Disbar Attorney Curtis Delapp and Judges Linda Thomas and Kyra Franks For Misconduct
Disbar Attorney Curtis Delapp and Judges Linda Thomas and Kyra Franks For Misconduct
The Issue
This petition seeks the immediate disbarment of Attorney Curtis Delapp, Judge Linda Thomas and Judge Kyra Franks for serious misconduct and breach of professional ethics within Washington County, Oklahoma. It is alleged that Attorney Delapp falsified court documents and misrepresented facts to secure court victories. This not only violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and ethical codes of attorneys, but also undermines the faith of the public in the judicial system. Moreover, it is also alleged that Judge Linda Thomas and Judge Kyra Franks failed to question the ethics of this attorney or scrutinize the authenticity of the facts provided. Such neglect from Judges, whose role is to maintain the integrity of their courtrooms, is unacceptable. If these allegations are substantiated, the unlawful activities have skewed justice and could have resulted in numerous miscarriages of justice. It is crucial that our judiciary and attorneys uphold the highest forms of ethical conduct and embody the principles of fairness and justice. The signatories of this petition therefore call on the relevant legal and judicial authorities to investigate these allegations with utmost urgency and take appropriate action, which should include the disbarment of Attorney Curtis Delapp and Judges Linda Thomas and Kyra Franks if found guilty. We need to protect the sanctity of our justice system.
These allegations invoke the right to investigation under Oklahoma statutes, including Title 5, Section 1.4, which empowers the Oklahoma Bar Association to investigate ethical violations, and Title 20, Section 111.1, which provides for the accountability of judges in cases of misconduct.
Allegations & Evidence: Attorney Curtis Delapp submitted and signed a Fact and Finding to Judge Thomas Stating: Under the laws of the State of Oklahoma: Title 57 O.S. § 582 states: A. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person residing, working or attending school within the State of Oklahoma who, after November 1, 1989, has been convicted, whether upon a verdict or plea of guilty or upon a plea ofnolo contendere, or received a suspended sentence or any probationary term, or is currently serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime provided for in Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation as those terms are defined in Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 681, if the offense Conner v. Conner | Page 6 involved sexual assault, 741, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 748, if the offense involved human trafficking for commercial sex, Section 843.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 852.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse of a child, 856, if the offense involved child prostitution or human trafficking for commercial sex, 865 et seq., 885, 886, 888, 891, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, 1021, 1021.2, 1021.3, 1024.2, 1029, if the offense involved child prostitution, 1040.8, if the offense involved child pornography, 1040.12a, 1040.13, 1040.13a, 1087, 1088, 1111.1, 1114 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. B. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person who after November 1, 1989, resides, works or attends school within the State of Oklahoma and who has been convicted or received a suspended sentence at any time in any court of another state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, a federal court, an Indian tribal court, a military court, or a court of a foreign country for a crime, attempted crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime which, if committed or attempted in this state, would be a crime, an attempt to commit a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime provided for in any of the laws listed in subsection A of this section. (emphasis added) The Petitioner continues to violate the laws of the state of Oklahoma by failing to register as a sex offender. The Respondent based on the actions of the Petitioner and her conviction for the crime of Child Abuse that involved rape second degree has requested a modification and refused visitation based on a reasonable belief of abuse or neglect. Title 40 O.S. Section 111.4
Cherokee Online Public Court Records confirm that there is no conviction for a sex crime, nor is there any requirement for registration as a sex offender. This information undermines the claims made by Attorney Curtis Delapp in the Facts and Finding Presented and Submitted to the Court and highlights the seriousness of his misrepresentation.
Attorney Curtis Delapp, while representing a family member in this case, submitted false information in the Facts and Findings Presented and Submitted to the Court. This suggests that he prioritized family loyalty over his duty to uphold the truth and serve justice. Such actions compromise the integrity of the legal process and raise serious ethical concerns.
Cherokee records are publicly accessible 24/7, allowing both Judges Thomas and Franks to verify the authenticity of the information presented. Their failure to confirm these facts, despite the availability of this evidence, raises significant concerns about their oversight responsibilities. Attorney Delapp's submission of false information constitutes a clear violation of professional ethics and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Please sign this petition to contribute to this essential cause.
