Odyssey

Posted: December 10, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield |Leave a comment

My son’s and my odyssey with the Plymouth County Probate Court has now spanned four years, since my under ten years of age son came to me in January 20XX, and asked me if his mother was trying to kill him.  Medical records revealed that my son had suffered two weight loss episodes within the prior year, totaling 15 pounds.  A highly regarded family law attorney in Boston told me that my son had been sent to bed without dinner on consecutive nights- spanning weeks, which accounted for the shocking weight loss on my son’s meager under ten year old frame.

After enduring two years of delay and stall tactics by my ex-wife and her attorney, a State Rep, I published a blog on the shortcomings of the professionals involved in this case (counsel, judge, therapist, GAL and parenting coordinator), when I found out my son was suicidal under his mother’s care throughout the Summer of 2011, and the professionals in this case continued to act against the interests of my son.  From the moment I published the blog, the case turned and I was told I was the problem, despite having no criminal record, no history of drug abuse, and despite my son’s repeated requests to live with me.  Visitation was suspended in Fall 2011 and subsequently restored in Spring 2012.  By the fall of 2012, I published a book inspired by the court proceedings of the previous two and a half year years and the blog.  The idea was that the public should know how the probate system operates, how the judge is accountable to no one, and how fiction and opinion trumped facts throughout my son’s and my three-year ordeal; but above all, I believed the book would help my son.

Visitation was again cut off with the publication of Mrs. Marshfield.  But at the same time, the Judge from Plymouth Country probate also acknowledged the legality of the book, and acknowledged my first amendment right to publish the book.   And the reason given for suspending my visitation, like the blog before the book, I was told that the book, Mrs. Marshfield, was harmful to my son.

I immediately contacted my State Senator, and after hearing me out, he contacted the Massachusetts Board of Judicial Conduct and requested an investigation on my judge in November 2012.   At this point, my book remained on line for purchase.  We were to meet again in the Plymouth Country probate court in May 2013; but the Judge was still under investigation, I asked him to recuse himself (which he denied), and did not appear at trial, as the mother nor her counsel made any attempts to contact me.

In July 2013, I was told by my State Senator’s office that the investigation had failed, and the Judge was found – innocent – what a surprise.  At this point, I gave the judge what he wanted and suspended sale of my book, the one I had every legal right to publish- per the judge, pending another hearing in Fall 2013.  What follows are the findings of facts that I presented to the court on the heels of that hearing.  To date, no medical and psychological documentation has ever been provided that my son was harmed by me telling the truth.  My son was not harmed by the blog or the book; but rather, after years of his mother running him around from doctor to doctor, in search of proof that our son was learning disabled (something no doctor would ever validate), my son is now a straight A student, which is what I had always forecast would happen.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT

 

PLYMOUTH DIVISION                              DOCKET NO. PL 02D 1047-DR

 

MARGARET KENNEY,            )

                  PLAINTIFF                )        PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED

and                                       )        FINDINGS OF FACT AND

                                             )        RATIONALE

FATHER,                  )       

                  DEFENDANT   )

On October 2, 2012 and October 2, 2013, the parties in the above entitled Complaint for Modification appeared before the Court, the Honorable James Menno presiding, for Trial. The Plaintiff, Margaret Kenney (hereinafter “Mother”) was present and represented by Attorney Brian Ward. The Defendant, Father, (hereinafter “Father”) was present and represented by himself. Upon consideration of all the evidence, and after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the Court hereby enters the following

1. Procedural History:

1. Plaintiff Margaret Kenney (hereinafter “the Mother”) currently resides in Marshfield, Massachusetts. She is represented by Attorney Brian Ward of Quincy, Massachusetts.

2. Defendant Father (hereinafter “the Father”) currently resides in Marshfield, Massachusetts. Father presently has not legal representation, and is representing himself.

3. The parties have one (1) child, namely Chris (hereafter “Chris”), who was born in 2000.

4. The parties were divorced on September 5, 2001 before the Superior Court of California with a complete Divorce Agreement on all issues.

