I did not have time to complete the month-by-month summary of "Vincent's" abuse of his family--and his easy manipulation of DCYF and Family Court. But here is an overall summary:
Rhode Island needs the Attorney General’s Child Abuse Unit
Congratulations to Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin for creating a new Child Abuse Unit that will work with the accredited victims’ advocacy group Day One (“New unit to tackle cases of child abuse,” The Providence Journal, Dec. 6, 2011, page A1). This effort could finally protect children from sex abuse--unless it falls prey to the same pressures that too often sabotage the missions of Family Court, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), and Hasbro Hospital’s Child Protection Program.
Pressures to impede the unit will be intense, because it is usually family members and friends, not strangers, who perpetrate child abuse. Pedophiles’ motives may not be sex so much as power and control over vulnerable victims. Add to that the enormous profitability of child pornography and the ease of webcam pimping.
But state officials charged with protecting children are so fragmented that they seldom bother to look beyond the boundaries of their individual roles to identify larger patterns of abuse. Each official is insulated from the benefits that a team of equals can bring by intentionally enlarging upon each other’s limited perspective.
In 1997, a Hasbro doctor and counselors at the St. Mary’s Shepherd Program all reported signs that a sister and brother suffered sexual abuse by their father. DCYF “indicated” the father, who sued the agency’s senior attorney for administrative failures. Suddenly under siege, DCYF pressured the Hasbro doctor to change her report.
She complied with a new report that minimized the evidence she once found compelling. By 2000, Family Court General Magistrate John O'Brien gave the children to their father's sole custody.
In 2002 the boy tried to run away. The following year, he had a breakdown. He tearfully testified to Judge Howard Lipsey about a laundry basket of videotapes in their father's bedroom.
Lipsey returned the children to their mother, but apparently never called state police to investigate the videotapes. He declared that he was now prejudiced against the father and could no longer rule on the case.
The next Family Court judge, Michael Forte released the father from paying child support because the children refused to visit him. The mother worked several jobs at minimum salary and raised her children in poverty.
From 1992 to 2006, more than a dozen judges grappled with the case under our failed system of adversarial litigation. In their final hearing, the father stood with photos in his hand and a smirk on his face, saying he wanted to show Judge Forte the stripper’s pole he had installed in his daughter's bedroom. Forte ignored him and ended the hearing.
Like Penn State officials, none of these authorities felt responsible to call in state police to investigate what really happened to these children. (State police exposed the fraudulent credentials of the court’s mediator who worked on this case, and the children’s guardian ad litem was later found to be defrauding the fund that paid him to represent poor litigants. Neither court official was prosecuted.)
Many Family Court custody cases are orchestrated by guardians ad litem--privately paid lawyers with enormous power over families. Judges assume these “guardians” submit objective reports, but many are blatantly biased, depending on which parent pays them and the guardians’ relationships to other professionals profiting from these cases.
Guardians often ask judges to order parents to pay for expensive psychological “evaluations” by one of a handful of clinicians still willing to produce highly questionable reports for Family Court.
Attorneys for alleged abusers often insist that children must stop seeing trusted counselors like those at Day One, arguing that therapy will interfere with clinical evaluations. This calculated strategy keeps children under the thrall of their abusers.
Meanwhile, judges order clinical “evaluations” and forced “reunification” sessions with abusers “in a therapeutic setting” that further traumatize abused children. Rhode Island Blue Cross and Blue Shield told me they do not pay clinicians for court-ordered sessions, since these are not therapeutic. But court-ordered clinicians have learned to couch their reports in therapeutic language and to bill insurers under nondescript codes. Victims of abuse can seldom afford to pay for these sessions, but children regularly pay the cost in night terrors and gastrointestinal disorders.
Based on more than two decades studying Family Court custody cases, I hope that the Attorney General’s Child Abuse Unit will finally bring clarity, ethics, and prosecution to our state’s stymied system of child protection.
Victims need this clarity and continuity of a single, salaried team trained to recognize family dynamics that accompany child sexual abuse. The team must thoroughly understand and care about a family’s history and be available to that family in the future to effectively provide both legal and therapeutic advocacy.
Team members should meet often to build mutual trust. They must disclose and evaluate any attempts by others, especially lawyers, to contact them, and they must preserve the confidentiality of agency whistleblowers and potential victims who might suffer reprisals for coming forward. Team members must recuse themselves from any case where they have conflicts of interest.
To this end, team members should regularly disclose, under penalty of perjury, all outside contacts and verify that they have received no payment or benefits other than salary for working on this case.
Finally, the Attorney General’s Office must move quickly to bring evidence of child sex abuse to the Grand Jury where it belongs, to alert Family Court and DCYF, and to assure prompt, skillful prosecution of abusers in Superior Court.
Anne Grant (parentingproject@cox.net) investigates legal abuse in Family Court custody cases. Her writing appears in blogs like http://LittleHostages.blogspot.com and in Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues, ed. By Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D., and Barry Goldstein, J.D (Civic Research Institute, 2010).
Showing posts with label DCYF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DCYF. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
9.F. How Dr. Carole Jenny rescued Kevin Aucoin from "Vincent," 1998
This case study begins at 9.A. below. (Click on August, then 9.A. in the Blog Archives at right.) My comments appear in italicized brackets.
December 1996 After a Christmas visit, the 7-year-old boy said their father had held the 6-year-old girl on his lap and scratched her crotch through her clothing. Master Sammartino ordered sex abuse evaluations of both children.
[I had wondered if Vincent’s alleged behavior might be merely his attempt to provoke more allegations, so the court would blame the mother for accusing him. Justice Shawcross had quizzed one DCYF investigator:
[Shawcross's statement has never been substantiated by research, but it was widely promoted by Richard Gardner, and Chief Judge Jeremiah admitted he was reading Gardner on the subject. (Transcript, 4/11/94, p. 18.) By 2004, a year after Gardner’s suicide, his legal strategem held sway in Rhode Island’s new training manual for guardians ad litem. Defense attorneys routinely accused mothers of “alienating,” “brainwashing,” and coaching” children who resisted their fathers for any reason. (See post 8. The problem with Pettinato's "friendly parent," under the August Blog Archive, below.)]
