Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Info

December 22, 2008 — batteredmomslosecustody

“This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively.”

“Both Gardner (PAS’s originator) and NAMBLA claim that adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant harm is caused by social stigma rather than the sexual contact itself.”

“While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders must be removed from society,” he advocated that they only be imprisoned after treatment has failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to lengthy sentences. As a political advocate, Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of child abuse, and for the creation of federally funded programs to assist individuals claiming to be falsely accused.”

The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy Jennifer Hoult – Children’s Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006  Abstract:  Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome (”PAS”). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS’s admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny. This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS’s evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science.This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS’s admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS’s scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards. The article also analyzes the writings of PAS’s originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner – including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible – finding that these materials support neither PAS’s existence, nor its legal admissibility. Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS’s admissibility through an analysis of PAS’s roots in Gardner’s theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.http://ssrn.com/abstract=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=642440

from the paper : 1. American Precedent Holds PAS Inadmissible – Because unreliable scientific claims pose a unique risk of undue influence and prejudice in the courtroom, the evidentiary admissibility of novel scientific material is governed by gate-keeping rules that are intended to ensure that such testimony meets adequate standards of reliability. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by these gate-keeping rules. Gardner published the claim that fifty American decisions set precedent holding PAS admissible under the relevant evidentiary rules. A closer examination reveals this claim to be unfounded; current U.S. precedent holds PAS inadmissible. By July 19, 2005, sixty-four precedent bearing cases referenced PAS. Only two of these decisions, both originating in criminal courts in New York State, set precedent on the issue of PAS’s evidentiary admissibility; both held PAS inadmissible….

A. PAS Is Not a Medical Syndrome – A medical “syndrome” defines a “distinct” correlation between a set of symptoms and a particular pathology. Determining whether PAS is a valid medical syndrome requires an assessment of whether it is an existing pathology and whether its diagnostic criteria correlate accurately with that pathology….Both Gardner and NAMBLA claim that adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant harm is caused by social stigma rather than the sexual contact itself. Gardner claimed the sole “determinant as to whether these experiences [i.e. a sexual encounter between an adult and a child] will be traumatic is the social attitude towards these encounters” and stated: [M]any societies have been unjustifiably punitive to those who exhibit these sexual paraphilic variations [e.g. pedophiles, rapists, etc.] and have not been giving proper respect to the genetic factors that may very well be operative. Such considerations may result in greater tolerance for those who exhibit these atypical sexual proclivities. My hope is that this theory will play a role (admittedly small) in bringing about greater sympathy and respect for individuals who exhibit these variations of sexual behavior. [Further,] they do play a role in species survival. While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders must be removed from society,” he advocated that they only be imprisoned after treatment has failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to lengthy sentences. As a political advocate, Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of child abuse, and for the creation of federally funded programs to assist individuals claiming to be falsely accused. 

Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases Carol S. Bruch  University of California, Davis 35 Family Law Quarterly 527 (2001)  Abstract:   As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences. This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 by Richard Gardner, M.D. that became widely used despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar review of more recent proposals labeled “Parental Alienation” (PA), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=298110&rec=1&srcabs=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=228611

C. The Flaws in PAS Theory – The deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple.Some have already been identified in social science literature and child custody judicial opinions; still others are now emerging. First, Gardner confounds a child’s developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents’ and children’s angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation. This error leads him to claim that PAS constitutes a frequent example of folie à deux or folie à trois, Shared Psychotic Disorders that the American Psychiatric Association and scholarly studies report occur only rarely. His assertion that these disorders occur primarily in young children is also contrary to the literature, probably also due to a misreading of typical developmental responses to divorce on the part of young children. Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship. Taken together, these assertions have the practical effect of impugning all abuse allegations, allegations which Gardner asserts are usually false in the divorce context. Here, too, Gardner cites no evidence in support of his personal view, and the relevant literature reports the contrary—that such allegations are usually well founded. Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner, the concerned custodial parent’s steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations. Worse yet, if therapists agree that danger exists, Gardner asserts that they are almost always man-hating women who have entered into a folie à trois with the complaining child and concerned parent. Indeed, he warns judges not to take abuse allegations seriously in the divorce court setting in high conflict cases (severe PAS cases). Neither Gardner nor those who accept his views acknowledge the logical difficulties when Gardner asserts that abuse allegations which are believed by therapists constitute evidence of PA by the protective parent. Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time, unless immediate, drastic measures (custody transfer, isolation from the loved parent, and deprogramming) are taken. Here, too, reliable sources reveal that his theory is exaggerated, with all but unusual cases (for example, those appearing in violent families) resolving themselves as the children mature. Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner’s proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children. In his admitted decision to err on the side of under-identifying abusers, Gardner appears to have overlooked the policy differences between criminal law and child custody law and also to have misunderstood the distinction between the burdens of proof in criminal and civil cases in the United States. To the extent that PAS results in placing children with a parent who is, in fact, abusive, the youngsters will be bereft of contact with the parent who might help them. Parent groups and investigative reporting describe, for example, numerous cases in which trial courts have transferred children’s custody to known or likely abusers and custodial parents have been denied contact with the children they have been trying to protect. In less extreme cases, too, children are likely to suffer from such a sudden dislocation in their home life and relationship with the parent they trust. Even therapists who accept PAS theory have advised against custody transfers to no avail in some reported cases in which it seems judges have implemented Gardner’s views on their own initiative….PAS as developed and purveyed by Richard Gardner has neither a logical nor a scientific basis. It is rejected by responsible social scientists and lacks solid grounding in psychological theory or research. PA, although more refined in its understanding of child-parent difficulties, entails intrusive, coercive, unsubstantiated remedies of its own. Lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals who deal with child custody issues should think carefully and respond judiciously when claims based on either theory are advanced.

Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force On Violence And The Family – ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE Issue 5 WHEN PARENTS SEPARATE AFTER AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, SHOULDN’T FATHERS HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS MOTHERS TO BE GRANTED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AND VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN? Tensions exist between children’s need for contact with their father and their need to be protected from the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that is common in families where there has been other forms of violence such as woman abuse.  Although most people believe that fathers should have equal access to their children after the termination of a relationship between the parents, the equal-access option is based on the assumption that the fathers will act in their children’s best interests. However, that is a naive assumption in situations where family violence has occurred. Fathers who batter their children’s mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children, too. In many of these families, prior to separation, the men were not actively involved in the raising of their children. To gain control after the marital separation, the fathers fight for the right to be involved. Often children who have been exposed to violence in the family are frightened to confront their father’s negative or abusive behavior, and mothers cannot protect them. Sometimes the father tries to alienate the child from the mother by using money and other enticements, negative comments, or restricted access to the telephone during visitation with him. Other times, fathers may threaten or actually kidnap the child to punish the mother for leaving, or to try to force her to return. Most people, including the battered woman herself, believe that when a woman leaves a violent man, she will remain the primary caretaker of their children. Family courts, however, may not consider the history of woman abuse relevant in awarding custody. Recent studies suggest that an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother. Often fathers win physical custody because men generally have greater financial resources and can continue the court battles with more legal assistance over a longer period of time. Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children’s witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers.http://web.archive.org/web/20000307233013/www.apa.org/pi/pii/familyvio/issue5.html

LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW 29:1367-1415 (1994) THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: A DANGEROUS AURA OF RELIABILITY Cheri L. Wood – PAS testimony should not be admitted in court because of the causation and evidentiary problems with the theory. Because of the dangerous aura of reliability and trustworthiness extant in Dr. Gardner’s self- published theory, admission of PAS is inevitable and particularly disconcerting. http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm

Dr. Richard Gardner: A Review of His Theories and Opinions on Atypical Sexuality, Pedophilia, and Treatment Issues by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Reference: Dallam, S. J. (1998). Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/2.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child’s estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent (usually the mother under PAS) as an evil “alienator” who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent (usually the father under PAS)….there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called “alienator’s” behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child’s behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm

The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is It Scientific? by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Dallam, S. J. (1999).  In E. St. Charles & L. Crook (Eds.), Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes . Los Gatos , CA : Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation. Gardner ’s theories are based on his assumption that sex between a child and an adult is not inherently harmful, and his belief that there is an epidemic of false sexual abuse allegations being made by vengeful wives during custody disputes. Gardner maintains these beliefs in spite of a wealth of clinical and experimental data which prove otherwise.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html

Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it? Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115 “No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view” (p. 112).  http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/docs/Faller1998.pdf

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2 Update – Volume 16, Number 6, 2003 By Erika Rivera Ragland & Hope Fields PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research. 1. PAS Presupposes a High Rate of False Accusations in Custody Cases The theory of PAS is based in part on the notion that, within custody disputes, there is a high incidence of false abuse allegations. Dr. Gardner theorized that allegations arising within the context of a custody dispute have a “high likelihood of being false,”5 and went so far as to state that he believed “the vast majority of allegations in this category [divorce cases with custody disputes] are false.” To the contrary, the available research suggests that false allegation rates are not significantly high. For example, a 1990 study by Thoennes and Tjaden evaluated 9,000 divorces in 12 states and found that sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2 percent of the contested divorces involving child custody. Within this group, it appears false allegations occurred in approximately 5% to 8% of cases. This study is one of the most comprehensive and least subject to bias and sampling problems, since its sample is so large and representative of the population of those divorcing with custody and visitation disputes. 2. PAS Presumes a Disadvantage to Women in Child Custody Determinations….Other Weaknesses: Lack of Peer Review and Recognition by DSM-IV Dr. Gardner mostly self-published and thus did not generally subject his theory to the peer review process. Moreover, PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association. PAS is also not included within the DSM-IV. It is also worth noting that Dr. Gardner often expressed disdain for child abuse professionals, labeling them “validators,” theorizing that greed and desire for increased business prompted some sexual abuse allegations, and speculating that parents and professionals alike made some false allegations because “all of us have some pedophilia within us.” Conclusion – At best, PAS is a nondiagnostic “syndrome” that only explains the behavior of the child and the mother when there is a known false allegation. It is a courtroom diagnosis befitting adversaries involved in legal sparring. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V. In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Update– Volume 16, Number 7, 2003 Part 2 of 2 By Hope Fields & Erika Rivera RaglandPAS 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.http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_7_2003.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye V. Gardner in the Family Courts by Poliacoff, Ph.D., P.A., Greene, Esq., and Smith, Esqhttp://web.archive.org/web/20051124134133/http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/poliacoff.htm

RICHARD A. GARDNER: IN HIS OWN WORDS “At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by ’seducing’ the adult.” Gardner, Richard A., Child Custody Litigation (1986), p.93 http://web.archive.org/web/20061012010857/http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/pedoph.htm

Courts put kids at risk

Courts put kids at risk

Ruth Pollard
November 25, 2008
Latest related coverage
Dying to be heard
Audio slideshow: The Herald spent weeks with women in domestic violence refuges. Here are their stories.
Locked up for months, Rachel was freed by her captor’s mistake
Mandatory laws to be eased
Kidnap victim still lives in fear
Child welfare up for sale
A little laughter offers comfort in shared sanctuary
Rees softens resistance to deaths review
Andrew O’Keefe: Violence against women is Australia’s crime too
Ingrid Poulson: Out of tragedy, hopefully some good may come
Advertisement

CHILDREN are handed over to violent fathers and women are exposed to further harm in family mediation sessions because of flawed amendments to the Family Law Act. Too often these changes place parenting rights over the safety of children, experts warn.

The changes, made by the Howard government two years ago, have forced women with current apprehended violence orders against their partners into mediation where further threats of abuse occur, the Herald has learned.

And the presence of domestic violence or child abuse made little difference to whether fathers were given overnight access to their children, research from the Australian Institute of Family Studies found, prompting calls for urgent reforms to the system and better training for magistrates and mediators.

“If there is domestic violence occurring in that relationship, mediation is not appropriate at all,” said Betty Green, convener of the NSW Domestic Violence Coalition.

“It is having horrendous consequences for women who are desperately trying to keep their children safe and yet the family law court is handing over children to violent men who are not necessarily interested in parenting these children.”

Ms Green called on the Federal Government to implement urgent changes to the act so the safety of children was privileged over a parent’s right to contact.

