpreting pro se papers, this Court is required to use its own common sense to determine what relief the party either desires, or is otherwise entitled to S.E.C. v Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)

Judge Zemaitis admits that he helped get the Safe Connection Program in the community because it was well needed, but Deanna sent all of the Safe Connection funder’s information on her experience and 30 days later the program was closed after only being open for five months. Deanna has also gone to Cooley Law’s Access to Justice Program for help after it was suggested by a public defender. Deanna was told by Cooley Law that the case was too complicated to take and that they did not have the funding. Judge Zemaitis is an instructor at Cooley Law and Judge Gardner donates money to the program. Judge Gardner is also a part of the Inn of Courts and grooms third year law students.

Journies refused Judge Zemaitis order to facilitate the supervised visitation and Deanna was then told by Judge Zemaitis to find her own supervised visitation since she was acting as her own attorney. Deanna found someone with the proper credentials and then was told in an order after hearing written by Donna Mobilia she needed file an evidentiary hearing as to this person’s “inappropriateness.” Deanna refused to put this man through her living night mare and a year later found out that Mary Benedict has a personal vendetta against this person. Judge Zemaitis then suggest Judy Gabriel’s do the supervised visitations. Patrick refused the place Deanna requested, the Wyoming Park Library. The library has glassed in rooms and security. Plaintiff wants the visitations to be in Greenville and extra expenses paid for by Deanna even though he knows Deanna can not already afford the $20 per week cost being charged her. (Patrick lives on $5,000 per month while Deanna was living on $600 per month after child support was paid. Currently Deanna is living on unemployment benefits of $260 per month and has not seen her children in two years and is unable to speak with her children.)

The court contracts with the Human Resource Associates for psychological evaluations. On purpose, Deanna made her appoint with Jeff Kieliszewski to do the psychological evaluation because a non custodial mother she had been communicating with told her how bad Jeff’s psychological evaluation was for her. Jeff and Donna had communication without Deanna being present. Deanna is a pro se litigant and was not privy to the communication. Donna faxed two motions Deanna filed to Jeff for him to review. Deanna’s test results came out as expected, not in her favor. Data is missing and Jeff contradicts himself through out the report. Father has a history of domestic violence and he is not sent for a psychological evaluation or supervised visitations, this is considered bias by the courts.

December 10, 2010 hearing, father cornered Deanna’s friend on an elevator screaming at her and threatening to file harassment charges against her. This friend had never met nor spoken to Patrick. Several people witnessed this in the court house that day and security was alerted. Donna, Mary, and Judge Zemaitis ignored his actions as if they did not occur. Once again Deanna asked Judge Daniel Zemaitis the reasons for the supervised visitations Judge Zemaitis skirts his way around the question and refused to hold an evidentiary.

MCR 2.611 when findings of fact are made in an action tried by the court without a jury the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised.

Deanna is harassed at the Safe Connection program and then denied phone contact with the children even though there is no evidence of her inappropriateness. Deanna has jumped through hoop after hoop to see her children. This is outrageous behavior by all the parties in this case who are intentionally inflicting emotional distress on these children and their mother. This court has concealed Deanna’s children from her and is trying to coerce Deanna into shutting down her web site in order to see her children. We are currently aware of 28 non custodial mothers who have lost custody of their children to abusive fathers or illegally to foster care. Mothers are afraid to come forward for fear that they will be treated like this mother.

How does a bad judge stay in office? Because everyone turns a blind eye as to what is happening in our family courts. Follow the Kloostra v Kloostra case in the court of appeals. Go to http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/opinions.htm click on Docket Number. The Kloostra v Kloostra Leave to Appeal case number is 302015 and the Appeal of Rights case number is 302006. Attached to this email are the appeals for both cases.

To receive more information on Deanna’s case, others cases, or information regarding the 17TH Circuit Court, please go to www.abusedswan.com/17THCircuitCourt and sign up for updates to be emailed to you directly. It is time to stop the family courts from harming our children.

DHS Can Inspect Safe Boxes Without Warrant and Seize Gold, Silver, Guns etc...

2011-02-04T13:31:00.000-05:00

U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS TOLD BANKS - IN WRITING - IT MAY INSPECT SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES WITHOUT WARRANT AND SIEZE ANY GOLD, SILVER, GUNS OR OTHER VALUABLES IT FINDS INSIDE THOSE BOXES!

According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that "under the Patriot Act" the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make "periodic and unannounced" visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of "selected safe deposit boxes."

Further, the DHS "shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence" any of the following items "bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature."

DHS memos also state that banks are informed that any bank employee, on any level, that releases "improper" "classified DHS Security information" to any member of the public, to include the customers whose boxes have been clandestinely opened and inspected and "any other party, to include members of the media" and further "that the posting of any such information on the internet will be grounds for the immediate termination of the said employee or employees and their prosecution under the Patriot Act." Safety deposit box holders and depositors are not given advanced notice when failed banks shut their doors.

If people have their emergency money in a safe deposit box or an account in a bank that closes, they will not be allowed into the bank to get it out. They can knock on the door and beg to get in but the sheriff’s department or whoever is handling the closure will simply say “no” because they are just following orders.