5. Pursuant to this Judgment of Divorce and related Divorce Agreement, the parties maintained shared legal custody of Chris, while the Mother maintained his primary residence.

6. In July of 2002, the Father filed a “Complaint to Enforce and Modify a Foreign Decree” with the Plymouth Probate and Family Court.

7. In November of 2002, the Court (Sabaitis, J.) entered a Modification Judgment confirming its jurisdiction over the parties’ case and ordered that the parties shall have shared legal custody of Chris. The Modification Judgment also incorporated the parties’ mutually agreed upon parenting plan.

8. On or about February 26, 2004, the Father filed this Complaint for Modification. Earlier Temporary Orders in 2004 revised the parties’ plan and specifically appointed Dr. Vicki Lyall as Parent Coordinator. The parties never worked with Dr. Lydall.

9. On or about early 2006, the parties executed a Mediation Agreement with Attorney Michelle Dorsey of Safe Harbor Mediation in Scituate.

10. On or about April 21, 2010, the Father filed Motion for Temporary Orders, Motion to Amend Complaint for Modification and Motion for Guardian Ad Litem.

11. On or about May 2, 2010, the Mother filed Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Temporary Orders and Motion for Guardian Ad Litem.

12. On May 4, 2010, the parties and their respective attorneys appeared before this Court for a hearing on all of these motions. At that time, the Father and the Mother reached a comprehensive and detailed Stipulation of the Parties dated May 4, 2010, which this Court entered as a Temporary Order with the following terms:

13. a) The Father defers his Motion for Guardian Ad Litem until the completion of the psychological evaluations as outlined below (and without prejudice) He also defers his immediate request for custody until this later time (without prejudice).

14. b) The Father and the Mother shall submit to psychological evaluations through an expert with experience before the Probate and Family Court in custody disputes at their individual expense. Counsel for the parties shall agree upon this expert as soon as practicable. Both attorneys shall receive a copy of both evaluations; each parent may review these evaluations in his or her respective attorney’s office but may not receive a copy of them.

15. c) Should either parent later pursue a Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, these evaluations may be disclosed to him or her as part of this investigation. Otherwise, these evaluations shall not be disclosed to any third parties.

16. d) The following issues shall be presented to the Court for determination: (a) appointment/continued work of Attorney Michelle Dorsey as Parent Coordinator. There is a dispute as to whether this work has been conducted within “mediation” or within “parent coordination”; (b) payment of Attorney Michelle Dorsey’s fees for May 4, 2010; (c) payment of Attorney James Cantwell’s fees for May 4, 2010; and (d) payment of Attorney Michelle Dorsey’s fees on April 16, 22010 and February 22, 2010.

17. e) The parents will honor and continue to utilize the parenting terms (insofar as their schedule with Chris and their contact with one another only) negotiated with Attorney Dorsey, although the Father’s parenting time with their son shall be on Tuesdays from 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. (coordinated around Chris’s activities schedule) and every Thursday from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. during Cub Scouts and every other Thursday once Cub Scouts ends, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. The parties thus agree that Chris shall continue to have his sailing activities as scheduled each Tuesday and Thursday from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Mother shall take Chris to the sailing lessons. Father shall pick up Chris after the lesson on Tuesdays.

13. After further hearing on the remaining issues, such as appointment/continued work of Attorney Michelle Dorsey as Parent Coordinator and payment of Attorney Michelle Dorsey’s fees and Attorney James Cantwell’s fees, this Court (Menno, J.) also ordered that “the Court finds that Attorney Dorsey has been working with the parties as a parent coordinator and appoints her to continue in the role of parenting coordinator. Her prior fees as “coordinator” are subject to the agreement she made with the parties, and prior order of Court (70% Father/30% Mother), the Court awards no fees for May 4, 2010 appearance. No counsel fees are ordered at this time”.

14. On or about May 4, 2010, the Trial Department of the Plymouth Probate and Family Court issued a notice of Pre-Trial Conference scheduling this case for hearing on November 12, 2010 before Judge James V. Menno in Plymouth.