January 1997 Dr. Carole Jenny at Hasbro Children’s Hospital interviewed the daughter and wrote, “There is no doubt in my mind that some event happened because of the child’s clear and consistent disclosure.”
February-March 1997 St. Mary’s Shepherd Program conducted extensive interviews by separate counselors of the children and parents. They called for the children to work with therapists “trained in familial sexual abuse.” They recommended that Vincent be “evaluated for sexually offending behavior, aggressive tendencies, and physically abusive behavior” and “that he participate in an adult offender plethysmograph evaluation….”
March 1997 DCYF filed a petition alleging that the mother was subjecting her daughter to emotional harm and the father had sexually abused both children. Both parents were arraigned. DCYF left the children in their mother’s care.
April 1997 DCYF wrote to Vincent that he had been indicated for sexual abuse. He complained that he did not receive the notice until late May.
June 1997 Vincent’s attorney appealed the DCYF finding and requested an administrative hearing.
July 1997 Master Sammartino issued a 3-year restraining order against Vincent that denied him contact with his children.
November 1997 The daughter, 7 ½ , expressed fear of a visit with her father and suffered chest pains, anxiety, depression, and panic symptoms at school. Bradley Hospital admitted her for a week. Physicians had already medicated her with Prozac, and later Tenex.
The attending psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth Wheeler, described “evidence of significant character pathology in both parents.” But she listened to Vincent's allegations that the children's mother had Munchausen's factitious disorder by proxy. Wheeler identified the father as “narcissistic and equally caught up in the [custody] battle,” but she recommended a “full forensic evaluation” of the mother alone and agreed to serve as Vincent's expert witness.
December 1997 Counselors at The Doric Center of CCAP wrote to Family Court that the mother had been in counseling with them for half a year and suffered from symptoms of PTSD related to abuse by her ex-husband and by her children’s disclosures of his sexual abuse. Counselors urged that the daughter not be forced to visit her father and that the restraining order remain in place.
December 1997 Vincent again asked DCYF to hold an administrative appeal hearing on the findings against him.
March 1998 DCYF referred the mother to Dr. Ira Gross for a psychological evaluation. He diagnosed her with "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, relating to her former marital life.” He found no indication of Munchausen’s and reported: “she is a concerned mother that needs to be on constant alert to predation by her former husband.”
April 1998 U.S. Sen. Jack Reed sent a 3-page letter on behalf of his constituent, "Vincent," summarizing Vincent’s complaints to DCYF director Jay Lindgren and child advocate Laureen D’Ambra. Reed asserted that the mother was diagnosed with Munchausen’s, and he protested DCYF’s failure to schedule Vincent’s administrative appeal hearing.
May 1998 Psychologist Dr. Ira Gross warned the mother that Vincent’s behavior was increasingly unstable and she should take steps to protect herself and the children.
May 1998 Vincent threatened to sue DCYF and its senior counsel Kevin Aucoin for failing to schedule his administrative hearing.
June 1998 Vincent’s attorney, Michael Hagopian, withdrew, and Vincent entered his appearance pro se. He sought hearing dates for himself and his older son, 18, represented by a separate lawyer. Father and son each sought visitation with the younger children, 8 and 9.
[This is a common strategy used in Trophy Child cases, when older siblings are brought to court. Children often complain that older siblings they had once liked are used by an abusive parent to grill and harass them with guilt-provoking arguments and to pry information from them that is then used in court.]
"Vincent" complained that he, his 18-year-old son, and their three witnesses came on ten separate dates, but could not be heard due to the crowded court calendar. He sought confirmation of hearings for his son and himself on three certain dates.
Vincent asked the court to order his ex-wife to pay for her full forensic psychological evaluation, asserting that Dr. Wheeler suspected it was not the father, but the mother, who was abusing the children due to Munchausen's and that the mother "exhibited suicidal ideation in the past" which endangered the children.
July 1998 Dr. Carole Jenny delivered a forensic investigation of 27 documents at DCYF’s request. She acknowledged her uncertainty whether the December 1996 incident was “a purposeful molest, a thoughtless gesture, or perhaps even a suggestive touch made to inflame the family relationships even further.” She wrote: “I am struck by the extraordinary hostility between the two parents.”
Dr. Jenny enumerated extensive concerns:
• The mother’s allegations about Vincent’s abuse of her and the children included “extraordinary acts of violence and intimidation.”
• Vincent’s “relatively positive psychological evaluations” were “somewhat superficial.”
• No sex offender evaluation tools “currently available are 100% sensitive or specific.”
• St. Mary’s Shepherd evaluators felt that Vincent was “very inappropriate.” “They expressed on several occasions feeling intruded upon, threatened, and verbally attacked” and “had major concerns about his parenting abilities.”
• Victor’s psychiatrist talked about his “interpersonal difficulties, depression and anxiety” and was working with him “on his personality style.” But
Still, Jenny concluded that she was no longer “convinced the children had made unambiguous disclosures of abuse.”
She wrote: “the very process of these allegations and counter allegations . . . is extraordinarily destructive to these children.” Yet she blamed this on the two parents, not on the court system, itself, that encourages years of adversarial litigation, as exacerbating this problem. Instead, she blamed both parents and strongly suggested “that the courts consider one of two options:”
1. Putting the children in foster care . . . . or
2. Ordering the parents to meet face-to-face each week for at least two hours with a competent family therapist for at least six months to find common ground. . . .”