Deposit box and account holders are not warned of the hazards of banking when they sign up. It is not until they need to get their cash or valuables out in a hurry that they find themselves in trouble.

Rules governing access to safe deposit boxes and money held in accounts are written into the charter of each bank. The charter is the statement of policy under which the bank is allowed by the government to do business. These rules are subject to change at any time by faceless bureaucrats who are answerable to no one. They can be changed without notice, without the agreement of the people, and against their will. People can complain but no one will care because this is small potatoes compared to the complaints that will be voiced when the executive order that governs national emergencies is enforced.

That order allows the suspension of habeas corpus and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

A look at the fine print of the contract signed when a safety deposit box is opened reveals that in essence the signer has given to the bank whatever property he has put into that deposit box. When times are good people will be allowed open access to their safe deposit box and the property that is in it. This also applies to their bank accounts.

But when times get really bad, many may find that the funds they have placed on deposit and the property they thought was secured in the safe deposit box now belong to the bank, not to them. Although this was probably not explained to them when they signed their signature card, this is what they were agreeing to.

During the Great Depression in the early 1930’s people thought that many banks were going to fail. They were afraid they would lose their money so they went in mass to take it out, in what is known as a run on the banks. The government closed the banks to protect them from angry depositors who wanted their money back. Throughout history, governments have acted to protect the interests of banks and the wealthy people who own them, not the interests of depositors or box holders.

In a time of emergency, people will have no recourse if access to their safe deposit box and bank accounts is denied. If they are keeping money in a bank that would be needed in an emergency or in a time when credit is no longer free flowing, they may not be able to get it out of the bank. The emergency may occur at night or on a weekend or holiday when the bank is closed.

The solution is to take emergency cash or valuables out of the safe deposit box or bank account and secure them somewhere else, like in a home safe. An even better idea may be to close the safe deposit box account completely, letting someone else entertain the illusion of safety.

Americans have learned a few things since the Great Depression. They now have the FDIC to liquidate any failed banks.

The FDIC promises to set up a series of dates and times when safe deposit box renters can access their boxes by appointment to remove their property and surrender their keys. The FDIC also promises to mail bank customers an announcement of the dates for such events and include a question and answer page that addresses safe deposit box access.

The people have the FDIC to give them back the money they had on deposit that they were unable to get out of any failed bank that carries FDIC insurance. Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, promises that depositor`s money will be available in 24 hours or less. But people should remember that the FDIC is just another bureaucracy, and it`s probably best not to rely on a bureaucracy in an emergency.

THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR STORAGE FACILITIES

DON'T PUT ANYTHING VALUABLE AND/OR NON-REPLACEABLE IN ANY BANK OR STORAGE FACILITY

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/52464-do-not-use-safety-deposit-boxes/?s=19dc30bad502d7235d9247a453b473fb#ixzz1CopNnFsG

Congress Having Sex With Foster Kids

2010-11-08T09:16:00.000-05:00

I could only listen to the first video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXuOlDNZJis CONGRESS HAVING SEX WITH FOSTER KIDS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW6zjNDt8HQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCOF2WmNHOk PART 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pveuSFf9hks PART 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHbJzproj0 PART 1 DIFFERENT INTERVIEW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS_6sD7poLs PART 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bUtXLiozIg PART 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSl3xbYGSd4 PART 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbpzi1mr4-k PART 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RITugyN3ig PART 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv6MA7RDcEU PART 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REiKppqA58w PART 8

Government Trampling on Constitutional Rights of Parents

2010-11-06T22:36:00.000-05:00

by Phyllis Schlafly November 5, 2010

When the liberals and the feminists, including Hillary Clinton, began saying the "village" should raise the child, most people recognized village as a metaphor for government. We're now seeing how intrusive Big Government Nannyism really is.

State agencies operating under various names such as Child Protective Services (CPS) have been assigned the task of protecting kids from abuse or neglect by any adults, especially by their own parents. A new study casts doubt on the value of CPS.

Child Protective Services, which rushes into action based on anonymous tips, investigated more than three million cases of suspected child abuse in 2007. Researchers examined the records of 595 children nationwide alleged to be at similar high risk for abuse, and tracked them from ages 4 to 8.

The researchers concluded that CPS's intervention did little or nothing to improve the lives of the children, and there was no difference between children in the families CPS investigated or did not investigate. The social scientists looked at all the factors known to increase the risk for abuse or neglect: social support, family functioning, poverty, caregiver education and depressive symptoms, plus child anxiety, depression and aggressive behavior.

Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was passed by Congress in 1974, and about 45 states passed complementary state laws. Taxpayers' money began to flow big time to the bureaucrats.

The research results were reported in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The report was accompanied by an editorial entitled "Child Protective Services Has Outlived its Usefulness."

It argued that CPS should not be engaged in law enforcement. If it's a crime, call the police; if it's neglect, call a public health nurse; if it's an unsuitable living situation, call the appropriate social services.

Unfortunately, the researchers did not look at the harm caused by CPS bureaucrats who arrive unannounced with the police, interfere with a functioning family, and often take the children away from their parents and turn them over to foster care. When taxpayer appropriations are voted next year by Congress and state legislatures, CPS bureaucrats should be required to demonstrate whether any good outweighs the harm.