15. On or about June 10, 2010, the Father filed Motion for Reconsideration of Order for Parenting Coordinator dated May 10, 2010. The Mother failed to file a response.

16. On or about July 8, 2010, the Father filed a Complaint for Contempt against the Mother alleging that she “failed and refused to select an expert and to participate in a psychological evaluation “as soon as practicable”.

17. On or about July 16, 2010, this Court (Menno, J.) denied the Father’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order for Parenting Coordinator dated May 10, 2010.

18. On or about August 15, 2010, Attorney W. Sanford Durland III filed a Verified Petition for Interlocutory Relief and Memorandum in Support of Petitioner for Interlocutory Relief on behalf of the Father with the Massachusetts Appeals Court which was denied.

19. On or about October 22, 2010, the Mother filed her Answer and Counterclaim to Complaint for Contempt.

20. On or about October 26, 2010, the Father filed his Answer to Counterclaim to Complaint for Contempt.

21. On October 28, 2010, the parties and their respective attorneys appeared before this Court for a contempt hearing. At that time, the Father and the Mother reached a comprehensive and detailed Stipulation of the Parties dated October 28, 2010, which this Court entered as a Temporary Order with the following terms:

2010. a) The parties agree that the attached “XXXXX-Kenney Parent Coordinator Agreement October 28, 2010” shall be incorporated and become a Temporary Order of the Court. The “XXXXX-Kenney Parent Coordinator Agreement October 28, 2010” states: (1) Both parents shall not speak to Chris, within Chris’s presence or hearing distance, about the other parent (except as to details regarding day to day activities, for example, “What time do you have to be at cub scouts with Mom/Dad?”). There is to be no discussion with or in Chris’s presence or hearing distance regarding litigation, court, custody, lawyers, going to the press, reporting of any nature to any social service agency, etc. Discussions of this nature are disturbing to Chris and not in his best interest. They are detrimental to his well being. This recommendation repeats what the parents already agreed to do in writing on February 22, 2010. This failure of either parent to abide by the provisions of this paragraph shall be immediately reported by the other parent to the Parenting Coordinator if he or she has good faith reason to believe the other is in violation.; (2) Chris shall begin individual therapy with Sol Levin of Hingham forthwith. Both parents shall contact Dr. Levin to arrange a time for him to interview each of them individually and shall cooperate with Dr. Levin’s efforts with Chris. Dr. Levin’s work with Chris shall be protected by the therapist/client privilege with the exception that Dr. Levin may report to the Court or the Parenting Coordinator concerns he may have regarding Chris’s best interests and may fulfill his duty as a mandated reported under law, if necessary; (3) Father shall pay for the services of the Parenting Coordinator in connection with this recommendation/agreement, which include meeting with Chris, speaking with both attorneys and both parties, reviewing written material from each parent and a brief court appearance, up to six hours.

 

1. b) The parties’ respective requests for attorney’s fees and costs for the Father’s Complaint for Contempt and the Mother’s Counterclaim for Contempt shall be deferred without prejudice to a further hearing.

 

22. After further hearing on the remaining issues, such as appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and psychological evaluations, this Court (Menno, J.) also ordered that “the Court declines to order a Guardian Ad Litem at this time; and the Court stays the May 4, 2010 order of psychological evaluation until further order.”

23. On or about November 10, 2010, the parties and their respective attorneys appeared before this Court for a Pre-Trial Conference Hearing.

24. On or about January 7, 2011, the Court (Menno, J.) appointed Dr. Richard Wollman as Guardian Ad Litem in the instant matter.

25. On May 1, 2011 the Court (Menno, J.) entered a Temporary Order denying the parties’ requests for depositions and allowing the Court and incorporating a stipulation by both parties on the issues to be determined at trial.

26. On June 22, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court (Menno, J.) on Mother’s Motion for Temporary Orders, requesting that Father’s parenting time with the child be supervised.

