Chapter Fifteen: Witches, Anarchist and Chappie (Kidnapping by the State)

Posted: December 2, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield |Leave a comment

 

Chapter Fifteen:  Witches, Anarchist and Chappie (Kidnapping by the State)

 

This story begins with a kidnapping and ends with a kidnapping.  The first kidnapping was illegal, and was corrected by the California probate system.  The second kidnapping was authorized, sanctioned, and approved by the Probate Industrial Complex of the State of Massachusetts.  How many of my son’s, and my own, civil rights have been violated by the arbitrary and capricious behavior of the judge, supported by his coterie of “professionals?”  And how many sleepless nights did my son spend worrying about his father and his own wellbeing; both Jane and my son’s therapist, Dr. Nevin, said that Chris had a hard time transitioning away from his father.

 

These professionals, via churning clients, mismanagement and ineptness of the probate courts, feeds off of and profits from the misery of others, in particular children.  The longer the process drags, the more money they make at the expense of children and families (see the next chapter for details).

 

The reader may think the events described in this book can never happen to them, but I ask you to think again.  The divorce rate is 50% or higher in this nation, and it’s even higher for second marriages.  Divorce spans all classes of society, even the wealthy and professional classes.

 

Some people may read into this story that I have an issue with mothers, and I heard that more than once while I was pursuing litigation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because a mother and her child could find herself in the same predicament that my son and I are in.  The reforms I advocate in this chapter could serve to benefit mom’s, dad’s and most importantly, children, involved in custody disputes; moreover, the proposed reforms could also help the credibility, transparency, and integrity of the professionals who make up the probate community. 

 

Ultimately, this case was not about Jane, it was about protecting my son.  And I believe my son’s mother is very confused in the testimony that she gave: by confronting Jane’s many documented parenting problems, I was not attacking her, and hence Chris, as she argued and testified.  I was attempting to protect him from her.  Jane could have easily acknowledged her many problems, and quietly walked away with visitation privileges, but her pride and her rage would not allow her to do that.  And my son continues to pay the price as of this writing.

 

I had several opportunities to observe this particular judge work on other cases, while waiting for my case to be heard, and I have an anecdote to share with my readers.

One case in particular stood out in my mind, and demonstrates, yet again, deep flaws in the process or in the judge.  A young father, say mid-thirties, professional, and clean cut was in this judge’s courtroom, to see if he could obtain custody of his daughter, who was I believe about six years of age.  At issue, the father – who since his divorce had moved to California and remarried – was jetting back and forth to the greater Boston area, often at a moments notice, because the child’s mother could not hold it together during her visitation time, and was in and out of rehab for drug abuse and anorexia.  What had brought the father to court was he had returned to drop off his daughter, but the mother had refused to see her daughter because she was back in rehab.  Apparently, this process had very sadly become routine.  But the judge appeared to be struggling with an obvious decision, and mother’s attorney asked that the judge not make a decision on the case. 

 

I asked my readers what decision was there to be made?  All the judge had to do was affirm the obvious.  He could have made the decision, and even set conditions – so that when the mother cleans up – she could see her daughter again.  But no, the judge would take it all under advisement and retreat to his chambers.  Meanwhile, the lawyers made money, the father missed another couple of days of work and productivity, and the daughter suffered and would fly back to California without seeing her mother.  I could feel my hair turning white just watching this event.  Who is served by such decision-making?  The person clearly not served was the daughter.

 

I heard more than one attorney tell me that the judge was a competent at one time, but had become increasingly erratic, difficult, short tempered, and prone to taking short cuts with the law.  I listened to all this and after observing him in the courtroom during my own trial, I have concluded this man is burnt out, and possibly physically ill.  Running out the courtroom in the middle of the trial is never a good sign.  And yet, I would hear the judge rail at attorneys that they would not all be heard during an open court session, and unlike his predecessor, he would promptly close up shop at 4:30 PM.  Too bad for the kids… right judge?

 

And as for the Legal community that tolerates this, what can you say?  Should we expect more from members of the Bar?  Absolutely. 

 

But don’t count on it… nobody is going to rock the boat and report the judge to the Chief Justice, not while the judge is tenured for life.  It’s all one big happy legal community, and families and children just happen to be a side -show and a means to an end, another paycheck.   Anyone of the professionals involved in this case could have stood up for Chris, but that would have required an iconoclast, and someone with courage and a desire to due the right thing, instead of the “get along – go along” mentality.  We must look like sheep to many members of the legal and professional community, sheep with dollar signs hanging over our heads.  How much is that one worth and how much can I get out of him or her?   It’s all very nice, and I guess if you drink, are on meds, or see a therapist, the attorneys and professionals involved can look past the human misery.

 

It’s not in my nature just to complain, and so I will offer some solutions, some proposed reforms, which is probably about as good as attempting to harvest the wind.  As one attorney told me, judges are appointed for life and there’s not a thing you can do about it.

 

Of course, I’ve also heard that all it takes for evil to triumph is for few good men and women to do nothing.

 

·      Elected or appointed, it is my humble opinion that judges should serve no more than four years and then move on.  Power corrupts and unbridled power corrupts even more.  Give a judge tenure for life and the people are just asking for trouble.  There are a lot of great minds in the legal community, why not give more people an opportunity to serve.

·      All judges’ financial statements and tax returns, as public servants, should be a matter of public record and audited, annually, as long as they serve.  If there are any financial irregularities they should be removed from the bench, effective immediately. Res ipsa loquitor.

·      The role of parenting coordinator should be abolished.  The parenting coordinator role is prone to parental abuse and only contributes to alienation, and leads to violations of the parent’s and the child’s civil liberties, especially the right to due process.  The role is prone to abuse, bias, and places a state appointee in the role of parent.

·      In lieu of parenting coordinators, mediators and the mediation process should be embraced with the mediator’s recommendations being non-binding, unless consented to by both parents.

·      GAL reports should follow strict guidelines and standards.  All issues, brought by the parties must be addressed and thoroughly examined and investigated.  Family collaterals are to be dismissed outright, and should play a very small role in investigating the family law matter.

·      GALs and family law mediators are subject to annual review, and all complaints should be heard by an autonomous body of professionals, and parents, outside the purview of the probate courts and probate judges.  The complaint process should be both easy to access, and easier still to file.  If a GAL or mediator is found to have abused their position or- in the case of the GAL – not completed their investigation, they should be terminated immediately, and sanctioned from future GAL employ.

·      Family law attorney’s win-loss records, before a sitting judge, should be a matter of public record and easy to access, as well as, the attorney’s overall win-loss record in the aggregate.

·      Barring a documented mental disability, a child having reached 11 years of age should be heard in a court of law, and their testimony heard and holds considerable sway over the process. I saw in this case where the probate industrial complex threatened my son, and listened to him when it was convenient (i.e. advanced their case); but otherwise, ignored the wishes of my son and ignored his repeated requests for help and assistance.

·      Within 90 days of a probate complaint or request for modification being filed, to protect the interests of the child, the case shall be heard by the courts; once a case begins it should be completed within 30 days, and upon completion of the case, the judge shall have 30 days to render a decision.  Given the divorce rates in this country generations of children are need of a swift and effective probate court system.  Two years to conduct a trial is absolutely absurd (as of this second addition, we are now in year three, just as the State Rep. promised). 

·      If the judge orders testing, like the psychological testing ordered in this case, and a parent fails to comply with the judges order, they will be held and contempt and suffer immediate forfeiture of the child.  No hearing required.

·      Probate judges need strict guidelines that they must adhere to and barring criminal conduct concerning the child, or a medically documented incidence of child abuse or neglect, the presumption of custody (physical and legal) shall be shared.  The child’s testimony – having reached eleven years of age – may change that.

·      Lawyers may not take on pro- bono work involving custody disputes, and must provide evidence to the courts that they are being paid, monthly- during the proceedings.  A reduced fee could be established for parents in need by the state.  Because the work done by the attorney for the mother in this case was pro bono – my ex had no incentive whatsoever to be reasonable, respect the process or the system, or consider Chris’ interests.  (My Ex literally taunted me that her attorneys work was pro bono- and as further evidence of this, her attorney frequently asked the judge for damages and fees, and demanded to be paid during court proceedings).

 

In the eyes of the probate industrial complex anybody who has the audacity to question their judgment or decision-making is obviously an unfit parent.  And anybody who would dare report these professionals to their respective governing boards, bureaus or the Bar, must also be in dire need of therapy and counseling.

 

George Orwell once said, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

 

Funny I never thought of myself as a revolutionary.  I always thought that I lived in the land of the free, and a country where the rule of law prevailed over corruption and the abuse of power.

 

There are governments who enforce psychological analysis, and therapy, as a means to control dissidents and those who do not bow down to every state edict and dictat.  Clearly, something must be wrong with a person who dares question the collective wisdom of those in charge; and hence they need to visit a therapist or worse.  I always thought this was a practice exclusive to totalitarian regimes.  That is until I ran into the judge’s court, who made therapy a precondition for seeing my son, looks like police state tactics are alive and well in Plymouth County (of the course the therapist who saw me found nothing wrong with me and recommended that my visitation with Chris be restored).

