Cottage Industry professionals placing children in harms way help us protect children

Petition updateInvestigation into International organization gateway legalizing child abuse for profitCottage Industry professionals placing children in harms way help us protect children

Private CitizenWisconsin Rapids, WI, United States

Mar 13, 2019

Monday, November 21, 2011
U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System By Barry Goldstein http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/u-s-department-of-justice-v-custody.html

Excerpts " The Department of Justice study demonstrates the harm of using professionals who are part of the cottage industry and the need for custody courts to screen court professionals to avoid relying on them. Even worse, courts often use these unqualified professionals to train other court professionals. This can only serve to spread misinformation which makes it harder for court officials to recognize the problems demonstrated by the Saunders’ study and other current scientific research. " See also

Conclusion

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

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

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

Monday, November 21, 2011
U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System By Barry Goldstein http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/u-s-department-of-justice-v-custody.html

See afcc Cottage Industry harming children by discredited theory

Wisconsin holds international headquarters for the Afcc?

https://sites.google.com/view/whatisgoingoninfamilycourt/wisconsin-afcc

Making Divorce Pay: The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts takes back -scratching to a new level

By Michael Volpe, Organization Trends, July 2015 (PDF here)

Summary: You’ve probably never heard of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, but its 5,000-plus members are lawyers, judges, and family court professionals who have enormous power in family legal disputes. The group claims to be guided by “the best interest of the child,” but it is beyond dispute that it serves well the financial interests of its members, who are able to require the use of each other’s services and force parents to pay. Members also make use of dubious psychological theories that can do injustice to parents as well as children.

http://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/OT0715.pdf

Please note judges are in International Trade Organization profiting off family court by referring cases and services to providers in same trade organization ?

01 Nelson 02 Michael Jan 03 Ph.D. 04 Psychologist ... - The Liz Library
www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/nelson.txt
01 Nelson 02 Michael Jan 03 Ph.D. 04 Psychologist 05 420 1st Avenue South 06 P. O. Box 1535 07 Wisconsin Rapids 08 WI 09 54495 10 715-424-3400 11 ... case transmogrified with therapization into a semi-parental alienation case, with .Excerpts "QUOTES FROM CUSTODY EVALUATION:"Even when there has been a finding of fact a child has been sexually
abused, it cannot be presumed that the child has been traumatized. It is
not reasonable to presume that any form of sexual contact between a
parent and child would, ipso facto, be experienced by the child as trauma.
Certain forms of contact, the most obvious being some form of penetration
would be painful and typically would be experienced as traumatic, but
licking and other forms of contact might be perceived by young child as
pleasurable or as silly rather than horrible.

www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/nelson.txt

Dr. Nelson recognizes parental alienation letter https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbMUNXYXNGcjBGZGc/view?usp=sharing
Wisconsin rapids parental alienation ads including Nelson at Clinical services https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbR256ZHExRzkxdlU/view?usp=sharing

Nelsons expert is Micheal lamb

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbUkg0ZTduSlQxS3M/view?usp=sharing

Nelson expert is mike lamb part 2

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbQ3JKQ21yTkpyT1k/view?usp=sharing

Nelson expert is mike lamb part 3

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbT2loY0ZQbTFlbm8/view

Wisconsin afcc member Michael Nelson

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F9uu01voA4JWcVCtrzIMTmUCc8SOe3DICI2UpGb-ktNTDg7jvxJramWaYSCt4dDHUKLlEfUYbRNREXtn/view?usp=sharing

Micheal Nelson afcc member and social service vendor
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbZzNvNEVhRi1qZlJ6V1FQQVpZc2dLMUYzOUs4/view?usp=sharing

Excerpts "Attention: wood county Health & Human Services Committee and Judicial & Legislative Committee enclosed you will find Wisconsin Rapids social service vendor Micheal nelson and evidence showing this vendor is using a dangerous discredited theory called parental alienation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KeF9pQyo_SSfDjWq7LhxGFgLGY0AxUZoOgfIOTUz5Vx3cTM0mdpiOj-uAVjKU_HIbgfcnJkTgpL9S31Q/view?usp=sharing

National District Attorneys Association NATIONAL CENTER FOR PROSECUTION OF CHILD ABUSE Volume 16, Number 6, 2003 Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2 By Erika Rivera Ragland 1 & Hope Fields2 Hard Copy https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbZ0RUU1A4ZW5oTms/view?usp=sharing

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 2 of 2
By Hope Fields1 & Erika Rivera Ragland2 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PROSECUTION OF CHILD ABUSE National District Attorneys Association
PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system. National District Attorneys Association NATIONAL CENTER FOR PROSECUTION OF CHILD ABUSE Volume 16, Number 7, 2003 Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 2 of 2 By Hope Fields1 & Erika Rivera Ragland2 Hard Copy https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B54GIMT71CgbQnkwd0pQTHBlbnc/view?usp=sharing

Source checking " concocted Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) -- a legal defense of child molesters -- as the means to conceal a pedophile "ring" operating through family courts" https://sites.google.com/site/parentalalienationinventor/home/source-checking-concocted-parental-alienation-syndrome-pas----a-legal-defense-of-child-molesters----as-the-means-to-conceal-a-pedophile-ring-operating-through-family-courts Excerpts "Another key link between the NIH female sexual arousal study and the 'closet' pedophile agenda, is Michael Lamb of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Lamb, who heads the Section on Social and Emotional Development, is closely affiliated with the pro-pedophilia "experts" whose materials are used by fathers' group members in their own court cases. Lamb writing's may give the appearance of neutrality, but they are carefully crafted to provide justification for disqualifying evidence of pedophilia."

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
Excerpts "C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community. 35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case. 36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye 37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance.
PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from
the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard. 38 http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/judicial%20guide_0_0.pdf

See Discredited Parental alienation Reference list https://sites.google.com/view/whatisgoingoninfamilycourt/discredited-parental-alienation-reference-list

Has someone you love lost custody to the abuser in these States or International locations ? if so please sign here

Afcc Arizona?

https://sites.google.com/view/whatisgoingoninfamilycourt/afcc-arizona

Afcc Australia?

https://sites.google.com/view/whatisgoingoninfamilycourt/afcc-australia

Afcc California?

https://sites.google.com/view/whatisgoingoninfamilycourt/afcc-california

Afcc Canada ?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HzXAmPLGCDPit5-WSw7lOnsIuvFEzf7vnA_CiVn7xTs/edit#heading=h.rakh7xouua1m

Afcc China ?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jL-NgW1zEo54R5UkGF8xgUyB0xZYqGbHhijSMyejFX0/edit