27. On July 1, 2011 the Court (Menno, J.) entered a Temporary Order denying the the Motion for Further Temporary Orders without prejudice, and accelerating the Trial on this matter to July 27 and July 29, 2011. The Court (Menno, J), further allowed the Motion to release the Guardian Ad Litem report to Dr. Levin and Attorney Dorsey.

28. On July 21, 2011, September 26, 2011, October 3, 2011 and October 9, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court (Menno, J.) for Trial.

29. Counsel for both parties submitted an extensive Stipulation of Uncontested Facts which is also incorporated herein.

30. In December 2011, the court issued its orders, in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney, and gave sole legal and physical custody to Mother. Moreover, Father was afforded supervised visitation pending psychiatric therapy attendance (the father completed this and began seeing Chris in late Winter 2012).

31. On September 25, 2012, the Mother filed a complaint for modification, in the matter of Kenney V. Father (f/k/a XXXXX), and on October 2, 2012 Judge Menno held a hearing on the same complaint for modification.

32. On October 23, 2012, Judge Menno issued orders forbidding Father from seeing son, stating as the reason the publication of the book Marshfield, True Crime and Corruption in Plymouth County (herein referred to also as “book”), and the father’s promotion of the book around the town of Marshfield. Judge Menno believed the book was injurious and detrimental to son.

33. A hearing was subsequently set for April of 2013, and the father did not attend, as the Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Ward, had made no pre-hearing contact with Father; and the Father asserts that the Menno Court was under review by the Committee of Judicial Conduct, on a matter directly related to the Judge Menno’s conduct and ruling in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney.

34. A new hearing was established in the matter of Kenney V. XXXXX on October 2^nd 2013, and Judge Menno requested both parties to provide a proposed order, procedural history, findings of fact, rationale, and conclusions of law. Herein, is what follows:

1. Findings of Fact

 

General information

1. Chris XXXXX 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 school teacher in the Marshfield Public Schools. She earns $1,174 weekly. (Court records)

7. The Father is presently employed as an Executive Underwriter with Connecticut Insurance carrier, and earns approximately $XXXX weekly plus bonuses. (Court records).

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.

10. The Mother remarried in 2005 to Tom Kenny. Mr. Kenny has a teenage son from a previous marriage, who has resided in the Kenney’s home in the past.

Overview

11. The Court finds that the Father has credibly identified reasonable concerns about the Mother’s parenting choices as documented in the book Marshfield (submitted into evidenced at the October 2^nd, 2013 hearing in the matter of Kenney V. Father by Attorney Ward), including but not limited to: Mother’s failure to provide adequate nutrition and clothing for Chris; her abuse of animals in her home; her tolerance of the presence of her stepson, John, in her home, even after Chris expressed fear and concern about step son John’s presence and discomfort with John’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 an unnecessary IEP (Chris is now a straight A student as foretold by father); and Chris’s suicidal behavior while in the care, custody and control of mother, as previously testified to by Attorney Dorsey, Doctor Wolman, and Mrs. Kenney.

12. The Court finds that much of the testimony and evidence propounded by the Mother to be 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.

13. In particular, in the matter of Kenney V. Father, the Menno court took away Father’s visitation rights in October 2012, citing the harm the book Marshfield would cause Chris. The book Mrs. Marshfield was written by father. In the hearing of October 2^nd 2013, no evidence was provided by Mother or Attorney Ward that Chris was harmed in any way by the publication of the book Mrs. Marshfield; in fact, Chris was testified to by Mother as thriving, and doing very well both academically and emotionally and socially.

14. The court finds that the father has no criminal record, no history of drug abuse, no history of attending drug rehabilitation, and is a loving parent, who has never missed visitation or a child support or insurance payment. Moreover, the father is a role model for son, as he has never been without employment and has never suffered disciplinary action on the job.

15. The court finds that publication of the book Marshfield was legal and a protected First Amendment right, as cited in Judge Menno’s orders of October 23, 2012. Please note, Judge Menno is also a constitutional law scholar and professor.