 

What’s next?  Does the Probate Industrial Complex condone torture?  I would make the case that they do.  Or will I be cut off from my son, again, for speaking out?  Perhaps the judge will order electroshock therapy?  Or maybe – harkening back to Salem – the judge will dispense with the formalities and just burn me at the stake.

 

At the end of the day, who really needs therapy?

 

A mother who allowed/conducted all these heinous acts to transpire under her roof?

Or the judge and his coitre of professionals who turned to a blind eye to them?

 

Not only did this court allow and condone a schoolteacher under feeding her child to the tune of 15 lbs., but it’s silence on the matter, indicates that its also okay to have drugs in the home, and for Chris’ stepbrother to pound hole’s in the basement walls, and draw swastikas on same.  (Since the trial Chris has indicated that his step brother’s problems have continued, and his step brother is now serving a community service sentence for public intoxication.  Way to go judge.  You must be very proud of the environment you consigned my son live in.)  Not to mention, missed homework assignments (31) and my son reportedly suicidal, while in his mother’s care during the summer of 2011.  Apparently, per the Probate Industrial Complex, and it’s failure to investigate, and it’s subsequent silence on the matter, it’s all perfectly okay.

 

And what had Chris been told by these professionals since his contact with me has been cut off?  One can only imagine, perhaps it went something like this:  ‘It’s okay that your mother under fed you, Chris, and you went to bed night after night crying without dinner – Doctor X says it was okay.’  Your father is not healthy Chris – it’s safer to be with your mother. 

Or maybe mommy just told you  – you would end up in foster care, if daddy kept pursuing charges against mommy.  We don’t have to speculate on that one.  That is exactly what Chris volunteered to me in October 2010, when Jane was having another one her weekly crying jags in front of my son.

 

The judge’s ruling, and silence on these issues, gives sanction to all the aberrant behaviors described in this book.  The judge’s ruling therefore sanctions crime.

 

What must it be like to be in a position unlimited power, and ignore the repeated wishes of an eleven year old boy?  My guess is after the ruling, these professionals never gave this case another thought.

 

Then again, I guess being a single father dedicated solely to the interests of my son makes me a less than an ideal candidate for custody.  The fact that I read the actuarial tables and picked my son over my own needs.  Know this, I choose not to risk probable destitution as a result of a second marriage, and odds-on potentially putting my son through a second divorce; therefore, and quite possibly, I do not fit the court’s image of the model parenting environment.

 

Why it must be better, possibly, in the judge’s eyes to have Chris live within the image of the model nuclear family, albeit with a seething caldron of dysfunction lying just below the surface.  As of this writing, my son’s stepbrother has been arrested for public intoxication, assault, and driving a vehicle without a license.  What a perfect example to set for my son.

 

But maybe, giving the judge the benefit of the doubt, his behavior is on par with all the other probate judges in the state, and his attitudes are the accepted norm.

 

If so, it’s long past time for a change.

 

Maybe nobody every explained to the judge that allowing lying and covering up in the courtroom goes against the rule of law.  Then gain, maybe it’s been going on for so long in the judge’s courtroom, he just forgot.  Someone should let the judge know that judicial cronyism is the worst possible form of governmental abuse.

 

 

 

I love Massachusetts.  I like the people, the land and especially her history.  What’s not to like, and the seasons are incredible, and but for winter, brief. 

 

But what is it exactly about the Massachusetts judicial system?

 

I’ve met a lot of great people here, earned a good living, and provided for my son; but there’s just something about her courts.  History tells us there is something just a little off, going back to the Salem witch trials, where innocent men and women were put to death for allegedly dabbling in the black arts.  Historians will tell you that no witchcraft was being practiced, that the allegations were false.

 

Then there’s Sacco and Vanzetti, two Italian immigrants, who were railroaded, convicted, and put to death during the 1920s.  

 

Their crime?  Being immigrants and outsiders, being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and of course, their politics condemned them.

 

Many historians have said both men were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, after being put to death by the state.  Ironically, these two men were tried in Brockton, where this case was tried.

 

More recently, the state judiciary produced Chappaquiddick.  Where a nationally known and possibly inebriated politician left an innocent girl to drown, after leaving the scene of an auto accident.  The Senator could have saved the girl, or saved his career.  The Senator chose the latter, with the aid and comfort of the state’s courts.

 

Massachusetts, we are often told, is a bastion of liberalism and free thinkers.  Trust me.  I have lived all over this great land, and in many respects, Massachusetts is one of the most conservative and reactionary states I have ever lived in.  And if I can offer one more observation it is that her people have a certain apprehension, a certain degree of mistrust. 

 

There’s something in her citizen’s eyes, weariness.

 

And now I know why.

 

While I was on the witness stand, at one point, I found myself staring at the hem of the judge’s black robe – I believe it was when I gave my final plea for help – and I had the rather odd sensation that I was looking into the man’s soul.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Sixteen:  Numbers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly I made a mistake by marrying Jane.  But Chris was not a mistake and in fact is a gift from God.  And Chris is by far the greatest person I have met in this world.  My friends have often questioned me as to why I feel this way… maybe it’s because Chris taught me what real love is, which is unconditional.  In my darker moments I feel that many people have taken advantage of me, because of my family ties for my son.

 

But that’s neither here nor there.  At the end of the day, the question remains, why should Chris continue to suffer while under Jane’s dysfunctional care.

 

As the following numbers show the Probate Industrial Complex had no problems helping themselves to my family’s assets… money, which could have been allocated to Chris’ future, had the Probate Court functioned properly, or if the “professionals” involved in this case conducted themselves ethically, expeditiously, and appropriately.  But I guess there’s not much money in that is there?

 

However, when you are held to no ethical or professional standard by the state or by the judges overseeing their fellow cadres, abuse is sure to follow.

 

First Counsel
2010
Fed		$3,100.00
April		$1,000.00
June		$3,000.00
Sept		$2,000.00
Nov		$2,000.00
Dec		$1,500.00
2011
March		$1,200.00
April		$1,000.00
May		$1,250.00
June		$2,000.00
July		$1,000.00
July		$10,000.00
July		$7,000.00
October		$2,000.00
October		$5,000.00
December		$1,500.00
Total		$45,470.00
Second Counsel
2010
Summer		$6,000.00
2011
July		$3,995.00
August		$635.00
Total		$10,630.00
Payment to Dr. Mephisto
2011
January		$5,000.00
April		$5,000.00
May		$3,500.00
June		$3,500.00
July		$3,500.00
Total		$20,500.00
Estimates Ms. Faust
Jan ’10 through August ’11		$8,470.00
Court Costs Ordered by Judge
		$16,500.00
Total		$101,570.00
Does not include therapy costs for my son, or the therapy ordered by the court.

 

The tragedy does not end with the money expended on this case.  Jane also receives child support payments of roughly $30,000 a year.  This adds up to $360,000 after tax dollars I have ponied up.  Last I checked Jane had placed less than $10,000 in Chris’ college fund, and Chris often wears beat up clothing, or as we saw in winter 2011 inappropriate clothing. 

 

So where does it all go?

 

Very little appears to be spent upon Chris.  So lets make that the final reform, the first $5,000 of any and all child support payments, annually, must go to the child’s college fund.

 

And if I have a final wish it is that this book becomes widely read in the hopes that the probate system is reformed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix:  Findings of Fact for the Father – The Case Ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General information

 

1.            Chris is an intelligent eleven-year old boy who has been primarily residing with the mother since his parents’ divorce in 2001.

 

2.            At the time of Chris’s birth, the parties were married and residing in California.  (Testimony of Father, Testimony of the Mother)

 

3.            Shortly after Chris’s birth, the relationship between the mother and the father soured.  (Testimony of the Father, Testimony of the Mother)

 

4.            In 2001, the mother obtained the consent of the father to take Chris from California to Massachusetts for a summer vacation. Upon conclusion of the vacation, the mother refused to return to California.  The father was forced to obtain a Court order directing mother to return to California to adjudicate the divorce and determine custody.  (Testimony of the Father).  

 

5.            The Court finds that the relationship of the parties to be one that has been challenged from the outset, in large part due to the contentious tone set by the mother’s unlawful removal of the Chris to Massachusetts from California before receiving the father’s or any Court’s permission to her to do so. 

 

6.            The mother is presently employed as a schoolteacher.  She earns $  weekly.  (Exhibit 20, financial statement of the Mother)

 

7.            The father is presently employed as a Portfolio Underwriter with YYZ Insurance and earns approximately $weekly plus bonuses.  (Exhibit 19, Financial Statement of the Father).  

 

8.            On or about November 23, 2009, the parties’ son, Chris, began making repeated requests to spend more time with the Father, a request that was refused by the mother.

 

9.            On or about December 11, 2009, Chris began expressing a desire to live with the father, citing problems in the mother’s home as a reason, including problems with his stepbrother, his mother yelling at him, not having enough food to eat, and being sent to bed without dinner.  (Testimony of the Father)

 

10.        The mother remarried in 2005 to stepfather.  Stepfather has a teenage son from a previous marriage, who has resided in the mother’s home in the past, he is not presently residing with the mother and stepfather.  (Testimony of the Mother)

 

11.        The Court finds that the Father has credibly identified reasonable concerns about the Mother’s parenting choices, including: her failure to provide adequate nutrition for Chris; her abuse of animals in her home; her tolerance of the presence of her stepson, in her home, even after Chris expressed fear and concern about stepson’s presence and discomfort with stepson’s drug abuse and drug testing; her unwillingness to see as reasonable the father’s concerns about Chris serving as an altar boy; his numerous school evaluations and a potentially unnecessary IEP. 