“The idea of shared parenting is fine in those relationships where prior to that there was some kind of joint responsibility in raising children, but in domestic violence relationships that is not what happens,” she said.

“You get a crazy situation where from a state perspective child protection agencies may be involved, where if a mother were to provide contact for the abuser that would be grounds to lose her children because she was exposing them to violence.

“On the other hand, you have a family law court in the federal system that puts that order to one side, and says, ‘Here is a father and he must have access rights to his children’.”

The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, said the Government was aware of concerns over the way shared parenting provisions in the act have been applied in cases where domestic violence is present.

“That is why the Government is implementing new accreditation standards that will require all professionals – from mediator to judge – to be able to identify and respond to evidence of domestic violence,” he said in a statement to the Herald.

“My department is currently consulting with key stakeholders to find better ways to address family violence in the family law system [and] the Institute of Family Studies is also conducting a detailed examination of the impact of the shared parenting presumption – that review will be completed in mid-2009.”

Karen Mifsud, a solicitor in the Women’s Legal Resource Centre domestic violence advocacy service, said many women felt pushed into mediation because they were unable to pay for legal representation to go to court.

“We have had clients reporting that they do not want to go to mediation because they feel intimidated or scared but feel they have no option as they need to get some sort of arrangement for children in place.”

Domestic violence is listed as a factor in considering the best interests of the child under the Family Law Act, Ms Mifsud said.

“However, it is only one factor and the case law indicates that there needs to be exceptionally high conflict between parents or extreme domestic violence … to be taken into account.”

Email
Print this story
Normal font
Large font
Add to Facebook
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this story
RSS Feed
When news happens:
send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or email us.

Chamber Of Secrets

CBS News

Nov. 29, 2008 1:45pm

LOG-IN  • Register  • Help

• CBS EVENING NEWS
• THE EARLY SHOW
• 48 HOURS MYSTERY
• 60 MINUTES
• SUNDAY MORNING
• FACE THE NATION
• UP TO THE MINUTE