16. The court finds that the mother has a long history of attempting to alienate father from Chris, including but not limited to: failure to return to the State of California with son in the year of his birth; withheld visitation with no good reason; making disparaging remarks about father in the Marshfield community; frequent trips to the former parenting coordinator/mediator/legal counsel to the mother, Michele Dorsey; frequent trips to the probate court with no fewer than five visits to court initiated by the Mother, since May 2011. In all these visits to court and to the parenting coordinator, the Mother has a single objective – despite comments to the contrary – to remove father from Chris’s life.

17. The court finds that the mother has a history of bringing Chris into parental conflicts.

18. The court finds that the father enjoyed unsupervised and progressively expanded visitation, from the birth of the child through August 2011, when attorney Dorsey removed father from the child’s life as a result of the publication of a blog, freeChrisXXXXX.com.

19. The court finds that parenting supervisor Keeys (sp?) was in the process of expanding father’s time and contact with son, Chris, when mother brought the present case before the Menno court, in September 2012.

Mother’s testimony and evidence

20. The court finds that the mother appears to have a preternatural obsession with the book Marshfield, and promotion of same, as her nearly hour and a half testimony at the October 2^nd 2013 hearing focused almost entirely on the publication and promotion of the book, and indeed, Attorney Ward submitted said book into evidence.

21. The court finds that neither Attorney Ward or Mother submitted any evidence, nor testified, that Chris was harmed by the publication or promotion of the book Mrs. Marshfield.

22. The court finds that mother testified that Chris was doing very well socially, academically, and mentally, all during a time that the book, Mrs. Marshfield, was under publication.

23. The court finds that Chris’s therapist, Dr. Levin, as testified to by Mother, ceased to see Chris as a client in November 2012, despite publication of the book Mrs. Marshfield in the Fall of that same year. The book was published in September 2012 and taken down by father in very early July 2013.

24. The court finds that neither Mother or Attorney Ward provided any medical evidence demonstrating that Chris has suffered any health affects, as a result of the publication of Mrs. Marshfield.

25. The courts finds that the mother provided no testimony or evidence that the Father was stalking, harassing, or contacting Mother, in anyway. This is very important as the mother had previously testified that this was a problem, while the father asserts there was never a problem.

26. The courts finds that the mother neither provided any evidence or testified that the father suffers from any anger or rage issues. Again this is important, because the mother had previously asserted this, as did a Doctor Wolman in the past.

27. The court finds that the mother testified that she had repeatedly asked Chris about his visits with father, and that Chris failed to give his mother a response, at the instructions of Parenting Supervisor.

28. The court finds that the mother has a history or dragging Chris into this case, as she testified that she had told Chris about the book, Mrs. Marshfield, and she testified that she repeatedly asked Chris about his visits with the father.

29. The court finds that the mother testified that Chris asks about his father, and loves his father.

30. The court finds that the mother, once again, testified that she wants Father in Chris’s life, but then went on to say that she wants father removes from Chris’s life, part of a continued pattern of parental alienation.

31. The court finds that neither mother or counsel Ward provided a single fact or piece of evidence, demonstrating that the father had harmed his son, in any shape, form or matter. Moreover, the father, as always, followed the court’s instructions to the letter.

The book, Mrs. Marshfield

32. The court finds that the book Mrs. Marshfield was written by father.

33. The court finds that the book Mrs. Marshfield was cited throughout the hearing by Attorney Ward, and in fact, submitted into evidence.

34. The book Mrs. Marshfield (here after referred to as “book”) describes the trail and court proceedings from the period of May 2010 concluding in December 2012 with Judge Menno’s ruling, in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney (the case that proceeded Kenney V. Father).

35. The book uses pseudonyms, and changes key dates to protect Chris and the many professionals involved in this case, and the mother. In fact, the book states as much in Chapter One.

36. The court finds that the father testified that he wrote the book as a “whistle-blower,” with the idea of bringing to light the many problems, issues and inconsistencies he saw in the probate court, the professionals involved with the case, and the mother’s problematic behavior towards their son, Chris – without identifying anyone by name.