Two cases involving Child Protective Services are now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court has just agreed to take a case involving the interrogation of an elementary schoolchild at school by a CPS caseworker and a deputy sheriff about possible sexual abuse at home.

This is a Fourth Amendment case: Camreta and Alford v. Greene. Oregon investigators are appealing a lower court ruling that they violated a nine-year-old girl's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they interviewed her for two hours at school without a warrant, court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances.

This case could have a significant impact nationwide. Unfortunately, some government agencies are more solicitous in guaranteeing constitutional due process to vicious criminals than to parents.

The other CPS case now before the Supreme Court, Los Angeles County v. Humphries, has already been briefed and argued. This case involves the constitutionality of the child abuse index, or list, maintained by Child Protective Services in California.

More than 800,000 people are now listed on California's child abuse index. These listings are very hurtful to individuals since employers consult the list before hiring employees to work with children.

CPS puts people on this list from agency reports that are based on anonymous tips and suspicion, not proof. It's mighty easy for a malicious wife or ex-wife to allege child abuse as part of her game plan to get child custody or increased child support.

The issue in this case is the fact that there are no procedures, no standards, and no criteria for a wrongly accused person to get his name off the child abusers index. The Supreme Court is reviewing the Ninth Circuit ruling that Craig Humphries (whom a court pronounced innocent of all charges) had a "nightmarish encounter" with the California system, and "There is no effective procedure for Humphries to challenge this listing."

In 2006, Congress toyed with a plan to create a national child abuse registry. The plan was abandoned because of the unreliability of state lists and lack of due process. (blog.eagleforum.org)

The child abuse registry should not be confused with the sex offender registry, which lists only those who have been convicted of sex crimes. The child abuse registry puts men on the list who have never been proven guilty of anything or even charged with a crime, a punishment that is entirely contrary to our legal assumption of being innocent until proven guilty.

Humphries has been trying to clear his name for nine years. Congress should defund these abusive registries and we hope the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional.

Michigan Law For Real

2010-10-31T14:30:00.000-05:00

Commentary on issues relating to the law by an experienced reputable Michigan attorney familiar with both the substance of Michigan law and Michigan politics.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Blows law again...

Yes, Judge Mary Beth Kelly AGAIN demonstrates that she either cannot or will not follow the law and has AGAIN been reversed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in a serious matter involving the termination of parental rights. After more than eleven years on the bench, Kelly either does not know or understand the law, or simply chooses to ignore it. Given her reputation and history, it's likely the latter.

As you may recall, I previously discussed her extraordinarily egregious handling of the In re Felicia Clemons, minor, case wherein she was reversed in a stinging opinion by the Michigan Court of Appeals and removed from the case upon remand. In both the Clemons matter, and in this latest case, In the Matter of C. J. MILLS, Minor, No. 295640, released, Aug. 12, 2010, two noted conservative Republican judges on the three member COA bench ruled to reverse Kelly.

Once again, now in In re C J Mills, minor, the appeals court reversed Kelly for failing to follow the law in terminating parental rights. Instead, she again employed her own judgment and opinions and did substituted her own notions of justice. Again, she conducted herself as a complete opposite of a rule of law judge, something she vociferously claims to be. Actions speak so much louder than words, Judge Kelly. In Mills the COA said:

"A complete failure" to accord the parent due process, "numerous errors": this, again, is strong language from the reserved Court of Appeals. Indeed, Judge Kurt Wilder, a conservative Engler appointee, has been one of the judges on both these Kelly reversals. Its difficult to imagine that Judges Wilder and the other appellate judges are blind to Judge Kelly's arrogant, defiant, judicial temperament figured and, hence, the strong language.

What is so disturbing about these cases is the mere fact that I know about them, and apparently few others do. The media does not do its job. And partisanship is overreaching. Moreover, it is a very quite likely that there are other disturbing Kelly reversals that have not been revealed because the opinions are usually unpublished and difficult to locate. So is this the Rule of Law judge the Tea Party conservatives think they are getting with Judge Kelly as a Republican Supreme Court candidate? Or have we just been sold a bill of goods on her good friend Justice Young's say-so and the cynical imploring of former Justice Taylor that the Republicans "had to have a Kelly to win"? What's really the ironic kicker is Judge Mary Beth Kelly is enjoying strong support from DEMOCRATS, who adore Justice Marilyn Jean Kelly, and Republicans who know and respect Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly. No wonder the Kelly name is so attractive to the Engler gang. The fact is, Justice Young may lose to her and the popular and respected Justice Alton Thomas Davis . Yup, Kelly's a good name to have. But that sure doesn't mean Kelly's a good justice to elect, at least this Kelly.