Up Next Watch Full Shows Bios About Us  Video  U.S.  World  Politics  SciTech  Health  Entertainment  Business  CBS Investigates  Sports  Strange  Travel  Opinion  Blogs  In-Depth/Photos  Puzzles & Toons  Mobile Services  E-Mail Services  RSS Feeds  Podcasts  Get Widgets	SEARCH   CBS News  The Web      • Tips Home » 48 Hours Chamber Of Secrets A Pregnant Mother Goes Undercover To Keep Custody Of Her Children Feb. 18, 2005 E-MAIL STORY PRINT STORY SPHERE SHARE TEXT SIZE:  A  A  A VIDEOS PHOTOS D.A. Targets Judge Garson The district attorney offers Siminovsky a deal he can’t refuse, in an attempt to catch Judge Garson. View excerpts from the surveillance tapes. | Share/Embed D.A. Targets Judge Garson(1:53) Judging From Hidden Camera(4:04) Judge Behaving Badly? (3:13) » MORE VIDEOS RELATED INTERACTIVE The Nation We Live In Who are Americans and what do they do? A comprehensive look at our economic, sociological and racial breakdown. (CBS) Frieda Hanimov’s American dream was once a big house in a swanky New York neighborhood. It’s a world away from the poverty where she grew up.  Her parents fled Russia, emigrated to Israel, and at the age of 18, this young nurse made her way to America. Just a few weeks later, she met the man she would marry, Yury Hanimov, whose business was diamonds. They would have three children, Yaniv, Sharon, and Natti.  Life was good. But after 13 years of marriage, Yuri announced to his wife that his business was failing. The dream house had to be sold, and they moved to a small apartment in Brooklyn.  Frieda says her husband told her they had to pretend to be divorced. She claims it was part of a scheme to hide their assets. “He gave me diamonds,” she says. “He told me that it’s worth over $6 million. He told me not to show it to anybody.”  “They shine. They’re gorgeous,” adds Frieda, showingCorrespondent Lesley Stahl the diamonds.  But one day, Yury didn’t come home. Frieda says he just disappeared with his clothes, and was unreachable by phone. And the diamonds? “Zircon,” says Frieda.  The diamonds were fake, but the separation papers Frieda signed were real. And she says she had unknowingly signed away her rights to any of her husband’s assets.  “This is a crime. What he did to me was a crime,” says Frieda, who hired a lawyer to try to stop the divorce.  She pinned her hopes on the wisdom of a New York State Supreme Court justice, Judge Gerald Garson. “He would see that this is a set-up,” she says. “And you know, a woman married to her husband, a mother of three, will get her rights.”  But when she walked into his court, her hopes were shattered. “The judge tells me that I better settle this case and I don’t have any chances,” says Frieda. “He told me if I’m not gonna settle, I’m gonna end up in jail.”  The judge chastised her for renting an apartment she co-owned with her husband, without his permission. Stunned by the judge’s behavior, Frieda says she saw no choice but to agree to the divorce.  “I said, ‘To hell with the money. I’m a nurse. I’ll make it. As long as I have my kids, I’ll just continue with my life. It’s not the end,'” says Frieda.  Two years later, Frieda fell in love, got married and became pregnant.  Frieda says her ex-husband got jealous, and began trying to convince the children they would have a better life with him. Her 13-year-old son, Yaniv, liked the idea.  One night, when Frieda came home from work, her ex-husband called the police on her. “[They said,] ‘Your son said that you hit him with a belt,'” recalls Frieda.  Yaniv was standing outside with his father, and told the police his mother had beaten him with a belt three days earlier. Frieda says her son had a fresh red mark on his face, one that looked like it was new: “My ex-husband pointed to my son and said, ‘You see? You see the red line? This is mommy hit him with a belt.'”  She says she has no idea how the red mark got on her son’s face: “I don’t know. Kids play basketball, they jump. I don’t know.”  “I never hit my kids. Never ever. I’m against it,” adds Frieda. “My kids are well dressed. Very clean. Honors in school. I’m proud to be their mother.”  Frieda was arrested, and at that point, she says her son protested. “He said, ‘No, no it was a misunderstanding.’ Then he went to my ex-husband and started hitting him and saying, ‘Daddy, you lied to me. You said they’re not going to hurt Mommy,'” recalls Frieda.  “They put me in a cell with I will say 30-50 people. All knocked out. Me shaking. Pregnant,” says Frieda. “Sitting and crying and I can’t believe my son did this to me. It’s for no reason. I never hit my son.”  Then the news got even worse for Frieda. Her ex-husband filed for custody; he wanted all the children. And the man deciding the fate of her family was Judge Garson.  “When Judge Garson called me into his chamber room, he asked me who I wanted to live with, my mother or my father. So I told him my mother,” says Sharon. “He told me that he’s an adult and he decides, whether I like it or not. So what’s the point of me talking to the judge if he didn’t even want to hear what I wanted to say?”  “I told him my mom,” says Natti. “And he said, ‘You never know what’s gonna happen. It’s up to me.'”  Frieda says she wasn’t going to sit and wait: “I’m not going to lose my kids.” She heard about a man, Nissim Elmann, who could help, a businessman who was boasting around town that he could influence the judge.  “I said, ‘Let me call him,'” says Frieda. “And he tells me that this judge is in his pocket.”  Frieda says Elmann told her he could prove it by dialing the judge himself. She listened in to the conversation, and says she heard a man say that she was going to lose her children in 30 days. She then hung up the phone, terrified.  Frieda began calling every law enforcement agency she could think of, including the FBI. “I was very hysterical,” she says.  She was directed to Bryan Wallace, Kings County assistant district attorney, who was the first investigator to take Frieda seriously. “There was a businessman named Nissim Elmann who claimed that he had influence in Judge Garson’s part,” says Wallace. “Of course, my antennas went up.”  “We’re not talking about a traffic ticket here or someone jumping a turnstile. We’re talking about corruption in the court system. And the pawns that are being played with here are children,” says prosecutor Noel Downey, who works with Wallace in the Rackets division.  “We explained to her that we needed to, in essence test her, to see if what she was telling us was the truth,” says Michael Vecchione, Downey and Wallace’s boss, who knew that proving corruption in the courts would be difficult.  “I told them, ‘Put wires on me,'” says Frieda. “I’ll prove you this judge is corrupted.”  “We couldn’t cover her inside the warehouse. It’s a rather stark and daunting place. It’s kind of brick and closed up and so once Frieda went in that location [she was on her own],” says Vecchione. “Her allegations were that a Supreme Court Judge had been bribed. She was about to lose children.”  Frieda, three months pregnant, was on an undercover mission to expose corruption. She headed to a warehouse in downtown Brooklyn to meet with Elmann.  “We didn’t really know what Nissim Elmann was about. We didn’t know what he was capable of,” says Vecchione, who assigned detectives Jeanette Spordone and George Terra to Frieda.  The detectives wired up Frieda. “She was a tiger. She was protecting her cubs,” says Spordone. “It was ballsy of her to go in there. We pulled up and watched her go in. We really didn’t know what was going on inside that warehouse.”  Frieda found Elmann right in his office. Their conversation was mostly in Hebrew. Elmann tells Frieda that the judge is looking at papers submitted by her ex-husband. Frieda then pleads with Elmann, who shows her his cell phone, with Judge Garson’s phone number on the screen.  Elmann, an electronics salesman, guarantees she’ll win custody of her two younger children, but it will cost her.  Two weeks later, Frieda, wearing a wire again, visits Elmann to negotiate a price for her children. The price to keep custody of Sharon and Notti was $9,000.  Frieda says it worked. She says Judge Garson and Paul Siminovsky, a lawyer assigned by Garson to represent her children, soon began treating her differently. “I was seeing results,” says Frieda. “In the beginning, I was so dangerous. Now, I’m a very good mother.”  “She saw such a difference, how people treated her from top down,” says Downey. “We noticed it as well.”  Now, it was up to the district attorney to figure out how an electronics salesman from Brooklyn could possibly be influencing custody decisions. They put a tap on Elmann’s phone.  On tape, Elmann assures Siminovsky that he’s working to get him money from various divorce litigants. Simonovsky also brags about boozing it up with Judge Garson.  Detectives begin tailing Siminovsky, who is seen in a surveillance tape hugging Elmann. “Siminovsky and Elmann have a very tight relationship,” says Downey. “Siminovsky has a very tight relationship with the judge.”  Investigators believed they had figured out the food chain, literally. Vecchione showed 48 Hours the bar where “Siminovsky and the judge would meet for lunch, drinks and dinners.”  “They were very well known at the Archives because they were there every afternoon,” adds Spordone. “Very friendly. They were buddies.”  “I’m talking about an attorney who would bring the judge out to lunch, to drinks, to dinners,” says Downey. “Not once, but we’re talking several hundred times. Every time, Siminovsky paid.”  “Paul Siminovsky would pick up the tab. It was a given,” says Terra. “People know that this lawyer is before this judge on a case. It’s wrong. It’s inappropriate. It’s unethical.”  If this was what going on in public, authorities wanted to know what was happening behind closed doors. Were judicial decisions being bought?  On a cold December night, detectives from the district attorney’s office made their way into Judge Garson’s chambers. They placed a tiny camera in his ceiling.  “We had a microwave dish that would read signals going back to our office,” says Vecchione. “We had people who were monitoring it, all day long and into the evening.”  Just weeks after Frieda, terrified she was going to lose her children, started working undercover to try to prove whether Judge Garson was taking payoffs, the district attorney began surveillance of the judge and his meetings with Siminovsky.  “You have this attorney Siminovsky getting inappropriately cozy with a judge who’s appearing before, that he has cases with,” says Downey.  One of Siminovsky’s clients was Sigal Levi’s estranged husband, Avraham Levi. Detectives secretly listened in as Judge Garson told Siminovsky that his client would win the family home – and that Levi would “walk away with nothing.” At a later date, Garson instructs Siminovsky how to write a memo on the issue.  According to investigators, the judge and the lawyer said things about other women, too. “The way he spoke about women was really just beyond sexist,” says Downey. “I think it borders on disturbing.”  Investigators say they heard Siminovsky tell Elmann what Garson said about Frieda. “The judge was admiring her lips,” says Vecchione.  But the worst thing that was going on in Garson’s chambers, according to investigators, were the kickbacks – in the form of lucrative work. “You see Siminovsky’s assignment numbers almost triple,” says Vecchione.  Investigators say all the wining and dining of the judge paid off for Siminovsky in a big way. If a child needed representation in a custody case, Garson would assign Siminovsky as the law guardian – and the divorcing parents or the taxpayers would foot the bill, often tens of thousands of dollars.  Garson’s behavior was especially appalling for Joe Hynes, the district attorney in charge. For him, the investigation was personal.  “I saw the way the courts treated my mother when she was being beaten up by my father. I have a very special interest in making damn sure that kinda stuff doesn’t continue,” says Hynes. “Frankly, I was shocked that it was going on at all. I thought that there had been significant changes in the way the courts acted towards women litigants and their kids.”  The district attorney thought he had the goods on Siminovsky, but he wanted Judge Garson. He told his staff to offer Siminovsky a deal and get him to flip. They would recommend that Siminovsky serve no prison time.  It was an offer he couldn’t refuse. Simonovsky took the deal; he would wear a wire and go see the judge.  The district attorney bought a $275 dollar box of cigars. “And one afternoon, after Siminovsky went to lunch with the judge, and after he paid for the lunch again, came back to the robbing room, gave him the box of cigars,” says Vecchione. “And said, ‘This is thanks for your help in the Levy case.'”  Next, Siminovsky brought $1,000 in cash as a thank you to Garson for referring a case to him in another court.  “You see him reach into his pocket and he takes out a thousand dollars, and he hands it over to the judge and the judge takes it and put it into his pants pocket,” says Vecchione, describing what is happening on the tape. “Siminovsky leaves, and the judge takes it out of his pocket. Takes a couple of bills and puts it into another pocket and puts some in an envelope.”  Judge Garson then calls Siminovsky back to his office. He tells Simonovsky that it’s too much money and tries to give it back. But Siminovsky insists, and in the end, Garson keeps the money. “What we had all suspected he would do, he actually did,” says Vecchione.  “Joe Hynes, the district attorney in this case, would like nothing better than to tag Jerry Garson with the fact that he accepted a bribe,” says attorney Ronald Fischetti, who represents Judge Garson, and says the judge’s behavior may look bad, but there’s nothing illegal about any of it.  “He never fixed a case. He never accepted any money on any cases whatsoever. The $1,000 was a referral fee that Paul Siminovsky said, ‘You referred me a case. I received a fee. And here’s the $1,000 dollars.'”  Are judges supposed to take referral fees? “Absolutely not. And he tried to give it back three times,” says Fishetti.  “But he didn’t try to give it all back,” says Stahl.  “He did. The whole $1000,” says Fischetti. “You see him counting it out. Put it in an envelope, opened a drawer, gave it back to him. That’s our position.”  But Garson ended up taking it. “You’ve heard of the law of entrapment, I’m sure,” says Fischetti, who adds that Garson showed Siminovsky no special treatment in exchange for all those meals.  “The only bribe he’s accused of taking is lunch and dinner with Paul Siminovsky in order to have favorable treatment for Paul Siminovsky and give him law guardianships. Now I tell you, I mean, that it is so ridiculous on its face. A person like Jerry Garson, who’s a Supreme Court judge, is not going to throw on his robes for a hamburger.”  “But the judge is on tape telling and coaching Siminovsky on how to win the case in front of him,” says Stahl. “He’s giving him lessons. He’s telling him how to write memos. That’s on tape.”  “I understand that. He had made a decision regarding the property in that case, and what he was doing is telling Paul Siminovsky, in his own words, that he had ruled his favor, and you’re gonna win. And that’s wrong,” says Fischetti.  “He says, ‘Your client’s gonna win. But he doesn’t deserve it,'” says Stahl. “It sounds as though he’s saying, ‘I shouldn’t be doing this. But because of our relationship, I’m going to.”  “That’s not correct,” says Fischetti.  But 48 hours after Judge Garson took that money, detectives picked him up and brought him to a place they call “the Gulag.” The $1,000 was still in his pocket.  When Judge Garson saw what investigators had on tape, they say he offered to cut a deal. But in the end, it fell apart.  Nine months after Frieda went undercover, the authorities arrested Garson and charged him with receiving a bribe. Accepting all those free lunches could put the judge behind bars for up to seven years.  When investigators raided Elmann’s warehouse, they found a treasure trove of documents. “When these drawers are opened, you feel like you’re in a satellite file room for the matrimonial court,” says Downey.  Investigators arrested Elmann, retired court clerk Paul Sarnell, and Judge Garson’s court officer Louis Salerno. They were accused of taking bribes to steer cases to Garson’s court.  A surveillance tape shows Salerno accepting a bribe, a bag full of electronics, right on the courthouse steps.  “It’s a conspiracy, first and foremost,” says Downey, who adds that the unraveling of it all started with Frieda.  But there were dozens of women who say that because of Judge Garson, they lost custody of their children.  