 

12.        The Court finds that much of the testimony and evidence propounded by the Mother to focused on the behavior of the Father, attempting to portray Father as a difficult or disruptive person.  However, none of this testimony nor any of the documentary evidence has shown clearly (beyond conjecture) that the Father’s personality or behavior has had any negative effect on Chris.  The Court does not find that any clear link between the intra-parental challenges or father’s behavior and any negative effect upon Chris has been drawn.

 

Chris’s IEP, and interactions with educational professionals

 

13.        Chris first was evaluated in October 2004 for psychological, speech/language and occupational needs.  The presenting problem “as identified by Chris’s mother, is a difficulty with personal space (i.e. sitting too close, hugging too tight) and being “rough” with other children.” (Exhibit 17)

 

14.        When Chris was seven years old and in first grade, he was referred for a psychological evaluation, occupational therapy evaluation, speech/language evaluation and a learning assessment, as part of a comprehensive assessment for educational services.  Chris qualified for occupational therapy services.  (Exhibit 17).

 

15.        Chris’s IEP reports indicate “Chris presents with fine motor and visual motor delays and difficulties with sensory processing that impact his ability to function in all school environments and activities.”  As a result of this disability, Chris received pull-out occupational services and services from the school adjustment counselor in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. (Exhibit 17)

 

16.        The Father, from the outset, opposed Chris receiving special education services, as he believed that they were unnecessary, that they contributed to a sense of stigmatization, that Chris was uncomfortable being pulled out of class, and that Chris was an otherwise strong student.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

17.        On September 21, 2006, the Father contacted the school expressing his strong concern and disagreement with the first grade teacher, Ms. V intention to have Chris evaluated.  The Court does not find the expression in the letter to be inappropriate or confrontational, but rather that of a concerned father who felt disenfranchised from his son’s educational progress.  (Exhibit 17; Testimony of the Father)

 

18.        The Court finds that the Father’s concerns about having his son be labeled without reason were summarily dismissed by school professionals, causing the Father increased frustration and distress.  (Testimony of the Father)

 

19.        The Court finds credible the Father’s concerns about the professionalism of Chris’s first grade teacher, Ms. V.  For instance, Ms. V first communicated her intention to evaluate Chris by email; Ms. V then allowed the mother to unilaterally change a parent-conference meeting without notice to the Father. (Exhibit 18; Testimony of the Father)

 

20.        In an email sent on Monday October 16, 2006 to Ms. V, the father noted his objection to the teacher separating Chris from the rest of the class, stating “if you single out kids long enough, and pick on them for every single indeed… the behavior becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Despondency, anger, and apathy will set in… and the result is a kid who ends up believing they are bad.”  The Court finds that at all times the father’s tone was appropriate, respectful and professional, and never threatening.  (Exhibit 17)

 

21.        In an email sent on Tuesday October 17, 2006, the father noted that “I do not take lightly being lied to.”  The Court understands from these records that the father believed school officials and Ms. V were not accurately reporting to the father the true events at school with respect to Chris’s seating in the classroom.  The Court finds the Father’s tone in his email to be respectful and professional.  (Exhibit 17)

 

22.        In each email to the school, the father consistently states such things as “I appreciate the work Ms. V is doing with my son, and her willingness to take my calls weekly…” and “Mr. B, I wish to thank you and your staff for breaking from routine today to meet with me concerning Chris’s performance in school, and his future…”  The Court finds that the father consistently communicated politely and respectfully, along with a firmness that the Court finds stems from his frustration and articulated feelings of powerlessness. (Exhibit 17)

 

23.        At Trial, the Father’s interaction with school professionals was raised as an issue.  Upon careful review of the school records, including emails from the Father to the school, letters written by the Father to the school, the Court finds no reason to assign blame for any conflict to Father, nor does the Court find that the Father behaved in any way inappropriately.  (Exhibit 17; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parent Coordinator)

 

24.        The Court notes with particular interest the father’s statement in an email sent on February 11, 207 to Principal B and other professionals on the educational team providing services to Chris that

 

“society’s current attempt (especially among some so-called elites/professionals) to substitute disease and disorders for personal accountability and responsibility.  Rather than the ‘educational professionals’ acknowledging their own possible failure, let’s label Chris with the latest ‘pop-disorder,’ and then we are no longer responsible for failing Chris.”  

 

The Court finds this statement to demonstrate a disconnect between the Father’s concerns and understanding about Chris and the school’s perspective; at issue is an important difference in belief about how to best work with a child who functions differently.  The Court finds reasonable the concerns that the father raises in the letter – “why was Chris’s teacher during the previous year able to manage Chris and Chris’s first grade teacher not able to do so?” (Exhibit 17)

 

25.        The Court finds credible the father’s additional concerns about the mother’s motivation for seeking intervention, namely that she “is highly controlling,” that a diagnosis will give her “an easy explanation” for any behavioral issues with other parents, and that she “believes that if Chris is diagnosed with learning disability, one possible solution is a highly regimented schedule, in which outside disturbances – such as father’s visits with his son – would become more limited” (Exhibit 17)

 

26.        The Court finds that the totality of the email exchanges between the father and school professionals demonstrate that the father consistently felt his opinion to be dismissed, and as such he became understandably increasingly vocal.  Under the circumstances, the Court finds the father’s decision to file a formal complaint against a teacher whom he believed was not only failing his son, but also communicating ineffectively or deceitfully, to be appropriate and necessary. 

 

27.        The Court finds credible the father’s testimony that there were important discrepancies between what Principal relayed to the Department of Families and Children in the Spring of 2011, in response to the father’s filing of a 51A regarding their son, Chris, and what other the professionals reported to the father about Chris and his educational experience around that same time specifically, on May 5, 2011, the Father attended a parent/teacher conference at the school.  At that meeting, the Father learned that, while Chris was doing well academically, behaviorally and socially Chris had presented challenges. (Testimony of the Father; Exhibit 11 (DCF report); GAL Report)

 

28.        The Court finds that this discrepancy demonstrates that the educators were trying to protect the Mother; specifically, Principal stated to DCF that Chris was “having a great year” and that there “were no issues” when in truth Chris was having very real difficulties with behavior. (Testimony of the Father; Exhibit 11; GAL Report)

 

29.        The Court finds that the Father’s repeated concerns about Chris missing thirty-one (31) homework assignments during the course of one school year were also similarly unaddressed by school professionals, the parenting coordinator, and the mother.  (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

30.        The Court finds that the father’s repeated concerns about Chris being dropped off at school two hours early, to accommodate the mother’s employment schedule, reasonable under the circumstances.  (Exhibit 19; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

 

31.        The Court finds one written correspondence from the father to the school to be particularly instructive, namely a letter written by the father as “parental input” dated March 17, 2007.  In this letter, the father (in the Court’s opinion, accurately) acknowledges his own limitations, namely that he “dotes on his son” and that he is “not a very trusting adult.”  The father further concedes the fact that his relationship with the mother’s may be “spilling over” into Chris’s life, and that the his primary objective is to ensure that he is being provided with honest information.  The Court finds the father’s analysis of the circumstances to be highly insightful.  The father also offers in this letter a gesture of appreciation to the school and an acknowledgement that he recognizes that his own personality quirks are impacting the course of conversation.  The father specifically tells the school what he and Chris need from the school and the basis of these requests.

 

Chris’s weight loss and fainting

 

32.        On or about January 3, 2010, while Chris was serving as an altar boy at church, he fainted in front of the congregation.  The mother informed the father that she had not fed Chris breakfast that morning. (Exhibit 9; Testimony of the Father)

 

33.        On or about January 4, 2010, Chris was seen by Dr. Y, who was filling in for Chris’s primary care physician.  Dr. Y noted in her records that Chris had lost body weight from 80lbs on September 4, 2009 to 70.5 lbs on January 4, 2010.  The doctor also noted that Chris had fainted two times previously.  The medical entry noted that the electrocardiogram (EKG) taken that day was normal, and that  (Exhibit 2; Testimony of the Father)

 

34.        On or about January 5, 2010, Chris asked his father whether he believed the mother was trying to kill him.  (Affidavit of Father in Support of Motion for Temporary Orders, filed April 15, 2010 Testimony of the Father)

 

35.        On or about January 13, 2010, the father was unable to access Chris’s medical records without a signed written verification from Attorney Faust and the mother.  (Exhibit 8; Testimony of the Father)

 

36.        On or about January 18, 2010, after significant urging by the father, the father and the Mother met with Dr. X, Chris’s primary care provider to discuss Chris’s weight loss.  (Exhibit 3; Testimony of the Father)

 

37.        Dr. X dismissed Chris’s weight loss as immaterial, suggesting that Chris may have just had ‘rocks in his pocket’ on the date of the last weighing of 80lbs.  The primary care physician did recommend that Chris see a cardiologist about the fainting at that time.  (Exhibit 1; Testimony of the Father)

 

38.        On or about January 19, 2010, the father received a copy of Chris’s medical records.  Missing from those records was a page written by Dr. Y in January, 2010 specifically documenting the weight loss.  The Court finds father’s representation that he previously had reviewed that page to be credible.  (Exhibit 2, Testimony of the Father)

 

39.        Nowhere in these medical records does it indicate that there was any other investigation regarding how or why Chris could have lost such a significant amount of weight in a short time. 