See: http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20100812_C295640_62_295640.OPN.PDF

"We hold that respondent was denied procedural due process. The record reflects that, at the pretrial hearing, the court stated that respondent’s rights were already terminated and it told respondent’s attorney to explain the adoption statutes to respondent. Indeed, throughout the proceedings, the court mistakenly believed respondent’s rights to the child were already terminated and it held a hearing only to address whether respondent’s mother should be permitted to adopt the child. Respondent was not told she had a right to a jury at any stage, the court did not read the petition allegations, and the court repeatedly told respondent that the court was not deciding whether to terminate her rights because that had already been done. Moreover, though MCL 712A.17c(7) requires the lower court to appoint a lawyer-guardian ad litem to

represent the minor child, one was not appointed to represent the child in this case. Despite these numerous errors and a complete failure to afford respondent the opportunity to meaningfully defend her parental rights, the court issued an order that terminated respondent’s rights, merely noting “some confusion” about whether respondent’s rights were terminated in a prior proceeding. Under these circumstances, the court committed clear error affecting respondent’s substantial rights." Opn, pg 2.

Posted by Maryland at 9:07 PM 0 comments

Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Not a Rule of Law Judge

Introduction

I believe that the rule of law requires judges to be impartial and not decide cases based on their own personal, social or political views. Judges must take the law as it is written: we should neither add to it nor subtract from it, and apply it equally to everyone alike. – Justice Robert Young, Michigan Supreme Court. see www.justicebobyoung.com, cited on August 6, 2010

The attached Court of Appeals decision is about a trial judge who does not share Justice Young’s view of the proper role of the judiciary. The Judge is juvenile court Judge Mary Beth Kelly. In the decision, the Court of Appeals, in reviewing Judge Kelly’s actions on the bench, holds that Judge Kelly ignored the Constitution, the plain language of the law, and that she abused her power. The Court even took the extraordinary step of removing her from the case.

A link to the actual case can be found below.

This is not the only case where Judge Kelly is reprimanded for not following the rule of law. See, e.g., Third Judicial Circuit Court v. The Judicial Attorneys Association, 480 Mich 994; 742 N.W.2d 127 (2007) (Weaver, dissenting)

And now, Judge Kelly wants the Republican Party to nominate her as a candidate for the Supreme Court.

A little Background

In a virtuous, God fearing country, it is self-evident that parents have the right to the companionship, care, and custody of their children. Blood relations between parents and children are both precious and sacred. These simple truths form some of the strongest roots of the Republican Party tree. It is no coincidence that the majority of Congressional cosponsors of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, spearheaded by Congressman Pete Hoekstra, are Republicans. (The text of the proposed Amendment reads in part as follows: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.”)

When the State of Michigan seeks to terminate parental rights, it is more than a mere temporary disruption of relationships: it is the forced, irretrievable, destruction of family life. It is an awesome power. “When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” The Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply with full force to parental termination cases. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)

The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing

A parental termination case is essentially no different from any other kind of case. Both the parent and the State are entitled to a “rule of law” judge who faithfully applies the Constitution and the plain language of the statute, one who is unbiased, impartial, fair minded, and principled. The judge must give each party a fair opportunity to present his evidence. The judge should consider the evidence with an open mind. The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the law.

In the Matter of Felicia Alicia Clemons, Minor – a Chilling Story of Abuse of Judicial Power

When Tamara Alicia Clemons appeared before Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly in August of 2007, Judge Kelly was no rookie; she had been on the bench for eight years.

The Court of Appeals opinion details a chilling abuse of power, an abuse that conservative Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan later labeled, “disturbing.” See In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928, 938, 763 N.W.2d 618, 627 (2009) (Corrigan, concurring)

A Petitioner had requested that the Court terminate Tamara Clemons’s parental rights to her daughter, Felicia. The Petitioner, that is, the person who filed the complaint against Ms Clemons, did not appear for the hearing. Neither did an attorney for the State of Michigan. Although Tamara appeared, she did so without a lawyer to represent her. Astonishingly, Judge Kelly did not dismiss, or even adjourn the case. Instead, she decided to abandon her role as an unbiased judge and take on the role of accuser.

Judge Kelly called witnesses to the stand. Instead of being fair minded, her questions displayed “an accusatory or prosecutorial bent.” Judge Kelly only elicited information that could be used to support termination. She assiduously avoided obtaining information that might help Tamara’s case.

After compiling the one-sided evidence, Judge Kelly refused to allow Tamara to introduce any evidence of her own. Judge Kelly used her power as a judge to deny Tamara the right to even defend herself!

And finally, the Court of Appeals, appalled by Judge Kelly’s lawless conduct, removed her from the case!

"Given the egregious violations of respondent's constitutional rights that occurred in this case, this case shall be assigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice."

This action by the Court of Appeals, removing a trial judge from a case, is extraordinary. It is reserved for conspicuously bad conduct on the bench.

These are not the actions of a Rule of Law judge.

To read the case, click here: http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcehb&searchTerm=eUiQ.GeLa.UYGU.IbTY&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

Posted by Maryland at 12:25 PM 0 comments

Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz

Home

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

-

CPS Investigation Turns Into Meth Raid

2010-10-16T06:39:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago I was at the 61st District Court on 180 Ottawa, Grand Rapids, MI 49503.
I seen a young couple and thought, "They look like innocent victimes." Sure enough when talking to the young boy he stated that the police raided his home in the 49504 area code. The police stated his home was a drug house and a house for prostution. He stated none of that was going on and CPS came in and took his girlfriends child. I asked him, "Were you charged with any of these allegations?" The boy replied. "No! Nothing was going on."