[Would Dr. Jenny’s assessment have changed if she had seen the 1982 affidavit detailing Vincent’s alleged violence and threats against his first wife and son? Both wives described sadistic acts of domestic violence and coercive control. Experts in domestic violence warn that “therapeutic” mediation must never be attempted when one partner persists in patterns of power and control.]
When Dr. Jenny revised her original report, and decided there was no evidence of sexual abuse and that the children were being emotionally abused by both parents, she gave DCYF the document they needed to escape Vincent’s lawsuit against their senior counsel Kevin Aucoin.
August 1998 DCYF chief investigator Edward O’Donnell wrote to "Vincent" that DCYF had overturned the indication against him, because Dr. Jenny had revised her original report from “indicated” to “unfounded.”
NEXT: 9.G. The Supreme Court weighs in, 1999
December 1996 After a Christmas visit, the 7-year-old boy said their father had held the 6-year-old girl on his lap and scratched her crotch through her clothing. Master Sammartino ordered sex abuse evaluations of both children.
[I had wondered if Vincent’s alleged behavior might be merely his attempt to provoke more allegations, so the court would blame the mother for accusing him. Justice Shawcross had quizzed one DCYF investigator:
You never heard anybody say there’s a higher incidence of false accusations when there is litigation going on between a mother and father? (Transcript, 11/18/93, p. 13.)
[Shawcross's statement has never been substantiated by research, but it was widely promoted by Richard Gardner, and Chief Judge Jeremiah admitted he was reading Gardner on the subject. (Transcript, 4/11/94, p. 18.) By 2004, a year after Gardner’s suicide, his legal strategem held sway in Rhode Island’s new training manual for guardians ad litem. Defense attorneys routinely accused mothers of “alienating,” “brainwashing,” and coaching” children who resisted their fathers for any reason. (See post 8. The problem with Pettinato's "friendly parent," under the August Blog Archive, below.)]
January 1997 Dr. Carole Jenny at Hasbro Children’s Hospital interviewed the daughter and wrote, “There is no doubt in my mind that some event happened because of the child’s clear and consistent disclosure.”
February-March 1997 St. Mary’s Shepherd Program conducted extensive interviews by separate counselors of the children and parents. They called for the children to work with therapists “trained in familial sexual abuse.” They recommended that Vincent be “evaluated for sexually offending behavior, aggressive tendencies, and physically abusive behavior” and “that he participate in an adult offender plethysmograph evaluation….”
March 1997 DCYF filed a petition alleging that the mother was subjecting her daughter to emotional harm and the father had sexually abused both children. Both parents were arraigned. DCYF left the children in their mother’s care.
April 1997 DCYF wrote to Vincent that he had been indicated for sexual abuse. He complained that he did not receive the notice until late May.
June 1997 Vincent’s attorney appealed the DCYF finding and requested an administrative hearing.
July 1997 Master Sammartino issued a 3-year restraining order against Vincent that denied him contact with his children.
November 1997 The daughter, 7 ½ , expressed fear of a visit with her father and suffered chest pains, anxiety, depression, and panic symptoms at school. Bradley Hospital admitted her for a week. Physicians had already medicated her with Prozac, and later Tenex.
The attending psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth Wheeler, described “evidence of significant character pathology in both parents.” But she listened to Vincent's allegations that the children's mother had Munchausen's factitious disorder by proxy. Wheeler identified the father as “narcissistic and equally caught up in the [custody] battle,” but she recommended a “full forensic evaluation” of the mother alone and agreed to serve as Vincent's expert witness.
December 1997 Counselors at The Doric Center of CCAP wrote to Family Court that the mother had been in counseling with them for half a year and suffered from symptoms of PTSD related to abuse by her ex-husband and by her children’s disclosures of his sexual abuse. Counselors urged that the daughter not be forced to visit her father and that the restraining order remain in place.
December 1997 Vincent again asked DCYF to hold an administrative appeal hearing on the findings against him.
March 1998 DCYF referred the mother to Dr. Ira Gross for a psychological evaluation. He diagnosed her with "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, relating to her former marital life.” He found no indication of Munchausen’s and reported: “she is a concerned mother that needs to be on constant alert to predation by her former husband.”
April 1998 U.S. Sen. Jack Reed sent a 3-page letter on behalf of his constituent, "Vincent," summarizing Vincent’s complaints to DCYF director Jay Lindgren and child advocate Laureen D’Ambra. Reed asserted that the mother was diagnosed with Munchausen’s, and he protested DCYF’s failure to schedule Vincent’s administrative appeal hearing.
May 1998 Psychologist Dr. Ira Gross warned the mother that Vincent’s behavior was increasingly unstable and she should take steps to protect herself and the children.
May 1998 Vincent threatened to sue DCYF and its senior counsel Kevin Aucoin for failing to schedule his administrative hearing.
June 1998 Vincent’s attorney, Michael Hagopian, withdrew, and Vincent entered his appearance pro se. He sought hearing dates for himself and his older son, 18, represented by a separate lawyer. Father and son each sought visitation with the younger children, 8 and 9.
[This is a common strategy used in Trophy Child cases, when older siblings are brought to court. Children often complain that older siblings they had once liked are used by an abusive parent to grill and harass them with guilt-provoking arguments and to pry information from them that is then used in court.]
"Vincent" complained that he, his 18-year-old son, and their three witnesses came on ten separate dates, but could not be heard due to the crowded court calendar. He sought confirmation of hearings for his son and himself on three certain dates.
Vincent asked the court to order his ex-wife to pay for her full forensic psychological evaluation, asserting that Dr. Wheeler suspected it was not the father, but the mother, who was abusing the children due to Munchausen's and that the mother "exhibited suicidal ideation in the past" which endangered the children.
July 1998 Dr. Carole Jenny delivered a forensic investigation of 27 documents at DCYF’s request. She acknowledged her uncertainty whether the December 1996 incident was “a purposeful molest, a thoughtless gesture, or perhaps even a suggestive touch made to inflame the family relationships even further.” She wrote: “I am struck by the extraordinary hostility between the two parents.”