 

40.        The Court finds that the father’s concerns about the dismissiveness of the physicians, the physicians’ failure to investigate further into a possible basis for the weight loss, and the fact that pages were missing from the medical records to be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

 

 

The Guardian Ad Litem Report

 

41.        The Court finds that, although the GAL is a respected professional in his field, the GAL’s investigation and report is rife with inconsistencies and incomplete information; it also shows clear bias.

 

42.        For instance, on page three of the GAL’s report, the GAL writes that “the fundamental issue that continues to keep this family involved with the Court is father’s belief that Chris is being physically and emotionally harmed by living with his mother, (see below for reasons he cites) and he has begun seeking a change in the custodial arrangement in which he would have e legal custody and Chris would live with him and mother on an arranged schedule.”  The words “keep this family involved with the Court” clearly are pointed statements blaming the father for pursuing his concerns in the appropriate legal forum and minimizing his articulated concerns. (GAL Report). 

 

43.       It is clear from the GAL’s testimony that he had a very superficial understanding of Chris’s perspective on all of the circumstances.   Statements made such as “I think [Chris] might have mentioned that” indicate to this Court that the GAL failed to investigate this matter in any depth. (Testimony of the GAL)

 

44.        The GAL noted that the Father’s identification of only two collaterals was concerning, yet he did not use information from a number of the additional collaterals for the mother (GAL Report; Testimony of the GA).

 

45.        The GAL appears to have greatly credited Dr. Bonnell, the Mother’s aunt, in his report, noting her credentials as a psychologist and citing at length Dr. Bonnell’s concerns about the father’s “psychotic thinking.”  The GAL, however, does not take into consideration the fact Dr. Bonnell’s only source of information was the mother.  In fact, the GAL acknowledged that witness had no personal interactions with the father in over ten years.  (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

46.        The Court notes with concern that the GAL spent over four times as much time speaking with Dr. Bonnell than he did interviewing Dr. Nevin therapist, Chris’s psychologist.  (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL).  

 

47.        The GAL also quoted at length the opinions of mother and the mother’s parents, with whom the father also has had virtually no contact in over ten years.  Here, too, the mother was the source of all information shared by the mother’s parents regarding the father.  (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

48.        The GAL did not observe Chris in the presence of his stepbrother, despite the fact that there had been concerns expressed by Chris and the father regarding the difficulties between in the mother household. (Testimony of the GAL)

 

49.        Despite the fact that the GAL acknowledge that he knew know about the holes that Chris’s stepbrother had punched in the wall and despite the fact that the GAL did know about the concerns that Chris had about living with his stepbrother, the GAL did not mention this in his report.  It therefore is difficult to ascertain the extent to which the GAL may have taken these concerns into consideration, if at all. (GAL Report, Testimony of the GAL).

 

50.        Although the GAL conceded that he talked with Chris about the stepbrother’s use of drugs,  (Chris noted “that his brother had made bad choices, and that some drugs were involved … he didn’t have any specifics”), the GAL did not include any mention of this drug use or any of his conversations with Chris about his stepbrother’s drug use in the GAL report (GAL report, Testimony of the GAL)

 

51.        Although the father had expressed concern about Chris’s involvement with his brother’s drug testing, the GAL failed to explore this issue or inquire about it with Chris, or the mother or the parent coordinator.  (GAL report, Testimony of the GAL)

 

52.        The GAL failed to explore the numerous additional concerns the father raised about the stepbrother living with Chris, including concerns about his nudity and and Chris’s participation in drug testing.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

53.        The Court does not find credible the GAL’s apparent concern that the father provided only family members as collaterals.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL).  The Court finds that father’s parenting time with Chris is somewhat exclusive of other aspects of his life, such as work, and that further the father is an introverted personality.

 

54.        The Court finds the GAL failed to adequately investigate Chris’s concerns about the mother’s treatment of the family dog, and whether she would rub this dog’s nose in it’s own excrement when disciplining the dog.  Although this was an important concern for the father, the GAL only asked the mother about it and accepted her statement of denial simply because it sounded “improbable” that she did not rub the dog’s nose in the mess.  The GAL testified that “it would be pretty messy to say the least rub a dog’s face in the mess … so she would never do that . . . when the mother explained to me the way in which she does discipline the dog, it sounded much more plausible and much more realistic.”  The GAL also appeared to give weight to the fact that the mother did not push the dog’s nose into it’s own excrement during his visit to her home.  (Testimony of the GAL; GAL report)

 

55.        Although the GAL knew that Chris’s hygiene was a concern for the father, he did not consult with Chris about this, nor did he ask Chris’s teachers, the mother, or any other collateral about this.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

56.        The GAL did not discuss with Chris anything about his before-school care, nor about the times when Chris had been locked out of the house following school, despite the fact that this was an issue raised by both Chris and the father.  (Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Father)

 

57.        The GAL reviewed the Mother’s affidavit about the alleged phone call between the Father and Chris in October, 2010, but the GAL never asked Chris directly about this incident.  The GAL did not ask the father about this alleged phone call.  As justification for this failure to adequately investigate, the GAL testified,  “As GAL, I don’t cross-examine.  I look at what is before me and I report it to the Court.”   (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Father)

 

58.        The father’s concern about Chris’s red and raw hands never appears in the GAL report; the GAL testified that he was given photographs by the father but that he did not remember why the father was concerned about Chris’s hands. (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

59.        Although the GAL allegedly reviewed Chris’s medical records, no mention of his medical record review appears in the GAL’s evaluation.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

60.        The Court finds that the GAL failed to adequately investigate Chris’s fainting incidents, and, although the GAL claims to have reviewed Chris’s medical records, this information does not appear in the final report.  (Testimony of the GAL; the GAL report)

 

61.        The Court notes that, although the GAL knew of the father’s concerns about Chris failing to wear a winter coat, he did not inquire about this with Chris, or the mother, or the parent coordinator, or Chris’s teachers.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

62.        The Court notes that, although the GAL knew of the father’s concerns about missing numerous homework assignments, he did not inquire about this concern with Chris’s teachers or the mother.  (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL

 

63.        Although the GAL testified that he included all “relevant” material in his report, the court finds that information from over ten years ago that was included in the report was not helpful or relevant.   This instead showed clear bias.  (Testimony of the GAL)

 

64.        The GAL testified that Chris did not appear fearful, and that he instead smiled and laughed with his father, but did not include any of this in the GAL report.  (Testimony of GAL)

 

65.        The GAL testified that, after telling Chris that he would have to report to the judge what was discussed, Chris stated “well, don’t tell my mom, I don’t want her to know.”   The GAL testified that he subsequently told Chris that he would also have to tell the mother anything that he learned.  This information does not appear in the GAL report.  (GAL Report, Testimony of GAL)

 

66.        The GAL testified that, when discussing with Chris the Super Bowl game and his trip to Texas with the father in January, 2011 he witnessed emotions and laughter; this was not in the GAL report.  (Testimony of GAL).

 

67.        The Court finds that the GAL’s descriptions of the mother’s and the father’s homes, particularly in the descriptions of the pictures on the walls: on the walls at the father’s home was a picture of Muhammad Ali, and on the wall were “pleasant pictures” to be particularly illustrative of the GAL’s biasl (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

68.        The Court finds that the GAL’s bias was evident in the manner in which he included statements made by the parenting coordinator to the Guardian Ad Litem in the GAL Report.  For instance, in the report, the parenting coordinator is quoted commenting on the father’s personality, his communication with other professionals and with her, stating that the Father is “difficult,” and noting that if “1/3 of what is said in the mother’s affidavit is true, it’s a lot.”  The focus of the parenting coordinator’s report on the situation revolves around the father’s personality and her difficulty with it rather than any report on the father’s interactions with the child.   (GAL Report)

 

69.        The Court finds that the GAL’s bias and failure to accurately investigate further was clear in his description of the incidents that on May 9, 2011, when Chris and his friend, were playing in the woods behind the father’s house (which the father specifically had disallowed).  Chris and his friend had discovered an old house with a mattress, with a gun “stuck in the wall.”  The GAL states that this event was “paradigmatic for the difficulties that Chris Father faces,” although he failed to elaborate on what exactly he means by this statement.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL).  

 

70.        In the GAL report, the GAL notes that the mother met with him after this incident, and asked him for suggestions of what to do.  The mother was concerned about a gun club located in those same woods and the fact that on the other side of the woods was a condo area where “some of the difficult kids live.”   In the report, the GAL states that he directed her to tell the parenting coordinator because this was a ‘clear safety issue.’  The GAL also indicated that he asked if the mother if she told the father, to which she allegedly replied “No, because he will get crazy over this and accuse me of trespassing.”  There is no mention in the report of the mother taking Chris into the woods to have him show her where the alleged house and deserted gun were located.  (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL).