When one knows that the CPS in Kent County is illegally taking children and making money on for doing it, you start watching for the signs. Read this article below, it is almost the same story this boy told me. The case is in the same county. CPS is making $4000 for every child they adopt out. .

Updated: Friday, 15 Oct 2010, 5:25 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 15 Oct 2010, 5:25 PM EDT

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - A Child Protective Services investigation turned into a meth raid in Grand Rapids on Friday.

Police were working with CPS, checking on a family with two children under the age of 6, when they came across a suspected meth lab. Officers obtained a search warrant for the home, on Marshall Avenue near Eastern and 32nd.

It is rare that the police go with a CPS worker to do an investigation. I used to work for the answering service who did the after hour calls for CPS. They always leave information as to where they are going, address, persons name, car they are driving and license plate number.

GR vice officers said they so rarely find meth labs in the city that they weren't sure exactly what to look for.

I took Meth training from a Sargent in Holland I believe. Meth labs are in the city, they take the smelly part and finish it in the county where no one is around and can smell the Meth cooking etc...

Police in protective gear found the ingredients in a second-story apartment, but the family and two children were nowhere to be found.

"They identified some suspicious materials inside of the apartment that they believe possibly were involved with a meth lab operation," GRPD Lt. Daniel Savage said.

They found suspicious materials. Oh give me a break. I used to do security and have been trained on identifying a Meth lab, I could tell if the material was used for Meth or not.

Police are waiting for test results from the lab.

I am waiting to see who the children are, what the suspicious materials are, and to see if more parents are claiming the police are making false allegations to help CPS remove children.

Wonder if they all get the same judge and Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)

Visit www.GRCorruption.com for more info on the corruption in Grand Rapids

Michael Cox, Michigan's Attorney General Hard At Work

2010-10-11T06:31:00.002-05:00

My former spouse and Michigan's Attorney General are "hard" at work.

Michael Cox can't investigate my case, he is getting lap dances by the same girl my former spouse gets his lap dances with.

This is not what CSX means by, " So every ride can feel like a joy ride."

MICHAEL COX, "LAP DANCES BEFORE CHILDREN."

Nancy Schaefer on CPS

2010-10-10T04:06:00.002-05:00

Represent Yourself in Family Court

2010-09-17T17:44:00.003-05:00

Feel like a professional when you walk into court representing yourself, and knowing you are saving hundreds of dollars. The Represent Yourself In Family Court Workbook was created for those who want to file a motion without the expense of an attorney. The work book walks you through the process of creating a motion, filing and serving the motion, and the after order paperwork. The workbook is simple and easy to use. This in expensive book is filled with

Examples

Pictures

Research Info

Helpful Ideas

Helpful Links

You will be amazed on how easy it is to represent yourself in court and the cost is $10.00 plus $2.00 for shipping and hangeling.

To purchase go to http://familycourtworkbook.blogspot.com/

Michael Cox Request for Grand Jury

2010-09-15T05:50:00.002-05:00

September 14, 2010

Michael Cox
Attorney General
Po Box 30758
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Attorney General Michael Cox,
You are well aware of the issues at the 61st District Court, 17th Circuit Court in Kent County, Grand Rapids, Michigan. You are also aware of the web sites garddog.org and abusedswan.com that are educating the public about the family court system. In March I filed an impeachment petition with Andy Dillon, the House Speaker, to investigate my case with the 17th Circuit Court and to impeach Judge Patricia Gardner. Andy is refusing to enforce the impeachment petition.

Currently there are 25 non custodial mothers who have had their children illegally removed by Judge Patricia Gardner. We are asking that you request a grand jury to investigate Judge Patricia Gardner. Since Andy Dillon is refusing put the people’s best interest first and uphold the Michigan Constitution, we are also asking that Andy be part of the investigation to see if he has conspired with the 17th Circuit Court in any way or has committed treason. If Andy does not have the best interest of the people and refuses to hold up the constitution, then who exactly is he working for?

We know that the Attorney General has the best interest of children at heart and wants to make sure that children are kept safe and allowed to have contact with both parents and will respond to this letter within seven business days. Because of the children in the case and the wrong doing, time is of the essence.

In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present "True Bills" of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a "buffer" the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.

Sincerely,

Deanna Kloostra
“The United Way Case”
Po Box 8491
Grand Rapids, MI 49518
616.773.8508

Judy Gabriels Cash Supervised Visitation Scheme

2010-09-15T05:47:00.002-05:00

September 14, 2010

Michael Cox
Attorney General
Po Box 30758
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Attorney General Michael Cox,
It is my understanding that you are aware of the Judy Gabriels cash supervised visitation scheme. I am order by Judge Daniel Zemiatis to have supervised visitation with Judy and her helpers whom she calls “teachers.” I found out that these teachers are actually Judy’s sons.

Originally I was ordered to pay 100% of supervised visitations by Judge Patricia Gardner even though she knows I live under the poverty guide lines. I live on $600 per month and pay $600 per month in child support. My former spouse lives on $5,000 per month after receiving my child support. Judge Zemiatis ordered that the cost be split between both parents. The cost was $40 per hour.