Please read our Supporting Reseacher:
We are not the first victims; we are just the first willing to speak out since he transitioned to being an attorney. His behavior was unacceptable on the bench, and it should not be acceptable in his current role. Those who allowed this to happen should also face the same disciplinary actions.
Allegations & Evidence: Attorney Curtis Delapp submitted and signed a Fact and Finding to Judge Thomas Stating: Under the laws of the State of Oklahoma: Title 57 O.S. § 582 states: A. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person residing, working or attending school within the State of Oklahoma who, after November 1, 1989, has been convicted, whether upon a verdict or plea of guilty or upon a plea ofnolo contendere, or received a suspended sentence or any probationary term, or is currently serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime provided for in Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation as those terms are defined in Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 681, if the offense Conner v. Conner | Page 6 involved sexual assault, 741, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 748, if the offense involved human trafficking for commercial sex, Section 843.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 852.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse of a child, 856, if the offense involved child prostitution or human trafficking for commercial sex, 865 et seq., 885, 886, 888, 891, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, 1021, 1021.2, 1021.3, 1024.2, 1029, if the offense involved child prostitution, 1040.8, if the offense involved child pornography, 1040.12a, 1040.13, 1040.13a, 1087, 1088, 1111.1, 1114 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. B. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person who after November 1, 1989, resides, works or attends school within the State of Oklahoma and who has been convicted or received a suspended sentence at any time in any court of another state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, a federal court, an Indian tribal court, a military court, or a court of a foreign country for a crime, attempted crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime which, if committed or attempted in this state, would be a crime, an attempt to commit a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime provided for in any of the laws listed in subsection A of this section. (emphasis added) The Petitioner continues to violate the laws of the state of Oklahoma by failing to register as a sex offender. The Respondent based on the actions of the Petitioner and her conviction for the crime of Child Abuse that involved rape second degree has requested a modification and refused visitation based on a reasonable belief of abuse or neglect. Title 40 O.S. Section 111.4
Cherokee Online Public Court Records confirm that there is no conviction for a sex crime, nor is there any requirement for registration as a sex offender. This information undermines the claims made by Attorney Curtis Delapp in the Facts and Finding Presented and Submitted to the Court and highlights the seriousness of his misrepresentation.
Attorney Curtis Delapp, while representing a family member in this case, submitted false information in the Facts and Findings Presented and Submitted to the Court. This suggests that he prioritized family loyalty over his duty to uphold the truth and serve justice. Such actions compromise the integrity of the legal process and raise serious ethical concerns.
Cherokee records are publicly accessible 24/7, allowing both Judges Thomas and Franks to verify the authenticity of the information presented. Their failure to confirm these facts, despite the availability of this evidence, raises significant concerns about their oversight responsibilities. Attorney Delapp's submission of false information constitutes a clear violation of professional ethics and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Please sign this petition to contribute to this essential cause.
Please read our Supporting Reseacher:
We are not the first victims; we are just the first willing to speak out since he transitioned to being an attorney. His behavior was unacceptable on the bench, and it should not be acceptable in his current role. Those who allowed this to happen should also face the same disciplinary actions.
Update:
I want to address the accusations made by Attorney Delapp on this petition. His claims are unfounded and lack any supporting evidence, relying solely on his personal beliefs. Furthermore, he has presented false information to the court again, suggesting that the victim in this case authored the petition and made threats. This not only undermines the victim's credibility but also highlights the necessity of the petition itself. By attempting to provide false information to the court, he is clearly trying to damage the victim's reputation. As a registered member of the ABA, I am committed to justice, whistleblowing, and the principles of free speech. It’s essential that we uphold these values and confront misinformation directly.
Please Sign My Petition.
Update - Our Facts & Findings
ISSUE 1: LACK OF EVIDENCE
Despite Respondent's Attorney Delapp's assertions, there is no credible evidence to support the allegations, including:
- No medical records or expert testimony
- No cognitive or mental health evaluations of the minors
- No competency tests to assess the credibility of the minors' claims
ISSUE 2: FLAWED INVESTIGATION OF PRIDE W.
The investigation was compromised by:
No crime scene investigation or search warrant executed
Tampered evidence with a broken chain of custody
No competency tests to assess the credibility of the minors' claims
No medical records or expert testimony
No cognitive or mental health evaluations of the minor.