Dr. Jenny enumerated extensive concerns:
• The mother’s allegations about Vincent’s abuse of her and the children included “extraordinary acts of violence and intimidation.”
• Vincent’s “relatively positive psychological evaluations” were “somewhat superficial.”
• No sex offender evaluation tools “currently available are 100% sensitive or specific.”
• St. Mary’s Shepherd evaluators felt that Vincent was “very inappropriate.” “They expressed on several occasions feeling intruded upon, threatened, and verbally attacked” and “had major concerns about his parenting abilities.”
• Victor’s psychiatrist talked about his “interpersonal difficulties, depression and anxiety” and was working with him “on his personality style.” But
. . . there was no description of his family of origin or of his childhood. There was no description of his level of functioning in general. Is he employed? Does he have reasonable social relationships with adults and peers? There was no discussion of drug or alcohol abuse. . . no evidence that the psychiatrist had looked at the effect of [Vincent’s] physical illness . . . or his medications on his ability to function.
Still, Jenny concluded that she was no longer “convinced the children had made unambiguous disclosures of abuse.”
She wrote: “the very process of these allegations and counter allegations . . . is extraordinarily destructive to these children.” Yet she blamed this on the two parents, not on the court system, itself, that encourages years of adversarial litigation, as exacerbating this problem. Instead, she blamed both parents and strongly suggested “that the courts consider one of two options:”
1. Putting the children in foster care . . . . or
2. Ordering the parents to meet face-to-face each week for at least two hours with a competent family therapist for at least six months to find common ground. . . .”
[Would Dr. Jenny’s assessment have changed if she had seen the 1982 affidavit detailing Vincent’s alleged violence and threats against his first wife and son? Both wives described sadistic acts of domestic violence and coercive control. Experts in domestic violence warn that “therapeutic” mediation must never be attempted when one partner persists in patterns of power and control.]
When Dr. Jenny revised her original report, and decided there was no evidence of sexual abuse and that the children were being emotionally abused by both parents, she gave DCYF the document they needed to escape Vincent’s lawsuit against their senior counsel Kevin Aucoin.
August 1998 DCYF chief investigator Edward O’Donnell wrote to "Vincent" that DCYF had overturned the indication against him, because Dr. Jenny had revised her original report from “indicated” to “unfounded.”
NEXT: 9.G. The Supreme Court weighs in, 1999
Thursday, September 2, 2010
9.C. DCYF and the experts investigate, 1993
This case study begins at 9.A. below. (Click on August, then 9.A. in the Blog Archives at right.) My comments appear in italicized brackets.
March 1993 DCYF Social Caseworker II Lauree Gilmore, with Casework Supervisor II James Nerney, completed the home study. Their report showed:
• No criminal record or prior DCYF history for either parent. [They probably did not see the first wife's sworn affidavit detailing Vincent's alleged violence and threats to their child, the wife, and her colleagues at the college. I found her document in their divorce file in court archives.]
• Both parents denied abuse or neglect in their childhood. [My later research indicated that both had suffered childhood abuse. Court reports based primarily on self-disclosure are often unreliable.]
• Mother earned $300 weekly as a paralegal; Father bought and rented real estate, had a brokerage license and asserted that his attorney kept records of his income, which was “too complex to explain.” He said that he had “fourteen mortgages and three cars.”
• Both parents had been in individual and marital counseling. Psychiatric Specialists diagnosed the mother with “Battered Women’s Syndrome,” and she signed releases for DCYF to see her counseling records. Vincent denied having any diagnosis. He gave, but then revoked permission for DCYF to examine these records.
• The report recommended that the mother continue in counseling and the father “engage in services specifically directed to his marital violence” and that his visitation “should be dependent upon cooperation with treatment.”
October 1993 Physician Abraham Bartell testified that his exam of the 3-year-old girl showed “abnormal findings,” consistent with abuse, but not conclusive. He said “there needs to be an investigation by DCYF,” but he could not “state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the child had been sexually abused. He concluded that “this child is safe in all of the settings” (Transcript 10/15/93:1-3).
Justice Shawcross reinstated Vincent’s unsupervised visits. The mother and children entered a shelter for victims of domestic violence, where a counselor reported to DCYF that the daughter showed signs of being sexually abused when she returned from a visit with her father. At first, the mother resisted believing this, but a child protective investigator (CPI) indicated the father for lack of supervision “as there was evidence that someone molested [his daughter] while in his care.”
November 1993 DCYF child protective investigator (CPI) Virginia Miller testified to the difficulty of proving anything without definitive evidence. She could not prove Vincent was guilty of a “lack of supervision,” but her testimony was troubling: “The children said that when they were put down for a nap [at their father’s], that they were given yucky medicine to take. . . . they slept for a long time.” When they woke up their father wasn’t there, and Miller realized it was the same day the father was in court. She concluded: “When I asked the father about it, he said it was none of my business.” (Transcript 11/18/93, p. 15-16)
[Four observations: 1. In other cases I have researched, children complain about allegedly abusive parents forcing them to take pills that make them sleepy. 2. This son later spoke of their father punishing him for speaking to authorities. 3. Experts often use the passive voice in courtroom testimony and reports. This is a common practice in the social sciences that results in vague descriptions that can waste costly hours in the courtroom splitting hairs that fail to establish reliable evidence or facts. CPI Miller never said who was identified by the children as giving them the medicine. 4. Domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes, which police are often better trained than social workers to investigate. A police officer should be part of the multi-disciplinary team I propose below.]
November 1993 The son, 4, told their tenant that their father held a “knife” to his sister’s back, gave her a bath, and gave her “bad touches.” Another CPI, Michael Bousquet, investigated and testified that when he asked the boy about this remark, the child said: “I’m not going to tell you, it’s a bad secret, you won’t like it. I won’t tell you the secret.” After saying this, the tenant told Bousquet that the boy was “shaking and trembling” (Transcript, 11/19/93:11-12).