I have been denied all access to Federal Funded for Supervised Visitations. When I found a safe place for the visitations, the Wyoming Public Library, because they have security and glassed in rooms, I was denied visitations. My former spouse requested that I go to the Greenville Public Library and that I pay for all extra cost for the gas and time for the supervised visitation person. This is not a safe environment since this is a case of domestic violence and I can not pay for such services and extra cost.

I have not seen my children in over 19 months and have been ordered to have no contact with my children. There is no clear and convincing evidence I have harmed my children and there is nothing in writing that states the reason for the supervised visitations. I have been denied a jury, to face my accusers, and to bring forth witnesses. My Due Process Rights have been violated by Honorable Patricia Gardner and Honorable Daniel Zemiatis.

What the 17th Circuit Court is doing with these visitations is a scheme and needs to be stopped. I am requesting that an immediate investigation be done. I know that the Attorney General is for the best interest of children and will stop this scheme immediately, return custody of my children to me, and will request a grand jury to investigate and hold those involved accountable for their wrong doing

Sincerely,

Deanna Kloostra
Po Box 8491
Grand Rapids, MI 49518
616.773.8508

Andy Dillon House Speaker Failure

2010-09-15T04:55:00.001-05:00

Dear Ms. Kloostra:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your request for the impeachment of the Honorable Judge Patricia Gardner, Presiding Judge of the Family Division for the 17th Circuit Court of Kent County.

Without evidence of "corrupt conduct in office or crimes or misdemeanors," it appears the matter properly resides with the Judiciary and not the Legislature. As you have advised my staff, the State of Michigan's Judicial Tenure Commission has reviewed this matter and made a determination on a complaint you made to the Commission. At this time, I would defer to the determination of the Commission.

Finally, as you are aware, the Michigan Constitution does not limit involvement in this matter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Therefore, this letter does not foreclose the possibility of seeking a review of the matter by your own state representative who, pursuant to the Michigan Constitution, may also initiate the impeachment process.

Again, thank you for contacting me and I regret that I am unable to facilitate your request.

Regards,

Andy Dillon
Speaker of the House
District 17

2010-09-15T04:54:00.001-05:00

You failed to uphold the Michigan Constution and you failed the people's best interest. Sounds like treason if you ask me. Who do you work for Andy?

PS
I just want to thank you on the behalf of my children!

60 Minutes and Foster Care Cases

2010-09-02T21:13:00.001-05:00

Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to MessagesMark as Unread | Print ReplyReply AllMove...Advertisement Compan...Amazon Associates In...Associate ProgramCPRDenise IIFree Listing Online....InternsLegal InformationNew Account Informat...NOWRestorative JusticeRichard Burch
Flag this messageCBS News 60 Minute StoryTuesday, August 31, 2010 5:39 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified"Michigan for Parental Rights" Add sender to ContactsTo: undisclosed-recipients

A producer for 60 Minutes is looking into doing a story about families who have
lost children to foster care because of the recession. She is looking for a
direct cause-and-effect relationship, such as a family that became homeless or
lacks adequate housing because of job loss or foreclosure and, as a result,
either had CPS take away the children or the parents felt they had no choice but
to surrender them "voluntarily."
If you don't have a case directly linked to recession, but have clear-cut cases
of children taken when family poverty was confused with neglect, I suggest
telling her about those as well.

Below is the specific request from the producer regarding families and
information appropriate for the 60 Minutes story:

1.) Parents who already have children in the foster care system and who will be
reunited with their children because of HUD’s Family Reunification Program.
2.) Parents who are the brink of having to put their children into the foster
care system because they now have no other choice.
3.) A social worker who works with parents who have to make this tough choice
every day.
4.) Contacts for anyone you think I should be in touch with.
5.) Figures and statistics regarding foster care and the recession.

Given that this is 60 Minutes, the family or social worker would have to be
willing to be on camera.

If you are able to share such information or are in contact with parent that are
involved with child welfare in this capacity or have any other please let me
know as soon as you can. Don't hesitate to contact me via email
at rwhite@nchcw.org.
I must also mention that in addition to informing the 60 Minutes story, this
opportunity to learn more about the plight of these families will be enormously
helpful to our work at NCHCW to encourage HHS to attend to the economic
challenges faced by families in child welfare. As you know, the Children's
Bureau/ACF has no mechanism or any resources dedicated to economic security
for child welfare families despite the fact that income is a clear indicator of
risk of family separation.