37. The court finds that the father testified, and is credible, that in publishing the book that he wanted to bring the truth to light, and reform to the probate system. See Chapter Fifteen of the book.

38. The court finds the father’s assertion is correct, in that nearly the entire body of the book, consists of actual court room testimony and court room documents, from the matter XXXXX V. Kenney. The father asserts that these documents are a matter of public record.

39. The court agrees and has written that the publication of the book was protected under the first amendment, as written by the Menno Court.

40. The court finds that the father testified that the mother and Judge Menno were angered by the book, and that the professionals involved in the case were also equally angered.

41. The court finds that the book states how the father published a blog, www, freeChrisXXXXX.com, as a result of hearing that his son, Chris, was suicidal while under his mother’s care throughout the summer of 2011. The book states that Attorney Dorsey documented Chris’s suicidal tendencies while under his mother’s care, and it was testified throughout the trail, in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney. Moreover, Counsel Ward references the blog in both October 2012 and 2013 hearings on this matter. (See Chapter Seven from the book)

42. The court finds that nobody has successfully addressed or refuted the central themes expressed in the book concerning Chris: that Chris did suffer a medically documented fifteen pounds while under the care of his mother; that child suffered from fainting spells while under his mother’s care; that animals were abused in the home; that Chris was repeatedly tested for learning disorders by his mother (despite the fact that he is a straight A student today); that Chris was dragged into the middle of this case by mother; and that Chris was suicidal under his mother’s care as testified to and/or documented by Mother, Attorney Dorsey and Doctor Wolman.

43. The court finds that the book challenges and affords criticism of Doctor Wolman’s performance as a GAL, Attorney Dorsey performance as a mediator/parenting coordinator/attorney for the mother; and Judge Menno’s performance on the bench, and seeks the reform of same professions, professionals, and courts. (Please see book Chapters Eight through Fifteen, submitted into evidence by attorney Ward).

44. The court finds that it is highly probable for any of the professionals involved in this case, or the Mother, to be upset or angered by publication of the book, even though it is protected free speech, and supported by – and consists largely of – court room documents and testimony.

45. The court finds that the mother, nor any of the professionals involved in this case, have sued the father for defamation, libel or slander, as such legal action is ordered to flow through the Menno court.

46. The court finds that the book documents a history of the court, and its surrogate, removing Chris from Father’s life, for publication of a blog, freeChrisXXXXX.com – not dissimilar from the actions taken by the Menno court for publication of the book. In short, the court has a history or a pattern of removing Chris from the life of the Father anytime he publishes court documents that provide a narrative contrary to the court’s findings or rulings.

47. The court finds that the justification for removing Chris from the father’s life for publication of the blog or book, as afforded by the court and it’s surrogate – Counsel Dorsey- has been that that such publication was harmful to Chris.

48. To date, no medical, psychiatric, or mental health professional has furnished documentation or evidence demonstrating that Chris has ever been injured, physically or mentally, by the publication of the blog or book. And no such evidence was provided at the trial.

49. The court therefore, cannot provide justification or rationale from removing Chris from the father’s life, particularly on the grounds of the father exercising his first amendment right.

Father’s Testimony

50. The court finds that the father testified that the mother and her cadre of attornies have dragged these proceeding out, since May 2010, as promised by Attorney and State Rep. Cantwell at a pre-trial conference in May 2010.

51. The court finds that the father testified that mother cannot stay out of courts, and has dragged father into court no fewer than five times, since he attempted to resolve this matter – on the advice of counsel – on the heals of the GAL report in May of 2011.

52. The courts finds that by virtue of the mother bringing all these complaints and trials against the father that it is harmful and detrimental to Chris. Clearly, it takes time away that mother should be spending with her son.

53. The court finds that the father testified that today’s trial is part of a continuing campaign by mother to alienate father from Chris.