Based on the children’s comments and his conversation with Dr. Bartell, Bousquet indicated the father for “sexual molestation, sexual intercourse and cuts, welts, bruises.” A later DCYF report stated that the father’s older son, 13, also was “indicated for sexually abusing” the girl.
Shawcross suspended Vincent’s visits and ordered Bousquet to coordinate his investigation with psychologist Brian Hayden.
December 1993 Dr. Hayden testified that Dr. Bartell had told him there was “a strong possibility” that the daughter “had been abused” based on one of her hymenal lesions. But Dr. Bartell acknowledged to Hayden: “I have not said that on the witness stand, but, between you and me, that is what I feel” (Transcript, 12/16/93: 43).
Justice Shawcross recognized the dilemma: three witnesses (the mother, CPI Bousquet, and Dr. Hayden) had testified that Dr. Bartell told them the physical evidence was “classic for sexual abuse,” but Bartell had not said that in court. Hayden was not convinced from his psychological exam that abuse occurred. He described the girl running from his office to urgently ask her mother to tell her father: “Don’t give me a boo-boo on my gina.” Hayden said the mother asked the girl to repeat her statement for Hayden. “The little girl would only say it as she laid on the floor. She was very agitated, very awkward, and did repeat what she previously said to her mother” (Transcript, 12/16/93: 53).
Hayden confirmed that the 3-year-old did in fact say this to her mother in his office, but Hayden “did not take that disclosure as a valid disclosure” because the repetition had to be prompted. He told Justice Shawcross that he found the case “troubling” because “There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle that don’t add up” (55). Although he recognized the danger that the girl could “get damaged because of this prolonged process”(48), Hayden wanted to see “how insistent and persistent this little girl was over a relatively long period of time” and he “spent over 13 and a half hours with this child.” He acknowledged it was “a lot of time” for such an evaluation, and he “never got the kind of specificity elaboration of details, placement of where something might have occurred” (56).
Hayden advised Shawcross that the girl should have “therapy sessions” with her father before any supervised visitation(58).
[Family Court still persists in sending traumatized children into “therapeutic” sessions with their alleged abusers. I will write more about insurance companies’ refusal to pay for such court-ordered “therapy,” how it compounds the trauma to victims, and how some psychologists may be billing insurance fraudulently for these sessions. Many judges place excessive confidence in experts who do not trust their own analysis.
[Dr. Hayden understood that numerous sessions might be harmful to this child, and yet he persisted. Normally, he charges parents an hourly fee, making every delay more profitable to him. In another case, I saw him delay his reports to the court for months until he received payment. At each hearing, he favored the parent who paid.
[Empathetic interviewers trained in child sexual abuse and able to set up a discrete video camera should promptly investigate each complaint in the home or some familiar, safe setting and help children to disclose these traumatic experiences. Bringing children to a strange adult in an unfamiliar office is hardly conducive to helping them talk about experiences they may have no language to describe.
[Rather than so many competing experts, a better model might be for each case to have a single multi-disciplinary team from beginning to end that would work together to investigate the facts and submit well-written reports and drafts of orders to the judge. Each team would include an expert in police investigation, mental health, medicine, law, and a skilled writer.
The team would not work as private contractors, but as salaried staff, professionally supervised in an accredited nonprofit agency. A team could better protect the child, hold each other accountable to high internal standards, and offer concise information and recommendations to the judge.]
NEXT: 9.D. How "Vincent" finagled the Chief’s order.
March 1993 DCYF Social Caseworker II Lauree Gilmore, with Casework Supervisor II James Nerney, completed the home study. Their report showed:
• No criminal record or prior DCYF history for either parent. [They probably did not see the first wife's sworn affidavit detailing Vincent's alleged violence and threats to their child, the wife, and her colleagues at the college. I found her document in their divorce file in court archives.]
• Both parents denied abuse or neglect in their childhood. [My later research indicated that both had suffered childhood abuse. Court reports based primarily on self-disclosure are often unreliable.]
• Mother earned $300 weekly as a paralegal; Father bought and rented real estate, had a brokerage license and asserted that his attorney kept records of his income, which was “too complex to explain.” He said that he had “fourteen mortgages and three cars.”
• Both parents had been in individual and marital counseling. Psychiatric Specialists diagnosed the mother with “Battered Women’s Syndrome,” and she signed releases for DCYF to see her counseling records. Vincent denied having any diagnosis. He gave, but then revoked permission for DCYF to examine these records.
• The report recommended that the mother continue in counseling and the father “engage in services specifically directed to his marital violence” and that his visitation “should be dependent upon cooperation with treatment.”
October 1993 Physician Abraham Bartell testified that his exam of the 3-year-old girl showed “abnormal findings,” consistent with abuse, but not conclusive. He said “there needs to be an investigation by DCYF,” but he could not “state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the child had been sexually abused. He concluded that “this child is safe in all of the settings” (Transcript 10/15/93:1-3).
Justice Shawcross reinstated Vincent’s unsupervised visits. The mother and children entered a shelter for victims of domestic violence, where a counselor reported to DCYF that the daughter showed signs of being sexually abused when she returned from a visit with her father. At first, the mother resisted believing this, but a child protective investigator (CPI) indicated the father for lack of supervision “as there was evidence that someone molested [his daughter] while in his care.”