Foster Care Report 2008-2009

2010-09-02T20:43:00.004-05:00

The Child Welfare System Including Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Each year concerned professionals and community members report nearly 500,000 instances in which they suspect that someone is abusing or neglecting a child in California.1 California's child welfare system is the principal intervention resource for protecting these children, as well as children who are orphaned or abandoned. The system consists of a conglomeration of public and private agencies, institutions, programs and services. These entities and individuals respond to allegations of abuse and neglect, provide services to children and families who are victims or potential victims of abuse or neglect, and provide services to children in foster care who were temporarily or permanently removed from their homes because of abuse or neglect. In July, 2007, approximately 85,000 children in California lived in out-of-home or foster care.2 Federal and state laws provide the framework for child welfare services which are funded through a combination of federal, state and county sources. The California Department of Social Services (DSS) is the principal entity responsible for the state’s child welfare system, although each of the state’s 58 counties administers its own child welfare program. In other words, counties are the primary source of direct government interaction with children and families involved in the system. California is one of around a dozen states with this state-supervised/county-administered governance system. The Departments of Health Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Programs, and Developmental Services, along with their county counterparts, and the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Education also provide services to children and families involved in the child welfare system. Components of the system Child welfare services include a variety of interventions designed to protect children from abuse and neglect. Major services include emergency response to reports of suspected abuse and neglect; family maintenance (which provides time-limited protective services to families in crisis); family reunification (which provides time-limited intervention and support services to help create a safe environment to which a child who was removed from home could return); and foster or out-of-home care. After a concerned individual reports an allegation of abuse or neglect, a county social worker determines if an investigation needs to occur and how quickly. An investigation may end the intervention, or it may begin the family's further involvement in the child welfare system. 1 Needell, B., et. al. (2008). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. URL:

Help Non Custodial Mothers 2010

2010-08-31T11:34:00.002-05:00

Abused Swan is raising $10,000 by Non Custodial Mother’s Day, October 28th for hurting mothers who are without their children. Over 3 million mothers in the U.S. are losing custody of their children to their abuser. These mothers lose their homes, savings, and their children. Many mothers pay outrageous child support on top of losing it all. These mothers are also becoming homeless. Some mothers are learning the law and representing them selves in court and refuse to give up. To learn more go to www.abusedswan.com.

Please donate to
Deanna Kloostra (NCM Day)
Po Box 8491
Grand Rapids, MI 49518
Or call 616-322-5279

Letter to Judge Patricia Gardner

2010-04-14T10:54:00.001-05:00

April 10, 2010

Dear Patricia Gardner,
I wanted to write this letter to express to you my feelings. Since I have started the web site Abusedswan.com, non custodial mothers across the United States have contacted me. Their stories are heart wrenching and unbelievable that such things could happen here in America. Since I have been through the same type of situation these mothers have, I know what they are saying is true. What troubles me the most are the mothers who are right here in Grand Rapids Michigan, and the mothers who have you as a judge. At the current time I know of 16 other mothers who have/had you as their judge and two other mothers I have lost contact with over the past three years. Three years ago one of these mother’s children lived below me. Her children talked highly about me and she could not wait to finally meet with me. I was working at the apartment complex where I lived and she came into the office one day. I was not surprised to find out you were her judge. When I asked her how she lost custody she admitted she got into drugs. My response to her was, “I don’t drink, do drugs, or even smoke, what makes you think drugs have anything to do with it?” I then asked this mother why the children’s father was not drug tested, anyone could tell from his appearance that he was hooked on meth. One good example of a meth user is that their teeth will rot out of their head, as this father’s teeth were. You refused to drug test this father, but had no problems drug testing the mother. I watched as this father allowed his current wife to move a man from another state into their home, whom she met off of Facebook. While the father worked nights, this man would sleep in his bed with his stay at home wife who took care of the boys. Arguments would break out and I being just above them could hear. These two boys were mean and angry, especially when it came to girls. On several occasions I caught them lying and trying to manipulate others. I moved and the mother moved and we lost contact with each other.
I can tell you 16 more stories that are similar to this one, but you know what it is you do. I wish I was Phil Collins so I could make a popular song that would play over and over on the radio. This way you could never forget what you have done to these mothers and you would never know when the song would be on the radio. Just as you were eating at a restaurant with your son or daughter, the song would come on, just as you were looking across the table and thinking what a great child you have. The song would remind you how you and your girlfriends have stopped so many children from sitting across the table from their mothers, being admired and loved by them. Most of the non custodial mothers, you have created it so they can not see their children. You can not deny this because I know the truth, and you have helped do this to me. I wonder how you can sleep at night, knowing the things you do to those children and loving mothers on your case load. You have tried to fool those in the community that you care about children and keeping them safe. I just wanted to let you know that besides God, someone else knows the bad things you do and the unjust rulings you make with your friends. May God forgive you for what you have done to his royal seed, our children. Daily, God helps me to forgive you.

Owner of your truth,

Deanna Kloostra, Owner/Creator of Abusedswan.com

Domestic Violence Commercial

2009-07-28T17:42:00.002-05:00

When it comes to domestic violence, women's rights in America are overlooked. Abusive fathers are gaining custody of the children and the mothers are losing everything.

Mental Anguish Of Mothers!

