Kansas Mother Karen Williams Fight for Daughter Could Change Case Managers and other ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ Laws in Kansas

Therapeutic Jurisprudence - 3rd party ‘Access to Justice’ deniers - Fathers Rights, SHARIA style to take his property.

Another Great Exposure Report on the Injustices of Mothers via Court Appointed Case Managers, parenting coordinators, Custody Evaluators et el.

"Supervised visitation also is used as a first step toward a custody switch away from protective mothers to abusive fathers.''

Fight for Daughter Could Change Law in Kansas

Topeka, Kan. — A mother said her daughter was taken away from her and she’s never been allowed her day in court to fight for her child. The woman’s story has now inspired lawmakers to look into what they can do to change the system.

Karen Williams  went to the Kansas Appellate Court arguing that her constitutional rights were violated when a Douglas County judge removed her daughter from her custody all based on the word of a court appointed case manager. The case manager suggested to the judge that there was “probable abuse.” Continue Reading

“Kansas Representative Joe Patton (R-Topeka) wants to change the law to require educational standards for case managers…..”

Joe Patton, “Shame on you”. You are an attorney for goodness sake. LAW, FACT, COURT – What part is not clear about this? FACTs only NOT ideas or the ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’s’ - OPINION, Theory, Personal Belief System, Societal Culture, ‘Philosophy’ - an ‘Idea’ -a-could-be-might-be 16^th century witch DoktoR – voo-doo-thinking ‘get a stick and beat it to death’ mentality, who have created for their selves, HIGH Paying Jobs Where NONE should exist to begin with. None.

The "Trial Within a Trial" Court-Appointed, Case Managers, Custody Evaluators et el. Waste Judicial Resources and Parents' Funds

The primary reason psychologists and other mental health professionals should be banned from the family court systems, except to answer limited and narrowly-defined questions actually within their expertise, is that their presence does not add value, but rather, wastes court, lawyer, and litigant time, money and resources. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Parenting Evaluation, Parenting Plans...
Reevaluating the Evaluators: “Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts”http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

A call for a revolt altogether against the notion of "therapeutic jurisprudence" -- which has been proved to do little to benefit children, much to benefit the divorce industry, much to complicate and pervert our family laws, much to erode fundamental rights and liberties, and much to harm the families who become trapped in the system. There are many problems, of course. But they are symptoms. Step one is to get the agent of most of them out of our family courts. The Emperor has no clothes.

Lawyer Conflict: MHP’s and “therapeutic jurisprudence” ultimately must be – and will be – taken out of the family courts.

Lawyers' unacknowledged conflicts are destroying the quality of family law representation. One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems into the courts is the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the multiple ways this happens in the family courts is through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referral.http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations
CHILD CASE MANAGERS, CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html