 

71.        In Court, when questioned about the incident, the GAL stated under oath initially that he ‘did not direct mother to go with Chris into the woods.’  However, when questioned further, the GAL conceded that, when the mother asked him whether she should go into the woods with Chris, he responded “yes” and that she should also take photos.  The GAL opined, without investigating the incident further with the father or with Chris, that Chris was in a situation that was “pretty marginal in terms of his safety.”  The Court finds that the GAL’s interactions with the mother and directive to her were inappropriate and outside the realm of his charge as investigator, clearly indicating a bias and unprofessionalism that calls into question his entire investigation. (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

72.        The Court notes that central to the GAL’s report is a theme chastising the father for allegedly providing Chris with more information about the court process and the conflict than necessary, and yet in this instance the GAL specifically directed the mother to bring Chris squarely into the center of the conflict. (Testimony of the GAL; GAL Report)

 

73.        The Court finds that not only was the mother’s interaction with the GAL for this purpose entirely inappropriate and outside the realm of the role of the investigator, the GAL’s only charge, but the GAL also failed to accurately convey the interaction in his report.  The GAL omitted very critical details about his conversation with the mother, including the GAL’s directive to the mother to take photos and bring Chris, clearly embroiling Chris in the conflict and negating any semblance of impartiality.  The Court finds that this glaring omission and obvious bias calls into question the accuracy of the report in total. 

 

74.        The GAL failed to follow up this incident with any interview of Chris, and therefore had no idea of how this incident may have affected Chris.  The Court reiterates that the GAL’s charge was not to intervene in the parents’ relationship, but to investigate the best interests of Chris. 

 

75.        The Court is disturbed by the additional significant omission in the GAL report of any mention that the mother went into the woods with Chris behind the Father’s house and that the mother did this before speaking with the father about the incident, but rather states only in the report that the “Father’s reaction was just as Mother predicted.  He accused her of trespassing on his property and went to Court to seek a restraining order against her.”  Nowhere in the report does it mention the father’s response to learning of Chris’s foray into the woods, the father’s concerns for Chris’s safety, or the fact that the father’s reaction to the mother’s actions was related to her choice to bring Chris to the father’s condo without notice to him and investigate the incident directly, rather than to consult with him first and jointly determine an appropriate course of action.  (Testimony of the GAL; GAL report; Testimony of the Father).

 

76.        The Court finds that the GAL’s bias was evident in the report in that his focus consistently was on the father and his actions relative to this custody proceeding rather than on the father’s relationship with Chris and the mother’s relationship with Chris or Chris’s best interest.  (GAL report)

 

77.        The GAL implied during his testimony that he believed the father had been providing information to Chris about the litigation because the father had provided Chris with an understanding of who the GAL was.  The GAL came to this conclusion simply because upon Chris’s first meeting with the GAL, Chris knew who the GAL was and that what he said to the GAL would be told to the judge.  The Court does not find any clear evidence that father prepared Chris for his interview with the GAL, nor does the Court find that, even if father had prepared him, that this would be problematic; a GAL investigation is inherently intrusive and requires preparation beforehand.  In fact, the parties spent considerable time with Attorney Faust as Parent Coordinator addressing how and when Chris would be informed of the new involvement of the GAL in this matter.  (Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parent Coordinator)

 

78.        In his testimony, the GAL could not provide any other evidence that the father shared information about the litigation with Chris other than Chris’s statement that “my father doesn’t like my mother.  My mother is afraid of my father.”  (Testimony of the GAL).

 

79.        The GAL failed to take into consideration that the vast majority of Chris’s time is spent in the presence of the mother, the stepfather, the mother’s friends, and the mother’s family.  The GAL did not ask Chris whether Chris ever heard his mother discussing the litigation or talking about the father on the phone or whether he overheard his mother speaking with her friends or family members about the Father or the litigation.  Given that the mother’s relatives and friends who were used as collaterals knew about the litigation and about the father, the Court finds it highly likely that Chris has learned a great deal about the litigation and the mother’s opinion of the father from overheard conversations.

 

80.        The GAL testified that, in his opinion, a statement that he is “writing of his own free will” is not an 11-year old phrase.  However, the Court finds the GAL’s testimony to be entirely unsupported; as the GAL testified, the GAL did not have any discussion with Chris about the letter and therefore could not ask questions of Chris about the letter to ascertain Chris’s understanding of the term “free will,” or support any finding that Chris’s execution of the letter was coached or free of coaching.  The GAL did not weigh any other way that the letter could have been drafted, such as Chris inquiring with the father how he could convey to the Court that he was writing it without being coached.  The Court does not find the GAL’s testimony about the letter to be credible but rather based on bias and conjecture.  (GAL report; Testimony of the GAL; Letter from Chris Father)

 

81.        The GAL testified that he did not find Chris to be a malnourished child; however, he noted in his report that the father’s concerns were not related to an overall malnourishment but rather with a failure to provide adequate nutrition on selective occasions and a punitive withholding of food, which may have been related to Chris’s weight loss.  (Testimony of the GAL; GAL report)

 

82.        The Guardian ad Litem acknowledged during his testimony that it was important for Chris to spend time with the Father.  (Testimony of the GAL).

 

83.        Despite the GAL’s bias against the Father, the GAL highlights in the report that the father and the mother have different parenting styles, and that this difference, given the parents’ time spent with the child and the differences in their personalities, was not atypical.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

84.        Despite the numerous deficiencies in the Guardian ad Litem’s report and the GAL’s bias against the father, the GAL still recommended that the present parenting arrangement remain intact.  In the report, the GAL did not recommend supervised contact, did not recommend any further psychological testing of father or require any additional terms as a condition of continued shared legal custody.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

85.        The Court finds that the GAL failed to investigate or acknowledge the father’s concerns about parenting coordinator’s bias, although the father had provided the GAL with documentation showing the parenting coordinator’s systemic pattern of decision-making in favor of the mother.  (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Father)

 

86.        The GAL’s testimony that “ Ms. Faust is one of the best parent coordinators that he knows – they are lucky to have her –the family should continue to take advantage of her” reveals to the Court that the GAL failed to adequately appreciate or consider the father’s very real concerns about the demonstrated lack of impartiality of the parent coordinator and his ability work with her in the future.   (Testimony of the GAL)

 

87.        The GAL’s final contact with the parties was in May, 2011, before the GAL Report was released; however, the GAL was present at the June 22 hearing date, having been paid $3,500 by the mother to appear on her behalf.  Between May 2011 and June 22, the GAL changed his recommendations for contact between the Father and Chris, based entirely on information from the parent coordinator and the mother.  The GAL did not meet with Chris during this period of time at all.  (Testimony of the GAL)

 

88.        The GAL testified that, in his recent conversations with the child therapist, he learned that Chris is beginning now to open up.  The Court finds problematic the fact that the GAL never sought to supplement his record with additional information learned from the child therapist.  (Testimony of the GAL)

 

89.        The Court does not credit the GAL’s testimony that he did not discuss the case with c when called to appear for Court on June 22, 2011, as the GAL was being paid by mother and the GAL clearly had a telephone conversation with mother’s attorney prior to his appearance. (Testimony of the GAL)

 

90.        The Court finds that the GAL already knew about the alleged exchange between the father and Chris which the mother allegedly heard when he made the recommendation that no changes be made to the present schedule.  (Testimony of the GAL)

 

91.        The Order of Appointment of the GAL instructed the GAL to complete his investigation by the end of April of 2011.  The GAL did not request an extension, but filed the report on May 31, 2011. (GAL Report; Testimony of the GAL)

 

92.        The Order of Appointment of the GAL allowed for twenty hours at $200, or $4,000 and the Father was to pay for the report.  A final payment balance was required before the report would be released.  The final payment requested from the Father was for $8,000.  (GAL Report,; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Father)

 

 

Incident of May, 2011 in the woods behind the Father’s house

 

93.        Behind the Father’s condominium is a wooded area and far beyond that area is a firing range/gun club.”  (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

 

94.        When playing in the yard outside the Father’s home, Chris is expressly prohibited from exploring the woods behind his home anywhere outside of the Father’s line of vision from the condominium.  (Testimony of the Father)

 

95.        Both the Mother and the Father believe the woods behind the Father’s house to be unsafe for Chris.  (Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father). 

 

96.        The Father expressly has prohibited Chris from going into the woods behind the Father’s condominium if he is out of the range of view of the Father.  (Testimony of the Father.)