54. The court finds that the father testified that he is a model father: never missed a support payment; never let insurance lapse; always an employee in good standing – never unemployed; never missed a visit; always there for Chris. Moreover, everyone acknowledges that the father loves his son, and his son, in turn, loves his father.

55. The court finds that the father testified that the mother has been grilling and questioning, and listening into, father and son conversations, visitations, and contact for all of these last thirteen years.

56. The court finds that the mother has made Chris’s life, in many instances, miserable, to the point of suicidal talk, because of the mother’s overwrought and obsessive and unfounded concerns about father and son relationship.

57. The court finds that the father testified he has no history of child abuse, like the many and often documented issues – that occurred with mother and while in the mother’s care.

58. The court finds that the father asserts that he should not be denied visitation because of the mother’s inability to control herself. The father wonders why he and Chris must pay the price for his mother’s demonstrable hatred towards father, which she often exhibits though her interactions with Chris.

59. The courts finds that father testified and expressed concern about the child support sent to mother, when she’s in court all the time on this and other matters, and out of concern over how little of his support payments actually reaches Chris. Chris has questioned father before as why he is “poor.”

60. The court finds that the father asserts that the courts have been instrumental in alienating father and son, by supporting the mother.

61. The courts finds that father testified that he would prefer not give information about his new employer and new Connecticut address, due to the mother’s history of trespassing on father property, conducting investigations on father’s property, and entering the father’s home without permission.

62. The father testified that he went to therapy as mandated by the Menno court, as a precondition to seeing his son, through Winter and Spring 2012.   Moreover, he went to therapy for four to five months, until his attorney told him he no longer had to go.

63. The courts finds and has received documentation from the father’s therapist, Doctor Okin, that he is perfectly mentally fit to enjoy unsupervised visitation with his son, Chris. Moreover, same therapist saw no issues that would prove detrimental to Chris. This same therapist said that father’s emotions over what transpired at the trial, XXXXX V. Kenney, were both rational and justifiable. A sentiment that was echoed by Counsel DeGregorio.

64. The court finds through the publication of the book, and having it entered into evidence at the trial, that Doctor Wolman testified that Chris had requested to live with his father many times, despite threats to tell his mother on him from Doctor Wolman, himself. (See Chapter nine of the book submitted by Attorney Ward).

65. The court finds that the father testified that the mother again, dragged Chris into the case by telling him about the book, and that the father further testified that he couldn’t have possibly told Chris about the book, because visitation had ceased when the book was started, or father was under supervised visitation. Mr. Keeys never made mention of the father discussing the book with Chris in his reports.

66. The court finds that the father testified that the book is legal, consists largely and almost exclusively of court documents and testimony, and that Judge Menno has already stated that the book is legal.

67. The court finds that the father testified that the mother called him the Friday before the trail and that the mother told him that his son, Chris, loved him, missed him, and asked about him all the time. The father noted how the mother played this down at trial.

68. In regards the name change, father noted how the name change was approved by the Plymouth County probate court, and how it has yet to be demonstrated how this name change was detrimental to Chris. Note, the father has offered to mother to change Chris’s last name at father’s expense. A request that was denied by Mother.

69. The court finds that father testified at the trial that he is a “whistle blower.”

70. The court finds that the father testified that he blew the whistle on the Menno court, in the hopes that the truth would get out to the public and that there would be reform. We can see this testimony reinforced in the book submitted into evidence, see Chapter 15.

71. The court finds that the father testified that he believes, that even though the Judge declared the book both legal and constitutional, that Chris was removed from his life as a form of punishment and retribution for having published a book that was based almost entirely upon the public record. This belief is further supported by the actions the court’s surrogate, Attorney Dorsey, took when the father published a similar blog (the blog was raised by counsel Ward at the trial).

72. The court finds that the father testified that his goal in publishing the book was that the truth get out to the public.

73. The court finds that the father’s assertion and belief that Margaret and other professionals involved in this case, were embarrassed and emotionally invested in seeing the book removed from publication, is further supported by Attorney Wards and mother’s near myopic and singular focus on the book at the trial. Based upon dialogue with Judge Menno, at the October 2012 hearing on this matter, the father also believes Judge Menno very much wanted the book to be removed from publication.