Also Please Read Article:
David Lynd served as the Police Chief of Ramona during this original investigation:
ISSUE 3: PERJURY BY DHS REPRESENTATIVE
DHS's Janice Powell falsely claimed to have interviewed the accused/petitioner, which there has been previous instances of DHS Child Welfare Workers lying. Why should we believe DHS Child Welfare Workers and/or their supervisors? Especially Now
ISSUE 4: DISREGARD FOR RESPODENT’S HISTORY
The Court disregarded Respondent's history of:
Domestic abuse
Alcoholism
Partner's drug addiction
Partner’s Previous Ex’s allowance of child sexual molestation on her own child Pride repreatly
Denied Medical and Mental Health to Minors
Previously heavily considered as a suspect for physical/sexual abuse on another minor custody case.
Yet Respondent Wins sole custody without factual evidence and lack of professional support🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔
Fair Judgement or Fair Friendship in the courthouse.
Previous Client of Delapps stated in writing, “He’s a Crook” also stating because of his relationships in the court room guilty people go free….
Please Sign our Petition
Supporting study information with Bold Text:
Based upon our experience in over 300 cases of accusations of child sexual abuse where we have provided consultation and expert witness services we strongly recommend the defense pursue a psychological evaluation of the children involved in the accusation. The recommendation and the observations we make are based upon that experience as well as our document review from a large number of other cases where we have not provided expert witness services.
In most instances an accusation of child sexual abuse causes an immediate separation of the child and the accused. The child is under the control of parent(s) and the state operating through child protection services, law enforcement, and the County District Attorney's office. Usually the child is interrogated, evaluated, and then treated by social workers, psychologists, or psychiatrists. Often there is an interview and a physical examination by a physician. Parent(s) are heavily involved in this process and often are present in sessions between the child and other adults. Parent(s) give a history of behaviors by the child which may support the allegations and how they came about. There may or may not be audio- or videotapes of interviews or therapy sessions. Ordinarily there will be reports of psychological and/or physical evaluations and some information about any therapy in which the child is placed. Throughout this process, the accused and the attorney defending against the accusation are most often denied any access to the child.
The stated aim in preventing contact with the child by the accused is to protect the child from any further abuse or possible intimidation by the person accused. However, when exclusion from contact with the child includes grandparents, other relatives, friends, and even the child's pastor or rabbi, the purpose looks more like protecting the case against the accused than protecting the child. Through this the child is kept within an environment where everybody may be supporting and reinforcing the maintenance of the accusation. Two key issues are raised by this process that are vital to the determination of the facts. The first is the competency and develop-mental level of the child. The second is the nature and the extent of adult social influence exerted upon the child.
The issue of the child's competency and capacity is seldom considered or evaluated by the state's experts. From the beginning there is the assumption of competency and the avoidance of assessment that might raise a question about competency. In several cases, after reviewing documents made available to us, we thought there was a strong possibility that the child was developmentally delayed. Indeed, when we assessed the intellectual capacity of the child, using standard evaluation procedures, the level of retardation was extremely important in weighing the child's level of competency and vulnerability to social influence. Conversely, we have had a case where a social worker claimed a four-year-old child's advanced language and verbal level meant she had been taught by her parents to deny the abuse because otherwise she could not have talked as she did. When we tested the child she proved to be in the superior range of ability, and her apparently advanced language was simply reflecting her superior ability.
The factor of adult social influence upon a child is seldom acknowledged by those who control the child and deny access to the accused. Two unfortunate consequences of this blind spot are, first, nobody guards against adult influence that may prevent a child from making a reliable account, and, second, it is difficult to find out how much influence has actually gone on. This lack of information decreases the accuracy of any effort to weigh a child's account.
(Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield,2014)
"Guilty parties often hide and isolate, which is why medical, mental health, and psychological evaluations were ignored."
Again I will express my concern regarding the current ethical standards within the Washington County justice system. It is crucial that we prioritize proper practices before making significant decisions also.
If a defense attorney has the ability to request certain measures, it stands to reason that a judge, with their extensive experience, should possess similar authority. It is imperative that those in positions of justice strive for fairness and transparency, rather than risk perpetuating potentially harmful outcomes.
Again - Fair Hearing or Fair Friendship?
Please sign my petition!