November 1993 DCYF child protective investigator (CPI) Virginia Miller testified to the difficulty of proving anything without definitive evidence. She could not prove Vincent was guilty of a “lack of supervision,” but her testimony was troubling: “The children said that when they were put down for a nap [at their father’s], that they were given yucky medicine to take. . . . they slept for a long time.” When they woke up their father wasn’t there, and Miller realized it was the same day the father was in court. She concluded: “When I asked the father about it, he said it was none of my business.” (Transcript 11/18/93, p. 15-16)
[Four observations: 1. In other cases I have researched, children complain about allegedly abusive parents forcing them to take pills that make them sleepy. 2. This son later spoke of their father punishing him for speaking to authorities. 3. Experts often use the passive voice in courtroom testimony and reports. This is a common practice in the social sciences that results in vague descriptions that can waste costly hours in the courtroom splitting hairs that fail to establish reliable evidence or facts. CPI Miller never said who was identified by the children as giving them the medicine. 4. Domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes, which police are often better trained than social workers to investigate. A police officer should be part of the multi-disciplinary team I propose below.]
November 1993 The son, 4, told their tenant that their father held a “knife” to his sister’s back, gave her a bath, and gave her “bad touches.” Another CPI, Michael Bousquet, investigated and testified that when he asked the boy about this remark, the child said: “I’m not going to tell you, it’s a bad secret, you won’t like it. I won’t tell you the secret.” After saying this, the tenant told Bousquet that the boy was “shaking and trembling” (Transcript, 11/19/93:11-12).
Based on the children’s comments and his conversation with Dr. Bartell, Bousquet indicated the father for “sexual molestation, sexual intercourse and cuts, welts, bruises.” A later DCYF report stated that the father’s older son, 13, also was “indicated for sexually abusing” the girl.
Shawcross suspended Vincent’s visits and ordered Bousquet to coordinate his investigation with psychologist Brian Hayden.
December 1993 Dr. Hayden testified that Dr. Bartell had told him there was “a strong possibility” that the daughter “had been abused” based on one of her hymenal lesions. But Dr. Bartell acknowledged to Hayden: “I have not said that on the witness stand, but, between you and me, that is what I feel” (Transcript, 12/16/93: 43).
Justice Shawcross recognized the dilemma: three witnesses (the mother, CPI Bousquet, and Dr. Hayden) had testified that Dr. Bartell told them the physical evidence was “classic for sexual abuse,” but Bartell had not said that in court. Hayden was not convinced from his psychological exam that abuse occurred. He described the girl running from his office to urgently ask her mother to tell her father: “Don’t give me a boo-boo on my gina.” Hayden said the mother asked the girl to repeat her statement for Hayden. “The little girl would only say it as she laid on the floor. She was very agitated, very awkward, and did repeat what she previously said to her mother” (Transcript, 12/16/93: 53).
Hayden confirmed that the 3-year-old did in fact say this to her mother in his office, but Hayden “did not take that disclosure as a valid disclosure” because the repetition had to be prompted. He told Justice Shawcross that he found the case “troubling” because “There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle that don’t add up” (55). Although he recognized the danger that the girl could “get damaged because of this prolonged process”(48), Hayden wanted to see “how insistent and persistent this little girl was over a relatively long period of time” and he “spent over 13 and a half hours with this child.” He acknowledged it was “a lot of time” for such an evaluation, and he “never got the kind of specificity elaboration of details, placement of where something might have occurred” (56).
Hayden advised Shawcross that the girl should have “therapy sessions” with her father before any supervised visitation(58).
[Family Court still persists in sending traumatized children into “therapeutic” sessions with their alleged abusers. I will write more about insurance companies’ refusal to pay for such court-ordered “therapy,” how it compounds the trauma to victims, and how some psychologists may be billing insurance fraudulently for these sessions. Many judges place excessive confidence in experts who do not trust their own analysis.
[Dr. Hayden understood that numerous sessions might be harmful to this child, and yet he persisted. Normally, he charges parents an hourly fee, making every delay more profitable to him. In another case, I saw him delay his reports to the court for months until he received payment. At each hearing, he favored the parent who paid.
[Empathetic interviewers trained in child sexual abuse and able to set up a discrete video camera should promptly investigate each complaint in the home or some familiar, safe setting and help children to disclose these traumatic experiences. Bringing children to a strange adult in an unfamiliar office is hardly conducive to helping them talk about experiences they may have no language to describe.
[Rather than so many competing experts, a better model might be for each case to have a single multi-disciplinary team from beginning to end that would work together to investigate the facts and submit well-written reports and drafts of orders to the judge. Each team would include an expert in police investigation, mental health, medicine, law, and a skilled writer.
The team would not work as private contractors, but as salaried staff, professionally supervised in an accredited nonprofit agency. A team could better protect the child, hold each other accountable to high internal standards, and offer concise information and recommendations to the judge.]
NEXT: 9.D. How "Vincent" finagled the Chief’s order.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
9.B. Vincent's first two Family Court cases begin (1982 - 1993)
This case study begins at 9.A., below.
1982 - 1991 (Two wives, two families)
In 1982, Vincent’s first wife, a college counselor, called campus security guards for protection. She reported her husband’s threats to kill her, to harm her colleagues, and to take their 2-year-old son. Evidence of his documented assaults never entered their “no-fault” divorce hearing. A Family Court judge ordered joint custody and shared placement of their child.
[Joint custody and shared placement of trophy children spares the abusive parent from having to pay child support while throwing children’s lives into constant emotional chaos as they struggle to move back and forth between two parenting styles that may be radically opposed. In many domestic violence cases, for example, one parent may be generally nurturing, while the other is highly punitive.]
Vincent’s second wife gave birth to their son in 1989 and their daughter in 1990.
In 1991 Vincent’s first wife sought sole custody citing problems with joint custody.
That same year, his second wife called Cranston police saying Vincent had kicked her in the groin.
1992 – 1993 (When his younger children are ages 2 to 4)
At the beginning, Chief Judge Jeremiah recognized Vincent’s pattern of abuse and tried to intervene. Like many judges, he did not see that domestic abuse of a mother is a strong indication that children are also in danger. He was guided by Pettinato’s “friendly parent” standard that forces children to maintain relationships with both parents, even if one has been cruel and abusive.