74. The court finds that the father felt and testified that withholding child visitation was a form of duress and pressure to remove the book was tremendous, a direct abridgement and assault on the father’s first amendment right.

75. The court finds that the father’s testimony that Chris actually thrived while his book was in publication to be true and correct, and supported by the mother’s testimony.

76. The courts find that the father testified that no medical records or mental health or school records, have been provided suggested that Chris had been harmed by the book or the blog.

77. The father asserts that since Chris was not harmed by the blog, that the court had full knowledge that the concept or belief that the book would also not prove injurious to Chris; and therefore, the courts actions on visitation were therefore punitive.

78. The court finds that the father testified that the book was taken down from publication on July 4^th, 2013.

79. The courts finds that the father testified that he is looking for every other weekend visits with son, and nothing else. Moreover, father testified that he was not seeking to attend school meetings or medical visits, unless requested to by mother.

80. The court finds that the father testified that he hoped he never had to see the judge again, and he was confident that the judge did not want to see him again. In making this statement that father merely hoped that Judge Menno would lock down the visitation schedule, and there would be no need to return to court anytime soon. The father regrets saying this, but only to the extent that the comment was perceived to be hurtful to the judge’s personal feelings.

 

 

Chris XXXXX & Father’s Parenting Abilities and His Home

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

82. 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. (see book Testimony of the Mother)

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

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

85. 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. Moreover, despite disagreeing with nearly every ruling on this court, the father has obeyed all rulings (see book Testimony of the Father).

86. 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. (See book Testimony of the Father).

87. 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.   (See book submitted into evidence by Attorney Ward.)

88. 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 Oakman 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 Margaret place the kind of value that I do on honesty; and I have questioned Margaret’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 interest in this letter is very clearly expressed, and can easily draw from this correlations to the Father’s interactions with other care professionals who have worked with Chris. (See book submitted into evidence by attorney Ward)

 

II. Findings of Fact

 

The defendant, Father, wishes to amend his original findings of fact to include the following:

 

89  The court finds that Attorney  $$$ and Mother quoted liberally from the book Mrs. Marshfield, submitted said book into evidence, and that the book Mrs. Marshfield is about the XXXX V. XXXX trial.

90  The court finds that the book Mrs. Marshfield is a book is based, in large part, upon testimony and court filings in the XXXX V. XXXX trial.

91  The court finds that a key participant and investigator in the XXXX V. XXXX trial was a Doctor Richard Wolman, the court appointed GAL.

92   The court finds that Doctor Wolman is a licensed psychiatrist by training and profession, and that his profession played a key role in his investigation in the matter of XXXX V. XXXX.

93  The court find that Doctor Wolman’s testimony and his report played a significant role in Judge ’s decision making, and his final decision in the matter of XXXX V. XXXX.

94  The court is aware, as is the public, that the National Institute of Mental Health Director, Tom Insel, M.D., (appointed by President Obama) recently discredited – to a very large degree – psychiatry, psychiatrist, and the diagnostics manual of mental illness or DSM.

95  The court finds that Doctor Insel states among other things:  “The weakness of the (DSM) is its lack of validity.”  He goes on to say, among other things, that the DSM is not backed by science, or biology.  But rather lists mental health “symptoms.”  (This from the NIMH web site, post 4-29-13)

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

96  The court finds as the field of psychiatry and the profession has been found lacking in credibility by the highest ranking psychiatrist in the land, Doctor Mephisto testimony and his report therefore, lack professional credibility.

97  The court finds as a result of this lack of credibility, the GAL report should be removed from the public record, and Doctor Wolman’s testimony should be treated for what it is, that is lacking in any real professional credibility.

98  The court finds that without the professional testimony and report of Doctor Wolman that the court should reverse its earlier orders, and that the father should retain legal custody of Chris XXXX, and enjoy unsupervised visitation with his son.

---