2009-06-25T11:40:00.002-05:00

July 4, 2008 Deanna picked up the children for her visitation. After 15 minutes at home the youngest child screamed, threw things, and refused to listen to Deanna. To make a long story short, while going down the highway the child threatened to jump out of the moving car. Deanna took her child to Forest View Hospital and was told they would not get in the middle of her custody battle. Deanna then went to Net Work 180 where she was told the same thing. Deanna then went to Pine Rest who was willing to keep the child for counseling services, but Deanna did not feel child needed medicine. Deanna was told the insurance company would not pay for the services unless the child was put on medicine. Deanna sent the children home early and filed a motion. Deanna asked for her visitations to be changed and for the child to receive counseling. Judge Patricia Gardner sent Deanna for supervised visitation and a psychological evaluation. YWCA’s Safe Connection did the supervised visitation. After being harassed, having her parental boundaries crossed, and safety protocols violated, Deanna refused to attend the visitations. Deanna filed a motion to have the ADR fund pay for the psychological evaluation of $300. Two days before the evaluation, Human Resource Associates decided to charge $675. Deanna refused the appointment and filed a motion once again. Judge Gardner ordered Journies, INC for the supervised visitation and Human Resource Associates accepted the $300 for service of the psychological evaluation. Deanna had the psychological evaluation done by Jeffrey T. Kieliszewski Ph.D. Jeff misquotes Deanna, takes information out of context, and says Deanna is antisocial. After six weeks Deanna finally gets an appointment with Journies. Deanna shows up and was told the cost would be $40 dollars per hour. Deanna lives on $550 a month after paying child support. Deanna’s former spouse lives on $5,000 a month including Deanna’s child support. Deanna can not afford to pay and is told that Journies can not facilitate the visitations. At this point Deanna has not seen her children in four months. Deanna files another motion. Judge Gardner is removed from the case by the courts and Deanna goes in front of Judge Daniel Zemaitis. Deanna is ordered back to Journies, and received a report written by Journies. In the report Journies states Deanna was informed of the $40 fee before the visitation and that Deanna was called and told that her former spouse would pay for the visitation to see the children. This was not so. The report also direct quotes Deanna and it is not even what Deanna said. Deanna recorded the conversation and has proof on tape of exactly what was said. After four weeks and several calls to Journies, Deanna is told that Journies does not want to facilitate the visitations. Deanna is now going to file another motion. The Guardian Ad Litem, Donna Mobilia, has done nothing.

DEANNA HAS NOT SEEN HER CHILDREN IN SEVEN MONTHS.

Ask Judge Daniel Zemaitis
How does the court allow such mental anguish of this mother?
Do you believe that the “best interest” of these children is to not see their mother?

Call 616-632-5023 or email Daniel.Zemaitis@kentcountymi.gov today.

View Michigan Child Custody Act MCL 722.27a and learn how this mother’s rights are violated.

Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases

2009-06-16T18:36:00.001-05:00

http://www.barrygoldstein.net/index.html

The movement to end domestic violence started when women began to speak to each other about their experiences of spousal abuse, which had always been considered a private matter. These discussions led to the realization that domestic violence was far more common then generally believed. This discovery was necessary in order to begin the work to end domestic violence.

Today, disturbingly, in thousands of custody-visitation cases all over the country, abused women and children are being revictimized rather than protected. Some of the cases have been publicized, but most have been hidden from public view. Often the media is reluctant to feature such cases, because they don’t have the resources to determine which side is telling the truth or out of fear of lawsuits. As a result, only the victims and genuine experts are aware of the pattern and frequency of such cases.

When women first started to learn about the extent to which men were abusing their female partners, there was no term to describe such behavior. Only later was the term domestic violence invented. This was an important step, because it gave us common language to describe an all too common and harmful behavior pattern. I believe we now need a term that describes cases in which women and children are further abused by the courts instead of being protected. I suggest using the term CUSTODY-VISITATION SCANDAL CASES, which would help us to better detect and understand the pattern and frequency of such atrocities, so that we can stop such abuse in the future.

Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases can be defined as having many but not all of the following attributes:

1. Allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse made by the mother and/or child(ren)
2. A failure or refusal by court agents (attorneys, law guardians, forensic evaluator, therapists, and/or judge) to take such allegations seriously.
3. An outcome that places the children at serious risk
4. An outcome that appears to be 180 degrees from what it should be.
5. An outcome that gives custody to the alleged abuser and restricted visitation to the protective mother.
6. The use by the abusive father and his attorney of “standard abuser tactics” (i.e. seeking custody to punish the mother or maintain control; using visitation or custody to harass mother; claiming that unfounded child protective claims were made falsely and maliciously by the mother; attempting to manipulate the children etc.)
7. The propogation of myths and stereotypes about domestic violence (i.e. that mothers and children frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation) by the court and its agents.
8. Using “experts” with little or no training and understanding of domestic violence.
9. Gender bias and double standards (mothers being held to a higher standard than fathers)
10. Failure to consider and use up-to-date domestic violence research.
11. Approaches that blame the victim.
12. Use of biased or unsupported theories (i.e. Parental Alienation Syndrome; “Angry women”; “Vindictive women”; alienation; masochism etc.)
13. Extreme penalties against protective mothers.
14. Outcomes that make it appear like the judge was bribed even though that is usually not the cause of the judicial abuse.

I am not saying that every case that fits many of the above criteria has to have been improperly decided, but I believe research will find that 98% or more of such cases have been tragically mishandled. Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases should be identified, examined. and corrected when necessary. Even more important, society must create a system to prevent such cases from happening.