December 1992 Vincent’s second wife filed for divorce, and Vincent moved out of their home.
January 1993 His two younger children began court-ordered visits, spending three days and two nights each week with their father, his male roommate, and his older son, 13, whose visits were arranged to coincide with the younger children’s.
February 1993 The two-year-old daughter began having trouble sleeping. She suffered from bed-wetting, night terrors, and stomach aches. A doctor performed a sexual abuse exam and reported concerns to DCYF.
February 1993 General Magistrate John O’Brien ordered DCYF to conduct a domestic relations home study of Vincent's second family.
NEXT: 9.C. DCYF enters
1982 - 1991 (Two wives, two families)
In 1982, Vincent’s first wife, a college counselor, called campus security guards for protection. She reported her husband’s threats to kill her, to harm her colleagues, and to take their 2-year-old son. Evidence of his documented assaults never entered their “no-fault” divorce hearing. A Family Court judge ordered joint custody and shared placement of their child.
[Joint custody and shared placement of trophy children spares the abusive parent from having to pay child support while throwing children’s lives into constant emotional chaos as they struggle to move back and forth between two parenting styles that may be radically opposed. In many domestic violence cases, for example, one parent may be generally nurturing, while the other is highly punitive.]
Vincent’s second wife gave birth to their son in 1989 and their daughter in 1990.
In 1991 Vincent’s first wife sought sole custody citing problems with joint custody.
That same year, his second wife called Cranston police saying Vincent had kicked her in the groin.
1992 – 1993 (When his younger children are ages 2 to 4)
At the beginning, Chief Judge Jeremiah recognized Vincent’s pattern of abuse and tried to intervene. Like many judges, he did not see that domestic abuse of a mother is a strong indication that children are also in danger. He was guided by Pettinato’s “friendly parent” standard that forces children to maintain relationships with both parents, even if one has been cruel and abusive.
December 1992 Vincent’s second wife filed for divorce, and Vincent moved out of their home.
January 1993 His two younger children began court-ordered visits, spending three days and two nights each week with their father, his male roommate, and his older son, 13, whose visits were arranged to coincide with the younger children’s.
February 1993 The two-year-old daughter began having trouble sleeping. She suffered from bed-wetting, night terrors, and stomach aches. A doctor performed a sexual abuse exam and reported concerns to DCYF.
February 1993 General Magistrate John O’Brien ordered DCYF to conduct a domestic relations home study of Vincent's second family.
NEXT: 9.C. DCYF enters
Saturday, August 14, 2010
4. Gagged again!
A mother who attended the JNC interviews on Tuesday gave me her name afterward. I'm glad she did it then and told me about her case, because DCYF and Family Court are now trying to take away her Constitutional right to talk.
She told me she definitely planned to offer public comment to the JNC on the 17th. Though she is now forbidden to talk, others with more information about her case are free to speak and welcome to contact me at parentingproject@cox.net
DCYF and a team of lawyers tried to gag me once from telling the story of "Molly and Sarah," now at http://littlehostages.blogspot.com
One lawyer, William Balkun, even tried to gag a protective mother from talking to me. (I will find his amazing motion and post it here. Click twice to enlarge it.)
I have not researched the details of Faith Torres' story, but I think you will be hearing more about it:
Judge bars R.I. mother from talking about custody case
http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/judge-bars-ri-mother-from-talk.html
7:24 PM Fri, Aug 13, 2010
By LYNN ARDITI
Journal staff writer
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Family Court judge has forbidden a woman from talking about her custody case with anyone, including the media, or posting anything about the matter on any blogs or other sites on the Internet.
The woman, Faith Torres, has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union about the gag order, but declined comment for fear of violating it.
"This court order is a blatant violation of the First Amendment,'' Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island affiliate, said. "If she believes she is being treated unfairly, or if she just wishes to make people aware of her case, she should be able to do so free of a court-ordered gag rule.''
The judge's order is so broadly worded, Brown said, that "Ms. Torres faces contempt of court charges if she discusses the case with her mother..."
By law, someone who violates a court order and is charged with contempt of court can face imprisonment.
Family Court Judge Debra DeSegna issued the gag order -- which applies not only to Torres but also her lawyers -- on July 29 at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families.
DeSegna was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment. Neither Acting Family Court Chief Judge Haiganush R. Bedrosian nor Associate Judge Karen Lynch Bernard, who was filling in for DeSegna and signed the Torres order on Friday, responded to requests for comment.
Joanne H. Lehrer, the DCYF director's chief of staff, said Friday that she could not discuss specifics of the case. However, Lehrer said, it's not unusual for the agency's lawyers, particularly in custody cases involving domestic disputes, to draft such "broad brush" orders and ask the judges to enforce them to "protect the confidentiality of the child." (Emphasis added)*
The gag order issued by Judge DeSegna in the Torres case is contained in paragraph 4 of a 1 ½-page ruling that details the conditions under which Torres is allowed supervised visitation with her oldest child. It states:
"All parties to this action, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, and all counsel are restrained and enjoined from discussing any of the within court proceedings and related matters involving the children with any third party, including but not limited to members of the media, postings on blog, and/or the internet."
Torres said at the time that her lawyer, Jodie Gladstone, objected to the order but the judge overruled her.
Several calls to the Providence law firm where Gladstone practices went unreturned. A woman who answered the phone at the firm told a reporter that Gladstone could not respond due to the court order.
larditi@projo.com
*In cases I have researched, this has nothing to do with "protecting the confidentiality of the child," but attempts to protect DCYF from lawsuits for color of law offenses and for violating the Constitution. I am posting a followup article from the Providence Journal here:
Judge lifts gag order in Torres custody battle
http://www.projo.com/news/content/LISA_TORRES_08-18-10_E3JJ8C5_v21.26f1089.html
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, August 18, 2010
By Tatiana Pina
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Faith Torres left her credit card and other valuables at home Tuesday when she went to Family Court. She didn’t know how her hearing was going to go, and she might be spending time in jail.