216
The Issue
This petition seeks the immediate disbarment of Attorney Curtis Delapp, Judge Linda Thomas and Judge Kyra Franks for serious misconduct and breach of professional ethics within Washington County, Oklahoma. It is alleged that Attorney Delapp falsified court documents and misrepresented facts to secure court victories. This not only violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and ethical codes of attorneys, but also undermines the faith of the public in the judicial system. Moreover, it is also alleged that Judge Linda Thomas and Judge Kyra Franks failed to question the ethics of this attorney or scrutinize the authenticity of the facts provided. Such neglect from Judges, whose role is to maintain the integrity of their courtrooms, is unacceptable. If these allegations are substantiated, the unlawful activities have skewed justice and could have resulted in numerous miscarriages of justice. It is crucial that our judiciary and attorneys uphold the highest forms of ethical conduct and embody the principles of fairness and justice. The signatories of this petition therefore call on the relevant legal and judicial authorities to investigate these allegations with utmost urgency and take appropriate action, which should include the disbarment of Attorney Curtis Delapp and Judges Linda Thomas and Kyra Franks if found guilty. We need to protect the sanctity of our justice system.
These allegations invoke the right to investigation under Oklahoma statutes, including Title 5, Section 1.4, which empowers the Oklahoma Bar Association to investigate ethical violations, and Title 20, Section 111.1, which provides for the accountability of judges in cases of misconduct.
Allegations & Evidence: Attorney Curtis Delapp submitted and signed a Fact and Finding to Judge Thomas Stating: Under the laws of the State of Oklahoma: Title 57 O.S. § 582 states: A. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person residing, working or attending school within the State of Oklahoma who, after November 1, 1989, has been convicted, whether upon a verdict or plea of guilty or upon a plea ofnolo contendere, or received a suspended sentence or any probationary term, or is currently serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime provided for in Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation as those terms are defined in Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 681, if the offense Conner v. Conner | Page 6 involved sexual assault, 741, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 748, if the offense involved human trafficking for commercial sex, Section 843.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 852.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse of a child, 856, if the offense involved child prostitution or human trafficking for commercial sex, 865 et seq., 885, 886, 888, 891, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, 1021, 1021.2, 1021.3, 1024.2, 1029, if the offense involved child prostitution, 1040.8, if the offense involved child pornography, 1040.12a, 1040.13, 1040.13a, 1087, 1088, 1111.1, 1114 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. B. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person who after November 1, 1989, resides, works or attends school within the State of Oklahoma and who has been convicted or received a suspended sentence at any time in any court of another state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, a federal court, an Indian tribal court, a military court, or a court of a foreign country for a crime, attempted crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime which, if committed or attempted in this state, would be a crime, an attempt to commit a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime provided for in any of the laws listed in subsection A of this section. (emphasis added) The Petitioner continues to violate the laws of the state of Oklahoma by failing to register as a sex offender. The Respondent based on the actions of the Petitioner and her conviction for the crime of Child Abuse that involved rape second degree has requested a modification and refused visitation based on a reasonable belief of abuse or neglect. Title 40 O.S. Section 111.4
Cherokee Online Public Court Records confirm that there is no conviction for a sex crime, nor is there any requirement for registration as a sex offender. This information undermines the claims made by Attorney Curtis Delapp in the Facts and Finding Presented and Submitted to the Court and highlights the seriousness of his misrepresentation.
Attorney Curtis Delapp, while representing a family member in this case, submitted false information in the Facts and Findings Presented and Submitted to the Court. This suggests that he prioritized family loyalty over his duty to uphold the truth and serve justice. Such actions compromise the integrity of the legal process and raise serious ethical concerns.
Cherokee records are publicly accessible 24/7, allowing both Judges Thomas and Franks to verify the authenticity of the information presented. Their failure to confirm these facts, despite the availability of this evidence, raises significant concerns about their oversight responsibilities. Attorney Delapp's submission of false information constitutes a clear violation of professional ethics and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Please sign this petition to contribute to this essential cause.
Please read our Supporting Reseacher:
We are not the first victims; we are just the first willing to speak out since he transitioned to being an attorney. His behavior was unacceptable on the bench, and it should not be acceptable in his current role. Those who allowed this to happen should also face the same disciplinary actions.