Sigal Levi, the woman whose divorce Garson was discussing in the undercover tape, had always suspected corruption. In fact, she’s the one whose tip to Frieda about Elmann started Frieda on her crusade.  Garson was arrested before he ruled on Levi’s case, but her estranged husband pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe the judge. “He told me he went to the right people to take care of me,” says Sigal Levi.  Her husband paid Elmann $10,000. Ironically, he says he’s the victim, and that he only did it because Elmann threatened him and said he’d lose everything if he didn’t pay up.  “I knew about Sigal’s divorce probably before she did. I knew her name, what was going on,” says Lisa Cohen, who knew because she and her husband were friendly with Elmann.  “I knew that he had the judge in his pocket. I knew that he was very friendly with the judge as well as he had a very intimate rapport with Paul Siminovsky. … From the horse’s mouth, he told me, ‘Any favor you need, the judge is in my pocket.'”  So when Cohen and her husband went through their own divorce later that year, she says she was terrified: “I received the notice in the mail to appear in Supreme Court. And sure enough, Judge Garson’s name was right there. Said that’s it. I’m doomed. I’m fixed. And it’s all over.”  The district attorney has not charged Cohen’s ex-husband with any wrongdoing, but she still believes her husband’s friendship with Elmann hurt her. She feels Judge Garson shorted her on child support. Garson has not been charged with fixing any decisions, but an administrative judge has been appointed to review his divorce and custody rulings.  Elmann, the man alleged to be the gatekeeper of Garson’s corrupt court, sat down with 48 Hours for his first interview. He had his lawyer, Gerald McMann, by his side.  Did he ever bribe Judge Garson? “Absolutely not,” says Elmann.  And Siminovsky? “I was not under the impression that I was bribing him,” says Elmann.  In fact, Elmann has been charged with conspiracy to bribe practically everyone in Judge Garson’s court, from employees Salerno and Sarnell, to Siminovsky, to Judge Garson himself.  But Elmann says he never really knew the judge, and that he was just trying to hook people up with a lawyer the judge seemed to favor: “I was really showing off that I’m a big shot, and that was my biggest mistake that I live was showing off.”  “When you told Frieda that if she didn’t pay, she was going to lose her kids in 30 days, what did you mean,” asks Stahl.  “There’s no question that his responses to her on many occasions, if they were true, would be criminal. But they weren’t true,” says McMann. “He was telling these people that ‘I have the judge in my pocket. Oh, I just got off the telephone with Judge Garson. I just did this.’ None of these things were true, not a single one.”  Did Elmann mislead Frieda? “I might have done that,” he says. “Just to calm her down.”  Elmann now says he lied to Frieda when he told her that her ex-husband had already bribed the judge. And in fact, there is no evidence that her ex slipped anyone any money, and he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.  Still, Elmann convinced Frieda that her ex was up to no good, and took $9,000 from her. He says he gave it all to Siminovsky.  “Not even one cent [did I keep],” says Elmann. “Everything, I give it to, not even one cent.”  “What did he do for anybody except his pocket. That’s it. What did he do? He destroyed children’s lives, and I don’t have answers for my children. I just don’t,” says Cohen.  But Elmann and his attorney believe that if anyone’s motives should be in question, it should be Frieda’s.  “Frieda Hanimov is not a crusader, trying to clean up corruption in Brooklyn. Nor is Joe Hynes,” says McMann. “Frieda is a useful tool so that Joe Hynes can get publicity for his case.”  Is McMann suggesting that Frieda is not a very truthful person? “I’m not suggesting it,” says McMann. “I’m stating it categorically. She’s a liar.”  McMann calls Frieda a child abuser who found a way to get the charges dropped. Did she hit her child? Vecchione says, “None of us believe she did. She felt that the husband had been manipulating her child, which is what happened.”  But Frieda still has to convince the court that she’s the better parent to raise her oldest son. And for two years after Judge Garson’s arrest, she’s still fighting for custody.  Finally, Yaniv, who still says his mother hit him, agrees to live with her because he wants to be near his school.  “I got my son back. It’s like my heart is like jumping up and down. This is every mother’s dream,” says Frieda. “You know, to have kids back. I can’t express that. This is a big win for me. A big win. I’m so glad. We got it.”  It seems that women all over the country have heard about what she’s done.  “I’m just a mother, who fight the system and won,” says Frieda, who’s being compared to Erin Brockovich.  Every month, women gather at Frieda’s house. And if Frieda hears what she thinks is evidence of corruption, she calls her new friends in law enforcement.  “If I can help those people,” she says. “I was there once. If I can help those women, why not?”  In the wake of Judge Garson’s arrest, court administrators have formed a new commission to reform New York’s divorce court. On this day, Judith Sheindlein is speaking. Before she was TV’s Judge Judy, she was a family court judge in New York for 25 years.  She says Judge Garson’s case is a wakeup call for New York and the rest of the country. “I don’t know all the facts. I only know what I read in the paper,” says Sheindlein. “But certainly, here is a man who has brought the judiciary into disrepute because of at least his stupidity. At least his stupidity.”  And she says she’s met plenty of judges with bad judgment. “There’s no question in my mind that decisions are made every day in cases, made because of cronyism,” says Sheinlein.  Whether or not Judge Garson is found guilty, the district attorney credits Frieda with forcing the leadership of the court to re-examine how they pick judges, handle custody cases, and train law guardians.  “Has Frieda done that? You bet she did,” says Hynes. “Were it not for Frieda, I doubt very much if anyone would have known about it.”  Now, Hollywood has come calling. A screenwriter is following Frieda around.  The script line is simple: A Russian immigrant, for whom English is a third language, exposed a potential sewer of corruption in an American court.  Electronics salesman Nissim Elmann has pleaded not guilty and goes on trial next week.  Retired court clerk Paul Sarnell was found not guilty of all charges. Court officer Louis Salerno was convicted of receiving a bribe and is awaiting sentencing.  Judge Gerald Garson has pleaded not guilty and will be tried this fall. ©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. E-MAIL STORY PRINT STORY SPHERE SHARE TEXT SIZE:  A  A  A  Back To Top	MOST VIEWED STORIES VIDEOS PHOTOS Man Dies After Wal-Mart Stampede The Media’s “Obama-Remorse” Next Round Of Foreclosures To Hit Retail India Terror Siege Drags On At Hotel Three Americans Among Dead In India Chaos  RSS Advertisement FOR MORE INFORMATION:  National Coalition for Family Justice Learn more about this nonprofit organization.  Frieda Hanimov Visit Frieda Hanimov’s Web site. TOP STORIES VIDEOS PHOTOS Three Americans Among Dead In India Chaos Virginia Father, Teenage Daughter And A Brooklyn-Based Rabbi Each Victims Of Violence Shoppers Snap Up Black Friday Deals Two People Dead In Toys “R” Us Shooting Man Dies After Wal-Mart Stampede CBSNews.com Front Page  |   RSS 48 HOURS STORIES VIDEOS Drawn To Murder A Teen Is Hunted For Murder. Now Cops Who Helped Put Him Away Want To Set Him Free The Mortgage And The Murder Truth On Trial 48 Hours Mystery Exclusive” style=”text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, Sans; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 119); “>Vegas Heat Section Front Page  |   RSS Ads by Google 3 Home Alarm Quotes Now Compare 3 Quotes and save time No Obligation, One form, One minute www.Home-Alarms.com.au  Home Security System $799 Includes No Fuss Wireless Install Live Life with ‘Peace of Mind’ www.macquariesecurity.com.au  1 flat stomach rule: obey Cut down 1 lbs of stomach fat every day by obeying this 1 weird rule. FatLoss4Idiots.com
	SEARCH   CBS News  The Web      • Tips