 

97.        In May of 2011, Chris reported to the mother that he and his friend had been exploring the woods behind the father’s house, when they found an abandoned shack, a couch, and (allegedly) a gun stuck in the wall.  (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the GAL)

 

98.        Upon learning of this, the mother, who had an appointment the next morning to meet with the GAL, consulted with the GAL about how to best address this incident.  After discussion with the GAL, the mother determined that the best approach was to go over with Chris to the house to investigate what was there. (Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

99.        Although the GAL initially denied directing the mother to go to the site herself, upon cross-examination, the GAL conceded that he had informed the mother that it was a “good idea” to explore the area herself, citing that it was a safety concern. (Testimony of the GAL)

 

100.   At no time did the GAL suggest that the mother contact the parenting coordinator to set up a meeting and discuss the incident with the father. (Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

101.   At no time did the parenting coordinator, the Guardian ad Litem, or the mother contact the police. (Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

102.   The Father only learned of Chris’s digression in the woods after hearing from the mother that she had been on the site with Chris.  The Father then filed a request for a restraining order, which was denied by the Court (Judge, J.) (Testimony of the Father)

 

103.   While the Court denied the father’s request for a restraining order based on the standard for a 209A, the Court does find the mother’s actions in response to this conflict to be entirely inappropriate and to have aggravated the situation dramatically.  The Court further finds the GAL to have been unprofessional and inappropriate in his role for supporting the mother’s choice to explore the area herself before communicating with the father.

 

104.   Indeed, the Court finds this incident to be, as the GAL has noted, “paradigmatic” of the family dynamics here.  The mother testified that she did not know how to “handle” the concern and that it was going to be hard for her to discuss the incident with the father without him believing that she was accusing him of wrongdoing.  The Court credits this testimony, but finds that mother’s actions – going to the site of the incident with Chris to be more incendiary than a direct inquiry and conference. 

 

 

Partiality of Parenting coordinator

 

105.   The Court credits the father’s representation that the role of the parenting coordinator was not clear at the outset the instant matter.  The parties executed both a mediation and a parenting coordinator agreement on or about December 2006, but not until February 10, 2010 did Attorney Faust indicated that she now had quasi-judicial authority regarding the parties’ parenting plan.  The parenting coordinator did not receive formal order of appointment from the Court until May, 2010 (Exhibit 8; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

106.   At Trial, the Parenting coordinator conceded that the parenting coordinator agreement executed in 2006 was never incorporated into an order of the Court.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

107.   The Court finds that the parenting coordinator in this case has demonstrated clear bias and unprofessionalism, and that her actions may have contributed to the contentiousness between the parties rather than facilitated greater communications.

 

108.   The Court finds that the parenting coordinator in this matter, who is a lawyer, unlike the prior coordinator, who was a psychologist, lacked the interpersonal sensitivity and clinical awareness to assist the parties in revealing long-entrenched relational challenges.

 

109.   The Court finds that the parenting coordinator’s bias in the instant matter has further complicated an already challenging parenting dynamic.

 

110.   The Court finds it unconscionable that the parenting coordinator met with Chris only five times during the course of her relationship with the parents and that she has not met with Chris in over one year. (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

111.   The parenting coordinator testified that the father provides Chris with information about the court process and hearing, but she was unable to provide any actual support for her theory, such as statements from Chris, to support such a finding.  The Court notes again that the vast majority of Chris’s time is spent in the presence and care of the mother and that the child is likely to overhear mother’s conversations about the process.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

112.   The parenting coordinator testified, that after meeting with the father, subsequent to his initial interactions with school professionals around the initial IEP process, she conveyed to the father that “while she understood he loved his son and that she believed he loved his son and was doing the best, he would end up with a negative result, opposite – had to start working within the system or he would find himself watching his child’s life from the outside.”  The parenting coordinator further testified that following this intervention the father became more tempered and far less aggressive.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).  The Court finds that this empathy for the father’s concerns had a positive affect on the father and demonstrates that father’s behavior can partially be attributed to failures on the part of professionals to adequately empathize with or respond to his demonstrated concerns about Chris.   (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

113.   Upon learning from the mother about a telephone call between the father and Chris allegedly overheard by her, during which the father allegedly discussed the litigation with Chris and disparaged the mother, the parenting coordinator instructed the mother to write an affidavit of what she heard.  The parenting coordinator did not ask the father to write a similar affidavit.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

114.   The Parent Coordinator testified that she indicated that to the father in February of 2010 that he was “this close” to a shared parenting arrangement.  The Court finds that there was an implied meaning behind the parenting coordinator’s statements that, if the Father played by the rules set by the parenting coordinator, she would grant this to him. (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

115.   The Court does not find credible the parenting coordinator’s testimony that she did not remember whether Chris reported he was feeling faint in January of 2010 when he was brought to the pediatrician and a weight loss of 10lbs was discovered.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

116.   The parenting coordinator denied the father’s repeated requests to hold an emergency meeting about Chris’s weight loss in January of 2010.  (Exhibit 5; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father)

 

117.   The parenting coordinator also testified that she learned from Chris that the father did not like the mother.  The Parenting coordinator provided no other direct information obtained from Chris to indicate that the father was improperly communicating with Chris about his relationship with the mother or the litigation.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

118.   The Parenting coordinator testified that she knew of the father’s concern about the condition of Chris’s hands and that the mother at one point had raised the concern of Chris washing his hands compulsively.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).  The Court notes with interest that this concern never appears to have been brought to Chris’s medical or educational team or addressed further.

 

119.   The parenting coordinator testified that at least once, in October 2010, she held a meeting with Chris without advance notice to the father, and that at least once, in April of 2011 she met with the mother in the absence of the father and without notice to him. (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

120.   The mother testified that she had email conversations with the parent coordinator that did not include the father. (Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father)

 

121.   The parenting coordinator conceded at trial that she knew that the father had concerns about the presence of the stepbrother in the mother’s home.  The Court does not find credible the parenting coordinator’s testimony that she does not recall the father raising concerns about the stepbrother punching holes in the walls, walking around naked, drawing a swastika, or his use of drugs. (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father)

 

122.   At trial, the parenting coordinator testified that early in the proceedings she asked Chris what things he enjoyed about living with his father and living with his mother.  The Court heard no evidence to suggest that the parenting coordinator recently had worked with each parent and Chris to improve the family dynamics by working on the strengths of the respective relationships.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father)

 

123.   In June, 2011, the parenting coordinator was subpoenaed for what was to have been the first day of trial.  Rather than trial, a hearing was held regarding the mother’s Motion to Suspend or Supervise the father’s parenting time with Chris.  On that date, the parenting coordinator indicated to the Court that she believed the father’s parenting time should be suspended or supervised.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

124.   The Court declined to enter an order after the June, 2011 hearing regarding the father’s parenting time with Chris.  Nonetheless, the parenting coordinator took it upon herself to condition the slight expansion of the father’s Thursday – Sunday parenting time that upcoming weekend with Chris to Thursday to Monday on the parenting time occuring in the presence of the Father’s sister.  The Court had already deferred the mother’s motion.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father)

 

125.   At trial, the parenting coordinator initially stated that the father’s parenting time that weekend was a violation of the order but later conceded that there was no formal order in place.  She claimed that the father kept Chris with him on that Monday after his sister went to the airport in violation of the ‘spirit’ of the order.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

126.   At trial, the parenting coordinator was questioned about her reasons for requiring the father to take down the website, www.freeChris.com, and conditioning his future parenting time on his compliance with her “order”.  The parenting coordinator testified that she believed that Chris could be humiliated by the website and that it could affect his relationships with his peers.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).   The parenting coordinator did not provide any credible information or evidence to suggest why the father’s parenting time should be conditioned on his compliance with the directive to remove the website.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

127.   The parenting coordinator could cite no evidence to support her theory that the website created by the father did or could have harmed Chris.  She acknowledged that Chris had not seen the website. (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

128.   The parenting coordinator entered her “order” suspending the father’s parenting time with Chris despite the fact that she had not spoken to Chris in over one year.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

129.   The Parenting coordinator entered her “order” without any evidence or suggestion that suspension of the father’s parenting time was related in any way to his maintenance of the website. 

 

130.   The Court finds that the parenting coordinator’s “order” in this instance was an abuse of power. 

 

131.   The parenting coordinator’s directive to the father to take down the website was sent at 9:30 p.m. on August 19, 2011..  On Monday, August 22, 2011, after consultation with his attorney who had just returned from vacation, the father removed the website to the best of his ability.  Despite this, the parenting coordinator refused to modify her “order” with respect to the father’s parenting time suspension.  The result of this “order” is that Chris now has not seen his father in almost three months.

 

132.   The Court finds that the parenting coordinator’s decision to suspend the father’s parenting time with Chris because of the website alone demonstrates clear bias and ineffective assistance. 

 

133.   At trial, the parenting coordinator testified that the only change of circumstances to warrant suspension of the father’s parenting time with Chris in August 2011 was that she believed that the father’s judgment, in light of Chris’s suicidal expressions, was now compromised.  The Court does not find this credible, particularly since the father did take down the website following the parenting coordinator’s directive and that there was no credible evidence presented that the father’s parenting time was having a negative effect on Chris. (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

134.   At trial, the parenting coordinator acknowledged that Chris loves his father, that he has a strong bond with his father, and that she recognizes that the bond has been disrupted by her decision to terminate parenting time.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator)

 

135.   The mother testified at the trial that during the month of August Chris broke down in tears and said, “my life is so awful.”  No evidence was presented demonstrating any positive effect upon Chris in not seeing the Father during the months of August and September.  (Testimony of the Mother).