Allegations & Evidence: Attorney Curtis Delapp submitted and signed a Fact and Finding to Judge Thomas Stating: Under the laws of the State of Oklahoma: Title 57 O.S. § 582 states: A. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person residing, working or attending school within the State of Oklahoma who, after November 1, 1989, has been convicted, whether upon a verdict or plea of guilty or upon a plea ofnolo contendere, or received a suspended sentence or any probationary term, or is currently serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime provided for in Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation as those terms are defined in Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, Section 681, if the offense Conner v. Conner | Page 6 involved sexual assault, 741, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 748, if the offense involved human trafficking for commercial sex, Section 843.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, Section 852.1, if the offense involved sexual abuse of a child, 856, if the offense involved child prostitution or human trafficking for commercial sex, 865 et seq., 885, 886, 888, 891, if the offense involved sexual abuse or sexual exploitation, 1021, 1021.2, 1021.3, 1024.2, 1029, if the offense involved child prostitution, 1040.8, if the offense involved child pornography, 1040.12a, 1040.13, 1040.13a, 1087, 1088, 1111.1, 1114 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. B. The provisions of the Sex Offenders Registration Act shall apply to any person who after November 1, 1989, resides, works or attends school within the State of Oklahoma and who has been convicted or received a suspended sentence at any time in any court of another state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, a federal court, an Indian tribal court, a military court, or a court of a foreign country for a crime, attempted crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime which, if committed or attempted in this state, would be a crime, an attempt to commit a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime provided for in any of the laws listed in subsection A of this section. (emphasis added) The Petitioner continues to violate the laws of the state of Oklahoma by failing to register as a sex offender. The Respondent based on the actions of the Petitioner and her conviction for the crime of Child Abuse that involved rape second degree has requested a modification and refused visitation based on a reasonable belief of abuse or neglect. Title 40 O.S. Section 111.4
Cherokee Online Public Court Records confirm that there is no conviction for a sex crime, nor is there any requirement for registration as a sex offender. This information undermines the claims made by Attorney Curtis Delapp in the Facts and Finding Presented and Submitted to the Court and highlights the seriousness of his misrepresentation.
Attorney Curtis Delapp, while representing a family member in this case, submitted false information in the Facts and Findings Presented and Submitted to the Court. This suggests that he prioritized family loyalty over his duty to uphold the truth and serve justice. Such actions compromise the integrity of the legal process and raise serious ethical concerns.
Cherokee records are publicly accessible 24/7, allowing both Judges Thomas and Franks to verify the authenticity of the information presented. Their failure to confirm these facts, despite the availability of this evidence, raises significant concerns about their oversight responsibilities. Attorney Delapp's submission of false information constitutes a clear violation of professional ethics and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Please sign this petition to contribute to this essential cause.
Please read our Supporting Reseacher:
We are not the first victims; we are just the first willing to speak out since he transitioned to being an attorney. His behavior was unacceptable on the bench, and it should not be acceptable in his current role. Those who allowed this to happen should also face the same disciplinary actions.
Update:
I want to address the accusations made by Attorney Delapp on this petition. His claims are unfounded and lack any supporting evidence, relying solely on his personal beliefs. Furthermore, he has presented false information to the court again, suggesting that the victim in this case authored the petition and made threats. This not only undermines the victim's credibility but also highlights the necessity of the petition itself. By attempting to provide false information to the court, he is clearly trying to damage the victim's reputation. As a registered member of the ABA, I am committed to justice, whistleblowing, and the principles of free speech. It’s essential that we uphold these values and confront misinformation directly.
Please Sign My Petition.
Update - Our Facts & Findings
ISSUE 1: LACK OF EVIDENCE
Despite Respondent's Attorney Delapp's assertions, there is no credible evidence to support the allegations, including:
- No medical records or expert testimony
- No cognitive or mental health evaluations of the minors
- No competency tests to assess the credibility of the minors' claims
ISSUE 2: FLAWED INVESTIGATION OF PRIDE W.
The investigation was compromised by:
No crime scene investigation or search warrant executed
Tampered evidence with a broken chain of custody
No competency tests to assess the credibility of the minors' claims
No medical records or expert testimony
No cognitive or mental health evaluations of the minor.