• CBS EVENING NEWS
• THE EARLY SHOW
• 48 HOURS MYSTERY
• 60 MINUTES
• SUNDAY MORNING
• FACE THE NATION
• UP TO THE MINUTE

• Main

 

• U.S.

 

• World

 

• Politics

 

• SciTech

 

• Health

 

• Entertainment

 

• Business

 

• Sports

 

• Strange

 

• Travel

 

• Opinion

 

• Videos

 

• In-Depth / Photos

 

• Blogs

 

• Mobile

 

• E-Mail

 

• RSS

 

• Widgets

 

• Podcasts

• CBSNews.com:

 

• Site Map

 

• Video Site Map

 

• Mobile/WAP Site

 

• Help

 

• Contact Us

 

• CBS Bios

 

• Internships

• Popular on CBS sites:

 

• Fantasy Football

 

• Miley Cyrus

 

• MLB

 

• iPhone 3G

 

• GPS

 

• Recipes

 

• Shwayze

 

• NFL

• About CBS

 

• Advertise

 

• User Feedback

 

• Visit Other CBS Interactive Sites:    Select Site  BNET  CBS College Sports  CBS Radio  CBS.com  CBSNews.com  CBSSports.com  CHOW  CNET  CNET Channel  GameSpot  International  Last.fm  MaxPreps  Moblogic  MP3.com  mySimon  NCAA  Search.com  TechRepublic  The Insider  TV.com  UrbanBaby.com  UWIRE  Wallstrip  ZDNet   

• © 2008, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

• Privacy Policy

 

• Terms of Use

Finding the Money Trail

Finding the Money Trail …to fixing cases for bad dads. Facilitated with the HHS Access-Visitation Enforcement program, The Responsible Fatherhood program and Fatherhood Faith Based Initiative; funded by earmarks, executive orders and other hidden measures.

---

White House 1995 Executive Order requring all departments to support fatherhood programs
This is what started the Responsible Fatherhood programs which are currently running in over 10 federal departments and agencies !

Administration for Children and Families Home Page – this federal division of HHS is the source of the funding which is fueling the court corruption problems.  Judge are making their rulings according to the program grant requirements and not by the case evidence.  Past ACF officials were closely associated with the fathers rights groups and leaders, and essentially turned the dept into a pro-father, abuse cover-up agency. 

ACF Responsible Fatherhood site    This site has a good example of  their “pass-the-buck” excuses of their own fraud: ‘the federal government is not authorized to handle custody and visitation – so we will have the state agencies do it for us’:
“Although visitation is not in the same office as child support, the state CSE agency should be able to tell you who can help with custody and visitation enforcement in the state.  Family law, including parental rights, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, and the Federal government cannot intervene.”

More HHS-ACF sites where programs are set up to promote the interests of responsibility evading fathers
Child Access and Visitation Grants:State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY 2006 
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood, U.S. HHS 2006 
HHS-ACF  Responsible Fatherhood Report –  2008  

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs, “Early Implementation Lessons, Center for Policy Research, Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Nancy Thoennes, Ph..D.”    This is the demonstration programs which was the basis for all the others.
 We have excerpted the most relevant pages of this 105 page report, highlighted with inserted notes pinpointing the sections describing the fraudulent intent.  Look for sections which describe free attorney for fathers and child support abatements.

This Michigan fathers rights group even offers litigation forms.  Doesn’t this indicate that non-lawyers are offering litigation assistance which of course is illegal??  Dads of Michigan / Fathers are Parents Too     

This Michigan State Dept of Human Resources site offers fathers litigation help.  Hasn’t anybody told them that HHS-ACF funds are not authorized for litigation. Even worse they appear to be to soliciting for litigation? 
MI-DHS – Dads get free legal advice and information about parenting ”  
The series is sponsored by the Michigan Department of Human Services’ Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, Michigan State University’s Chance at Childhood, and community providers of the Proud Fathers-Proud Parents programs”  ( This money is coming  from the $150,000,000 middle-of-the night earmark got by NFI – see below) .  

FORMER HHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WADE HORN, GOT HUGE EARMARKED FUNDING FOR FATHERS’ FATHERS LITIGATION $150,000,000 “middle-of-the-night” Dec. 2005 “earmark” for fatherhood programs, engineered by Wade Horn’s and his Senate allies, when Horn was HHS Assistant Secretary for ACF, which only a few knew about until after the Senate session ended the next day.    National Fatherhood Initiative ::: NFI Capacity-Building grants  
HHS gives the money to NFI, who in turn distributes it to local state agencies and fathers group (renamed to appear more neutral).  On this site you will find a long list of organizations which received these grant funds from N.F.I.   Horn resigned from his HHS-ACF top position in mid-2007  (coincidently after Liz submitted documentation to high level HHS legal officials about Horn serious conflicts with the fathers rights over these programs. 

DC SET UP SPECIAL COURT FOR FATHERS !!! 
Apparently nobody at the Washington D.C. court system heard about the laws against gender bias, since they have setup special courts for fathers.  This court starts out with the assumption the father is the good guy who needs more “help”.  Wonder which gender will be favored in court rulings?    Superior Court, OAG Collaborate to Form New Fathering Court   (note: find this article on linked site half way down page)
“The family court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has partnered with the D.C. Office of the Attorney General and other D.C. government agencies to create a new entity, the Fathering Court. This program, currently in the pilot phase, will help recently incarcerated fathers get the help they need to support their families through services such as drug treatment, parenting classes, and job training.”

“The Fathering Court will help an initial class of 45 noncustodial fathers become responsible for their children through a combination of needs assessment, case management, and linkage to community resources. Resources for Fathering Court participants include mandatory fathering classes, employment training, and family and parental educational classes. Participants also must maintain sobriety, which will be enforced through mandatory drug testing. An individual case manager and the Fathering Court program manager will monitor each participant’s progress.”