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

Parenting Coordination, a bad idea

• Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
• Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
• Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
• Parenting coordination violates privacy
• The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
• Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
• Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
• No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
• No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families' lives or child wellbeing.
• Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
• Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
• Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
• Nothing qualifies any third party to "fill in the gaps" in someone else's contract
• There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
• Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
• It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
• Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
• Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
• Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other's funds
• Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
• Parenting coordination is not confidential
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
• Parenting coordination can never be "voluntary" because it implements unwanted court orders
• Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign "consents" that give up constitutional rights
• Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
• They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
• They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
• Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
• Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
• Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state's police power
• Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
• They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of "focus on the children"
• They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
• They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
• Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
• Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
• Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
• They alone decide if a parent is "cooperating" with them
• They are given unwarranted authority to impose or recommend sanctions against parents
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with extended family, friends, and collaterals
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with children, teachers, and school officials
• They are given authority to demand private medical and therapy records
• They are able continuously to undermine the credibility and competence of parents to third parties
• They are able continuously to divulge private family issues to third parties
• They are given authority to demand meetings, and meeting times and places
• There are no studies of parenting coordination methods or techniques
• There is no research into parenting coordinators' efficacy, and there cannot be
• Decisions are based on the parenting coordinator's private agendas, values, and beliefs
• Most parenting coordinators lack psychological insight
• Parenting coordination is not "co-parenting therapy" which rarely works anyway
• Mental health professionals are ignorant of the repercussions in law of their ideas
• There is no valid "training" because there is no body of knowledge to base training on
• Decisions are made without actual knowledge of people's households and daily lives
• Parenting coordination provides a forum for the arguing of minutiae, not just major decisions
• Parenting coordinators frequently make bad decisions
• The parenting coordinator has absolutely no incentive to work himself or herself out of a job
• Parenting coordinators tend to be individuals who can't make a go of practicing their profession
• Many have axes to grind; others need to re-live and normalize their own family-of-origin issues
• Parenting coordination is unregulated and practicably unable to be regulated
• There is no effective oversight, and there cannot be
• There is no recourse against the parenting coordinator for malfeasance or malpractice
• Parenting coordinators have control to self-generate their work and churn fees
• The claim of parenting coordinators that they sought this role in order to "help" people is specious
• Parenting coordination proceedings are informal, outside court, and not subject to effective oversight
• Parenting coordinators can report conversations and events differently from how they really happened
• Parenting coordinators can cover themselves by blaming parents for the failure of the venture
• Parenting coordinators can and do give parents make-work at whim
• Parenting coordinators may not have any personal parenting experience
• Parenting coordinators may not have experience being primary caregivers, or as single parents
• Many of those drawn to the field are by nature meddlers, incompetents, or petty tyrants
• Parenting coordination is dangerous, founded on erroneous beliefs about "high conflict"
• Parenting coordination is a tool to force fit parents and children to invest in abusers' rehabilitation
• "High conflict" means "abusive relationship", not "difficult learning situation"
• "High conflict" means "threats to security and well-being", not "lack of communication skills"
• Fears and concerns are real, not irrational, vindictive, or merely personality disordered
• "High conflict" means that the "parenting plan" is inappropriate, unjust, unhealthy, or unsafe, and
• there is no "adjustment period" to get through or equal "co-parenting relationship" to regain
• Parenting coordinators have missed domestic violence
• Parenting coordinators have inflamed emotions and exacerbated legal issues
• Parenting coordinators have assumed facts that are not true
• · Parenting coordinators have perceived emergencies or situations incorrectly
• Parenting coordinators have mischaracterized events
• Parenting coordinators have made egregious judgmental mistakes
• Parenting coordinators have lied outright
• There is no basis to presume their "good faith" or their "neutrality"
• There are no ethical guidelines that practicably can be enforced
• There are, and can be, no enforceable practice parameters, only vague aspirational generalities
• Parenting coordinators will be biased because of the nature of human relationships and the role
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has more credibility than either parent
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has the ear of the judge, and
• because the parenting coordinator has relationships with supportive guardians ad litem, and
• because the parenting coordinator has other courthouse referral relationships who will back him or her
• Court oversight is illusory because it's easy to claim a parent is uncooperative or lying
• Court oversight is illusory because it's expensive
• or there is not enough time to get a hearing
• or the party doesn't have a lawyer post-decree, and
• because the judge who appointed the parenting coordinator did so because he didn't want to hear it
• Most of all, parenting coordination is proof that joint custody does not work

Therapeutic Jurisprudence – Child Trafficking via family Courts. It’s monetary. It's all about their money and the "gravy train" ride. THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED FROM ALL FAMILY COURTS!!

You cannot ‘PREDICT’ or see in any “Crystal Ball”. It is not FACT and these Case Managers, Guardian Ad Litem’s, Parenting Coordinators, Co-parenting, Shared Parenting, SUPERVISED VISITATION and ACCESS VISITATION Centers should have NEVER been allowed into the Kansas Courts to begin with! It is all Therapeutic Jurisprudence that denies ‘Access to Justice’. It does not matter, in fact will only ‘entrench’ these NON Fact – Pseudo Science, self serving Profiteers with ‘god’ like authority if you Give them a simple pedigree in B.S. crystal ball reading experts forced, CAPTIVE litigants to hire by the Court of Law and Fact. You still have the same thing as you do with a non licensed A$$hole. Oxymoron. Allow the Judge to ‘Judge’ not anyone else. If these people want to ‘judge’ rule and play god in an already EGO ruled Entitlement Family Court then let them become ‘Judges’.

Opinions only - None are based in any FACT—A Court of Law, must be FACT. The difference between non licensed and licensed ‘carnival crystal ball reading – theory, assumption, future predicting based on their own personal beliefs’ is the PRICE they charge.

The Amicus Brief by the one Dr. Milfred 'Bud' Dale Amicus Brief - Karen Williams- Case Managers Kansas – EXPERT of the experts for hire by the experts- forensic PROFESSIONAL expert - in the end is still just ‘one man’s personal opinions’, self interest, extremely profitable and continuing expenses for his ‘captive’ clients. This completely denies the Constitutional Right to a Court of Law governed by FACT.

(I know this first hand) 

(KS) Dr. Dale and Pedophile Dr. Gardner: Similarities Engaged

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

Courtesy www.TheLizLibrary.org

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

by Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale.

then see below same? hmm……

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html

Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions

on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is the creator of the creator and main proponent for Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory. Prior to his suicide, Gardner was an unpaid part-time clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He made his money mainly as a forensic expert.

Get rid of them. The best interest of the child is to remain with their primary attachment figure (usually their mothers) stop ripping the hearts and the lives out of these mothers and her children, by the highly profitable lucrative ‘industry’ of Case managers, Guardian Ad Litems, et other 3^rd party ‘Justice’ interferers.