 

136.   Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the father is required to pay 70% of the fee for the parenting coordinator.  As the mother has had several meetings with the parenting coordinator to which father has not been privy, he has been forced to pay for sessions for which he had no reasonable access.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

 

The Father’s Blog – Website

 

137.   The Court does not condone the father’s choice to begin and maintain the website, www.freeChris.com, but finds that the Father has subsequently recognized that this may not have been the best use of his time, effort, and attention.

 

138.   Notwithstanding the above, the Court finds no evidence to suggest that Chris did see the website, had knowledge of the website, or was otherwise harmed by the website.

 

139.   The Court further finds the father’s testimony credible, that due to the inordinate pressure of finding himself without support from any of the professionals involved in Chris’s care and life, he wished to obtain public support and approval.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

140.   The Court finds no reasonable relationship between the Father’s maintenance of the website and his ability to parent Chris.

 

141.   The Court finds the parenting coordinator’s “order” to terminate visitation until the website was shut down to be entirely contrary to Chris’s best interest.

 

142.   The Court finds that the father made an effort to take the blog down by removing the settings from public to private, and used his best efforts, including contacting Google, to remove any “cached” pages.

 

 

Other concerns raised by the Father

 

143.   The Court finds credible the father’s representation that the mother has routinely abused animals in her household, that he has learned of a rabbit in the home covered in its own feces, and that at least twice he took the rabbit to his apartment at Chris’s request.  (Affidavit of the Father; Testimony of the Father)

 

144.   The Court credits the father’s representation that or about February 15, 2010, the father learned that Chris’s pet rabbit was suddenly “missing”.  (Affidavit of the Father; Testimony of the Father)

 

145.   The Court credits the father’s testimony regarding Chris’s observation of mother placing the family dog’s nose in its own feces.  The Court heard no evidence to support a theory that Chris was lying or had any reason to lie about what he saw.  (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the GAL; GAL Report; Testimony of the Mother)

 

146.   With respect to the discrepancy between Chris’s account and the mother’s account of mother’s disciplining their dog as described by the GAL, the Court does not credit the GAL’s logic in finding mother’s story to be more “probable” than Chris’.

 

147.   The Court finds the mother’s testimony that she “doesn’t remember” whether she had permission to remove Chris from California lacks authenticity and calls into question the veracity of her testimony.  (Testimony of the Mother).

 

148.   In 2010 Mother had Chris’s older stepbrother residing with her.  The Court finds credible the father’s concerns that the interactions between Chris and Stepson were causing Chris great stress and anxiety. (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

149.   The father expressed concerns about Chris serving as an altar boy to the mother, and expressed displeasure in her enrolling the in child in such activities.   The mother enrolled Chris as an altar boy over the father’s objections.  (Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator).

 

150.   The mother attempted to assuage the father’s concerns by inviting him to the church and trying to show him that Chris would never be alone with the priest; however, on at least one occasion, the father did witness Chris unattended with the priest.  (Testimony of the Father, Testimony of the Mother).

 

151.   Regardless of the mother’s reasons for wanting Chris to be an altar boy, the court finds that the father’s concerns about Chris serving as an altar boy were reasonable, and the fact that Chris remained an altar boy was, ultimately, a concession by the father.  (Testimony of the Father; Exhibit 8 – Bay Meadows Records).

 

152.   The Court finds that the father’s alleged confrontation with another parent at a Boy Scouts session to be within the realm of reasonable, given his concerns for Chris’s safety.  (Testimony of the Father; Exhibit 8 – Bay Meadows Records).

 

153.   The Court finds without question that Chris has expressed an unqualified and authentic desire to live with his father.  (Testimony of the GAL; GAL Report; Testimony of the Father)

 

154.   The Court finds it unsurprising that Chris has begun to state his desire to live with the father without great emotion; under the circumstances, the Court credits the father’s testimony that Chris has likely become disillusioned with the process and disturbed by a process which has taken such a long time and resulted in so much disturbance in their family.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

155.   Much was made at trial about a note written by Chris and sent to the GAL, stating his preference for living with his father, and whether a boy of his age could have written such a note without coaching from the father.  The Court finds that, given the presence of court and law enforcement programs, the use of a word like “volition” is not so unusual that it would indicate he had been coached.  Further, I find it possible that Chris could have consulted voluntarily with his Father to draft appropriate wording.  (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parent Coordinator)

 

156.   Much was made at the trial and between the GAL, Parent Coordinator and the mother about an alleged phone call made in October, 2010 between the and Chris.  The mother eavesdropped on this phone call and allegedly heard the contents of the call.  The Court notes that the mother never had the authority to listen to the father’s conversation nor did the father or Chris have knowledge about the mother’s presence on the phone call.  (Testimony of the Father, Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Parent Coordinator)

 

157.   With respect to the telephone call, the Court further notes with concern the fact that at no time did the parenting coordinator or the Guardian Ad Litem illicit an affidavit from the Father about the telephone call nor did anyone speak with the Father or Chris about the alleged substance of the telephone call. 

 

158.   Much was made at trial about a notebook owned by the father which he inadvertently left at the library.  In this notebook, the Father had written such things as “killer with a pen” and “hell hath no fury… except my attorney’s boot on the ex-bitch’s threat.”  The father vehemently and credibly denied that these writings were intended to be threats against the mother.  The Court credits the father’s testimony that these writings were forms of self-expression and that father never intended for the notebooks be in the possession of the mother.  (Testimony of the Parent Coordinator; Testimony of the Father).  

 

159.   The Court credits the father’s testimony that statements made by him referring to the mother as “the enemy” were made entirely to the parent coordinator in times of great emotion and frustration, and never in Chris’s presence.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

160.   The Court finds the statements made by Chris to the father over Memorial Day, 2011, stating “Sometimes I don’t feel like I belong on this earth” to be extremely concerning.  (Exhibit 8, Bay Meadows Records).   The Court notes that although Chris has been in the middle of this custody dispute for several years, he still spends most of his time in the mother’s care, and therefore the mother’s home environment must be considered a contributing factor to Chris’s mental struggles.

 

161.   The Court notes that child therapist met with Chris after the June 9, 2011 meeting with the parenting coordinator, at which time it was disclosed that Chris was expressing suicidal thoughts.  No further action was taken by the child therapist and no emergency treatment was prescribed.  (Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father).  

 

162.   The Court finds that the Mother’s refusal to submit to the psychological evaluation to which she agreed by stipulation on May 5, 2010 to be indicative of her lack of cooperation with the process.

 

163.   The Court finds that, at the outset of this matter, the tone of the relationship between the parties was far different.  (Exhibit 8, Bay Meadows Records)

 

164.   The Court finds that the numerous letters of complaints the father has filed, including the DCF complaint filed after Chris lost over 10 pounds without explanation, establish that the father always has had Chris’s best interests in mind and that the father refuses to tolerate professionals who fail to meet Chris’s best interests.  (DCF Report)

 

165.   The Court finds it concerning that the mother testified to Chris’s tendency to “tap evens and odds.”  Along with the concerns raised about Chris’s obsessive hand washing, it appears to the Court that Chris may suffer from serious mental health issues which have not been addressed (or had not yet been addressed at the time of trial.)  (Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the Father)

 

166.   The Court finds that Chris has had to handle numerous other stresses in his life, including a cousin with a brain tumor who lived with the family, and the stepbrother with significant mental health needs and substance abuse issues.  (Testimony of the Mother).

 

167.   The Court found credible the father’s explanation for parking near the mother’s house, namely that he was early for parenting time, but was prohibited from parking near the mother’s home before parenting time. (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

 

168.   The Court notes that at no time during any of his expressions of stress, anxiety, emotional disturbance or sadness has Chris ever expressed to his mother or any other professional that he does not wish to see his Father.  (Testimony of the Mother; Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father)

 

169.   The Court notes that, on at least two occasions, Chris was locked out of his home because he arrived home before the mother.  (Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

 

170.   The Court notes that, although the mother has expressed concerns about the father leaving the country with Chris, she consented to Chris’s trip with the Father to Niagara Falls in Canada in August 2011.  (Testimony of the Mother)

 

171.   The Court notes that Chris has expressed concern to the mother about not being able to see the father.  (Testimony of the Mother)

 

 

Parenting Abilities and the home of the Father

 

172.   The Court credits father’s testimony that, during the twenty-five years that the father has worked for YYZ Insurance, he has had only positive reports and has never had any disciplinary action taken against him.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

173.   The father has never missed a scheduled parenting time with Chris.   He has never missed a child support payment.  He has consistently requested expanded parenting time with Chris. (Testimony of the Father, GAL Report).

 

174.   The Court finds that the father is a loving, caring person who always has their son’s best interests in mind. (Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

 

175.   The Court finds that the mother has acknowledged the extent to which Chris loves his father, enjoys spending time with his father, that he has missed his father during this most recent prolonged separation, and that the father’s forced removal from Chris’s life has been terrible. (Testimony of the Mother)

 

176.   The Court finds that the father’s condominium home is appropriate and that the father at all times provides developmentally appropriate activities for Chris. (Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parenting coordinator; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

 

177.   The Court does not find any basis to find that the father’s prior supervised contact with Chris as a newborn, over ten years ago, to have any bearing on the instant matter.  Chris was an infant at the time, and the father’s interactions with him were limited due to Chris’s age and the parties’ distance from each other.  