“The Fathering Court is a unique effort to help fathers returning from prison become better parents—financially and emotionally—to their children,” said Family Court Presiding Judge Anita Josey-Herring. “[W]e will be able to help them find gainful employment, slowly increase the amount of child support they owe, and to develop meaningful relationships with their children. Custodial parents will get the child support they are due, fathers will have a chance to meet their support requirements, and the relationship between parent and child will be about more than just money.”

D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer agreed.

“Parents coming out of prison have many strikes against them, and this program is designed to give them a fighting chance to be a parent to their child or children,” she said.

Magistrate Judge Milton Lee, who will preside over Fathering Court cases, added that he looked forward to the challenge that this new program represents.

“Judges who hear child support cases can grow weary of excuses, just as those returning from prison can grow weary of job application rejections, and custodial parents can grow weary of not receiving court-ordered child support. And the children living without the benefit of appropriate financial and emotional support from both parents are the ones who suffer most,” he said. “We know that children benefit from having both parents involved in their lives.”

Some agencies supporting the Fathering Court include the Bureau of Prisons, Child Support Services Division, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Fatherhood Initiative of the Department of Human Services, and D.C. Office of the Attorney General. —J.R.

Safe Visit Topeka -CRC / Supervised Visitation Network Action Alert
Note site section  mention of CRC influence in getting HHS money:   “Because more than a half million families have been helped since the first $10 million a year in access funds was provided, at the Children’s Rights Council’s request” 

Jeffery M. Leving, Ltd. Attorneys at Law  
“Leving was appointed as Chair of the Council on Responsible Fatherhood for the State of Illinois by Governor Rod Blagojevich”.   (This deal also included lots of money !!) 
Feb 15, 2008 Illinois Council Responsible Fatherhood   Notice picture with Leving in center, surrounded by Judges.
The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood 

Sources of Funding for Male and Father-Involvement Programs Family Therapy Center — Expert help on custody, parental alienation and parent   New York & Gerogia

Georgia Fatherhood Programs

Wade Horn Resigns, Perhaps he was thinking that the revelation “shortly before his resignation” that the nearly $1 million he gave to the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), where he had been  the president for many  years prior to joining the Bush administration in 2001, as Assistant HHS Secretary for Administration for Children & Families – was only the tip of the iceberg. 

THEY CAN’T EVEN KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF THE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS !! 
The HHS Inspector General is supposed to be the oversight auditors for the department.  Instead , they are ordering the states to turn over  abandonded child support money to the federal government.  Their policy is the that the state child support agencies must  split 66% for federal vs 34% for state, all collected but not received or deposited by custodial parent .  States are allowed to devise their own policies and methods to verify when a child support account payment  is “abandoned”,  which means the custodial parent can not be located, or the checks are not cashed, or the mailed check is returned as undeliverable mail.  This purported “abandoned” funds must be distributed back to the federal government.   A few quick calls to state child support agencies revealed in at least one large state – the method of handling and determining  an “abandoned” payment was fraudulent and most like a deliberate “set-up-to fail” procedure, enabling the state agency to continue collecting the support money from the non-custodial parent while  not sending  it to the custodial parent and eventually keeping the money for the state’s  general fund.   
Search this site for Inspector General reports titled:  “Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections…” instructing various state agencies to return to the federal government monies collected from the non-custodial parent which have not been received by the custodial parent. 
HHS-Inspector General Audit Report

This information was turned over to a Daytona Beach reporter who wrote an article on her findings of a similar situation with Florida’s child support agency:
Daytona Beach NewJournal – ChildSupport 02/06/08   

Ruling debunks custody diagnosis

Ruling debunks custody diagnosis

Tony Koch | April 07, 2008

Article from: The Australian

CHILD custody determinations in scores of Family Court decisions could be challenged following a ruling debunking parental alienation syndrome, a controversial diagnosis of the effects on a child when one parent denigrates the other.

The Psychologists Board of Queensland last month disciplined prominent Brisbane clinical psychologist William Wrigley, saying he had acted unprofessionally in giving evidence about parental alienation syndrome to the court.

An investigation found that Dr Wrigley’s evidence three years ago, which had led to a mother losing custody of her two children, constituted “professional conduct that demonstrates incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care”.

The Australian understands that Dr Wrigley has identified the syndrome as a factor in other cases to the Family Court. So have psychologists and psychiatrists throughout Australia.

The syndrome was diagnosed in 1985 by US clinical psychiatrist Richard Gardner, an advocate of a father’s right to custody, even in cases where he had been accused of abuse. He argued that some parents who criticise other parents or step-parents in front of children were guilty of psychological abuse. Dr Gardner’s theories remain highly controversial among psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists, who claim they are simplistic or erroneous.

The complaint was lodged by the Brisbane mother who lost custody of her two children in 2005 when Family Court judge Neil Buckley determined, acknowledging the evidence of Dr Wrigley, that she had affected the children with the syndrome.

Justice Buckley said Dr Wrigley’s reports provided a “comprehensive and balanced assessment” of all relevant issues.

“It has to be said that in terms of objectivity, professionalism, fairness and balance, his reports are in stark contrast to those provided by (other professionals),” he said.

The board advised Dr Wrigley on March 3 of its unanimous decision that he had “acted in a way that constituted unsatisfactory conduct” for “referring to an unrecognised syndrome in his reports”.

“It was inappropriate for the registrant (Dr Wrigley) to either diagnose the children or state there was a likelihood the children could develop parental alienation syndrome, as it is not a recognised syndrome,” it said.

“To diagnose a patient as suffering from or demonstrating a potential to develop an unrecognised syndrome is contrary to the code of ethics.”

However, the board advised that details of the disciplinary action not be recorded on the public register because it was “not within the public interest”.

The board told The Australian it was precluded by law from commenting on the disciplinary action taken against Dr Wrigley.

Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant last year posted on the family law court website a “fact sheet” about the syndrome, which said the malady was used in evidence, but warned that it was not accepted as “a psychiatric disease”.

Chief Justice Bryant’s notice cited several cases “where PAS has been rejected or not accepted as a concept”.

The cited cases, with names excluded, included the controversial matter for which Dr Wrigley was disciplined by the psychologists board.

STORY TOOLS

• http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495760-2702,00.html