Also Please Read Article:
David Lynd served as the Police Chief of Ramona during this original investigation:
ISSUE 3: PERJURY BY DHS REPRESENTATIVE
DHS's Janice Powell falsely claimed to have interviewed the accused/petitioner, which there has been previous instances of DHS Child Welfare Workers lying. Why should we believe DHS Child Welfare Workers and/or their supervisors? Especially Now
ISSUE 4: DISREGARD FOR RESPODENT’S HISTORY
The Court disregarded Respondent's history of:
Domestic abuse
Alcoholism
Partner's drug addiction
Partner’s Previous Ex’s allowance of child sexual molestation on her own child Pride repreatly
Denied Medical and Mental Health to Minors
Previously heavily considered as a suspect for physical/sexual abuse on another minor custody case.
Yet Respondent Wins sole custody without factual evidence and lack of professional support🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐🤔
Fair Judgement or Fair Friendship in the courthouse.
Previous Client of Delapps stated in writing, “He’s a Crook” also stating because of his relationships in the court room guilty people go free….
Please Sign our Petition
Supporting study information with Bold Text:
Based upon our experience in over 300 cases of accusations of child sexual abuse where we have provided consultation and expert witness services we strongly recommend the defense pursue a psychological evaluation of the children involved in the accusation. The recommendation and the observations we make are based upon that experience as well as our document review from a large number of other cases where we have not provided expert witness services.
In most instances an accusation of child sexual abuse causes an immediate separation of the child and the accused. The child is under the control of parent(s) and the state operating through child protection services, law enforcement, and the County District Attorney's office. Usually the child is interrogated, evaluated, and then treated by social workers, psychologists, or psychiatrists. Often there is an interview and a physical examination by a physician. Parent(s) are heavily involved in this process and often are present in sessions between the child and other adults. Parent(s) give a history of behaviors by the child which may support the allegations and how they came about. There may or may not be audio- or videotapes of interviews or therapy sessions. Ordinarily there will be reports of psychological and/or physical evaluations and some information about any therapy in which the child is placed. Throughout this process, the accused and the attorney defending against the accusation are most often denied any access to the child.
The stated aim in preventing contact with the child by the accused is to protect the child from any further abuse or possible intimidation by the person accused. However, when exclusion from contact with the child includes grandparents, other relatives, friends, and even the child's pastor or rabbi, the purpose looks more like protecting the case against the accused than protecting the child. Through this the child is kept within an environment where everybody may be supporting and reinforcing the maintenance of the accusation. Two key issues are raised by this process that are vital to the determination of the facts. The first is the competency and develop-mental level of the child. The second is the nature and the extent of adult social influence exerted upon the child.
The issue of the child's competency and capacity is seldom considered or evaluated by the state's experts. From the beginning there is the assumption of competency and the avoidance of assessment that might raise a question about competency. In several cases, after reviewing documents made available to us, we thought there was a strong possibility that the child was developmentally delayed. Indeed, when we assessed the intellectual capacity of the child, using standard evaluation procedures, the level of retardation was extremely important in weighing the child's level of competency and vulnerability to social influence. Conversely, we have had a case where a social worker claimed a four-year-old child's advanced language and verbal level meant she had been taught by her parents to deny the abuse because otherwise she could not have talked as she did. When we tested the child she proved to be in the superior range of ability, and her apparently advanced language was simply reflecting her superior ability.
The factor of adult social influence upon a child is seldom acknowledged by those who control the child and deny access to the accused. Two unfortunate consequences of this blind spot are, first, nobody guards against adult influence that may prevent a child from making a reliable account, and, second, it is difficult to find out how much influence has actually gone on. This lack of information decreases the accuracy of any effort to weigh a child's account.
(Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield,2014)
"Guilty parties often hide and isolate, which is why medical, mental health, and psychological evaluations were ignored."
Again I will express my concern regarding the current ethical standards within the Washington County justice system. It is crucial that we prioritize proper practices before making significant decisions also.
If a defense attorney has the ability to request certain measures, it stands to reason that a judge, with their extensive experience, should possess similar authority. It is imperative that those in positions of justice strive for fairness and transparency, rather than risk perpetuating potentially harmful outcomes.
Again - Fair Hearing or Fair Friendship?
Please sign my petition!
216
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on September 19, 2024