 

178.   The Court notes that the father moved from California to Massachusetts so that he could be close geographically to Chris.  (Testimony of the Father; GAL report)

 

179.   The Court notes that, if the father were awarded primary custody, father’s present employer, for whom he has worked for over twenty five years, would allow him to work from home, thereby enabling him to be flexible and to meet Chris’s schedule (and not require Chris to be placed in before– or after-school care for two hours.)  (Testimony of the Father).

 

180.   The Court notes that the father sought to comply with the parties’ stipulation that each of them complete psychological exams, while the mother has failed to comply with this stipulation and order.  (Testimony of the Father).

 

181.   The Court credits the father’s testimony that Chris consistently wishes to extend parenting time with the father and has never requested to leave early to be with the mother. (Testimony of the Father).

 

182.   The Court finds that, although the father has been characterized as “difficult” by some of the professionals with whom he has worked on behalf of Chris, these circumstances involved situations where the father truly believed that Chris’s important medical, education, physical, or social needs were compromised.  He was reacting to protect Chris.

 

183.   The Court finds that the father has great insight into his communication style and personality.  Specifically, the Court notes with interest correspondence from the father to Principal B and other professionals at Chris’s school, written on March 15, 2007.  (Exhibit 18).  In this letter, the Father notes, “[d]ue to my occupation and my own personal experiences I am not a very trusting adult, and I often question and re-question people in the hopes of obtaining the truth.  I place a very high value on the truth.  I do not believe present day society or mother places the kind of value that I do on honesty; and I have questioned mother’s motives for sometime now, in her never ending desire to have Chris labeled with a learning disorder.  Quite frankly, I’m not sure that her motives are 100% pure.”  The Court finds that the father’s interests in this letter are very clearly expressed, and can easily draw from this correlations to the Father’s interactions with other care professionals who have worked with Chris.

 

 

 

If you wish to contact the author, please write:

 

wonderwall1963@hotmail.com

 

Appendix II:  An Open Letter to the Massachusetts General Court (Legislature)

To the Mass General Court,

I humbly write to MGC today imploring and asking for your assistance in correcting the many problems, issues and concerns generated by the Plymouth County Probate court.  A description of this case, XXX V. YYY, is enclosed for your review in the book titled, Mrs. Marshfield – True Crime and Corruption in Plymouth County.  The book carefully outlines (utilizing actual court testimony, court filings and rulings), the gross miscarriage of justice and the abuse of power from the bench that my son and family have endured.  The book is also available for retail sale on Amazon.com.

More specifically, in October 2012, Judge (the acting judge) has acknowledged that he has no power to abridge my first amendment rights to publish my book; but under the guise of “protecting my son, ” has suspended visitation, indefinitely.  Judge appears to find the book, which details his courtroom behavior and the aberrant behavior of the professionals (a GAL and a Parenting Coordinator) that he himself appointed, troublesome.  In brief, it’s okay for the judge to act in this manner behind closed doors, but he certainly doesn’t want his actions, or the actions of his appointees, documented and available for public consumption and review.  Moreover, absolutely no proof that my son has been harmed in anyway by my book has ever been provided or established.

What Judge’s latest ruling effectively says is that while it was perfectly okay for my son’s mother to engage in all these egregious documented acts against my son, and the professionals involved in this case to cover them up and sweep them under the rug, the publication of these events (via the book Mrs. Marshfield – True Crime and Corruption in Plymouth County)  is an embarrassment to his court, a potential affront to his unchecked power, and that the behavior of my son’s mother, as well as the professionals involved in this case, are unacceptable by any societal norms and indeed, are inimical to the rule of law.  And so, since he cannot abridge my first amendment right, arguably, the judge is holding my son hostage, in an effort to get me to pull my book from publication.  Moreover, the judge is effectively using my son, as a pawn, just as his mother has ever since my son was born in an effort to silence me.

The ramifications to the first amendment, as well as, other civil rights are both shocking and chilling.  Imagine, if you will Dear Members of the MGC, if your family members and loved ones were taken away from you every time you gave a political speech that your opponent did not like?  Judge has done this and more.

The book, Mrs. Marshfield, speaks for itself, but again, details the nearly constant torrent of abuse heaped upon my son at the hands of his mother, the gross incompetence of professionals charged with investigating and overseeing the matter (the GAL and Parenting Coordinator), and recommends specific reforms for the Mass Probate Court.  From the bench last October, Judge made it very clear to me that his goal was to have the book removed from retail sale, immediately – and I believe my son was an afterthought.

As you are all very busy, a brief overview of the book is as follows:

* It is medically documented that my son was underfed, systematically, by his mother and suffered two episodes of weight loss, totaling fifteen pounds.  As his body weight fell within the acceptable range of the mass body index, the primary care physician – who I believe failed in his role as a mandated court reporter – down played the weight loss, and I believe played a key role in helping to cover up the weight loss.

* My son also suffered from documented fainting spells in his school, and in front of an entire church – as an altar boy – due to lack of proper nutrition.

* My son was told repeatedly that he was hyper, and he was tested ad nauseum by his mother for learning disorders, starting at age three and throughout his elementary school years.  His mother and the school district attempted to place him on Ritalin, when I alone stated that my son was exceptionally bright.  Today, my son is on honor roll, and never took Ritalin.

* My son was locked out of his home by his mother, and is often inadequately clothed, so that he has suffered from severely chapped, raw and bleeding hands in nearly every winter of his adolescent life  (please see pictures enclosed).

* He is now living with a highly dysfunctional family, where family pets are abused and disappear, and his step brother has hit my son, slept in his room naked, drew swastikas on the wall, and punched holes in the wall.  This same young man has had to serve community service for public intoxication, and has run away from home on several occasions.

* During Summer 2011, his mother reported that my son was suicidal all summer long while under her care, and yet, the judge, the parenting coordinator, and the GAL took no action to protect my son.  I published a blog outlining all this, and again, visitation was used as a tool to silence me.

* As for the Judge’s GAL( please see Chapter nine), he – by any reasonable standard – failed to investigate the mother – despite being paid approximately $20,000 by my family.  The GAL testified that he threatened my son, by telling his mother on him for requesting to live with his father, knowing full well that my son was very afraid of his mother.  The GAL report indicates that the seminal event in this case was my reaction to an event the GAL, himself, created, when he authorized my ex-wife to conduct her own investigation on my property with my son in tow, in the middle of the trial.  My reaction was to seek a restraining order.  Everyone knows had I decided to conduct an investigation on the mother’s property that I would be behind bars.  The GAL initially lied about his authorization in court testimony and then acknowledges his role in subsequent testimony.

* Judge assigned our contractual mediator, and the defacto co- counsel for the mother, to act as the parenting coordinator in this case.  The subsequent abuse of her office, as parenting coordinator, are well documented in chapters seven and eight.  Moreover, some states deem this role, parenting coordinator, to be both illegal and a threat to due process.

* The mother’s primary counsel, against the Mass Bar rules governing the conduct of attorneys, threatened to drag this case out for three years, and he has achieved his objective.  Unfortunately, this counsel is also a member of the MGC.

As for myself, I have remained gainfully employed for over 27 years, without pause; I have no criminal record or history of pursuing civil litigation outside this matter; I have never tested positive for illicit drugs nor have I ever entered rehab; I have been a model father, who has never missed a visitation or a child support payment.  And yet, I, my family, and my son, have been treated with great disdain and opprobrium by the court.

If this is what passes for jurisprudence in the state of MA, than I’m afraid we are all in a great deal of trouble.

This is why I petitioned the Mass General Court for assistance last Fall… to his ever lasting credit Senator Hedlund responded with the letter enclosed.

I am asking the MGC for three things: one, to join Senator Hedlund’s fine example in calling for – in writing – the investigation of Judge; two, by reactively and proactively acting and passing the judicial reforms called for in my book or some semblance of same.  And finally, I ask that the MGC pass legislation placing my son into my custody.  No child or family should have to suffer in the manner my family has been forced to suffer by the Plymouth County Probate Court.

Many people have asked me and suggested, why not “make nice” with the judge… why not forget that my ex-wife committed all these horrendous acts against my son?  Why not forget that the judge appointed a cadre of professionals, a GAL and a parenting coordinator, who stole from my family and behaved in a highly unethical manner?

And I guess at the end of the day, I cannot let this situation go for three reasons: one, I believe my son continues to suffer at the hands of his mother and from a lack of contact with his biological father; two, I would be aiding and abetting a corruption on a scale I have never before encountered or have seen in my lifetime; and three, my father instilled in me fundamental principles.  Principles that used to be the bedrock of our American society, like:  one should not lie, bare false witness, or steal.  And above all, one should always conduct ones self in an ethical manner.

In response to this letter, Judge will surely trot out attorney after attorney, judicial peer after judicial peer, who will all attest to his glowing character.  What Judge cannot do however, is give a rebuttal to his and his appointee’s courtroom behavior, outlined in Mrs. Marshfield.

I ask you to please write a letter calling for Judge investigation today, and I ask you to return my son to me.

Respectfully and sincerely,

Gregg
Marshfield, MA

---