Torres is in a custody battle to get her children. On July 29, Family Court Judge Debra E. DiSegna had ordered her not to talk about her case with anyone, including the media, or post anything about it on the Internet. Torres feared DiSegna would find her in contempt of court because she had contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, and a story had appeared in Saturday’s Journal.
But after conferring with lawyers for about an hour Tuesday, Judge DiSegna lifted the gag order, though she forbade Torres and her lawyers from identifying her children or giving out confidential information about them in regard to the case.
“I was hoping for the best,” Torres said after she got out of court. “I was prepared for the worst.
“I thought I might have violated the order. … I was happy she kind of lifted it.”
But Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU’s Rhode Island affiliate, said DiSegna’s new order is still too broad, and still violates the First Amendment.
“The ACLU remains concerned about the validity of orders like these in the absence of the consent of both parties to the case,” he said via e-mail. “While parents should always be mindful of sharing private information about their children in open forums, we continue to believe that neither DCYF nor the courts can impose broad prohibitions on parents from publicly discussing their own case, as even the revised order continues to do. …
“Protecting the privacy of children is important, but so is the ability of parties to shed meaningful light on the workings of our courts.”
Torres, 29, is trying to regain custody of her children. Three of them live with her, although they remain in state custody. Her fourth child, the oldest, lives with the child’s father, Genaro Fernandez. Torres wants her eldest child to live with her.
The gag order was issued at the request of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families. Joanne H. Lehrer, the DCYF director’s chief of staff, has said it is not unusual for the agency’s lawyers, particularly in custody cases involving domestic disputes, to draft such “broad brush” orders and ask the judge to enforce them, to protect a child’s confidentiality.
Shortly before the July 29 hearing, Torres had contacted a reporter at the Providence Journal about her battle to regain custody of her children. Torres said at the time that she was trying to start an organization for women who were victims of domestic violence who had lost custody of their children. She said she formerly worked as an account manager for a properties firm and an assistant administrator for a medical clinic. She is currently unemployed.
Torres said she had participated in parenting classes, psychological evaluations and counseling for victims of domestic violence, and has still been unable to regain custody.
Torres asked a Journal reporter to attend her Family Court hearing July 29. When the reporter contacted DCYF about attending the hearing she was directed to contact the court, but the acting chief judge for Family Court did not respond to the request. On the day of the hearing, Torres said, the judge ordered that anyone not participating in the case leave the courtroom.
On Tuesday, DiSegna allowed a reporter in the courtroom for Torres’ hearing, where Torres told the judge that the court visits were financially draining for both her and Fernandez.
tpina@projo.com
She told me she definitely planned to offer public comment to the JNC on the 17th. Though she is now forbidden to talk, others with more information about her case are free to speak and welcome to contact me at parentingproject@cox.net
DCYF and a team of lawyers tried to gag me once from telling the story of "Molly and Sarah," now at http://littlehostages.blogspot.com
One lawyer, William Balkun, even tried to gag a protective mother from talking to me. (I will find his amazing motion and post it here. Click twice to enlarge it.)
I have not researched the details of Faith Torres' story, but I think you will be hearing more about it:
Judge bars R.I. mother from talking about custody case
http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/08/judge-bars-ri-mother-from-talk.html
7:24 PM Fri, Aug 13, 2010
By LYNN ARDITI
Journal staff writer
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Family Court judge has forbidden a woman from talking about her custody case with anyone, including the media, or posting anything about the matter on any blogs or other sites on the Internet.
The woman, Faith Torres, has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union about the gag order, but declined comment for fear of violating it.
"This court order is a blatant violation of the First Amendment,'' Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island affiliate, said. "If she believes she is being treated unfairly, or if she just wishes to make people aware of her case, she should be able to do so free of a court-ordered gag rule.''
The judge's order is so broadly worded, Brown said, that "Ms. Torres faces contempt of court charges if she discusses the case with her mother..."
By law, someone who violates a court order and is charged with contempt of court can face imprisonment.
Family Court Judge Debra DeSegna issued the gag order -- which applies not only to Torres but also her lawyers -- on July 29 at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families.
DeSegna was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment. Neither Acting Family Court Chief Judge Haiganush R. Bedrosian nor Associate Judge Karen Lynch Bernard, who was filling in for DeSegna and signed the Torres order on Friday, responded to requests for comment.
Joanne H. Lehrer, the DCYF director's chief of staff, said Friday that she could not discuss specifics of the case. However, Lehrer said, it's not unusual for the agency's lawyers, particularly in custody cases involving domestic disputes, to draft such "broad brush" orders and ask the judges to enforce them to "protect the confidentiality of the child." (Emphasis added)*
The gag order issued by Judge DeSegna in the Torres case is contained in paragraph 4 of a 1 ½-page ruling that details the conditions under which Torres is allowed supervised visitation with her oldest child. It states:
"All parties to this action, including the Plaintiff and Defendant, and all counsel are restrained and enjoined from discussing any of the within court proceedings and related matters involving the children with any third party, including but not limited to members of the media, postings on blog, and/or the internet."
Torres said at the time that her lawyer, Jodie Gladstone, objected to the order but the judge overruled her.
Several calls to the Providence law firm where Gladstone practices went unreturned. A woman who answered the phone at the firm told a reporter that Gladstone could not respond due to the court order.
larditi@projo.com
*In cases I have researched, this has nothing to do with "protecting the confidentiality of the child," but attempts to protect DCYF from lawsuits for color of law offenses and for violating the Constitution. I am posting a followup article from the Providence Journal here:
Judge lifts gag order in Torres custody battle
http://www.projo.com/news/content/LISA_TORRES_08-18-10_E3JJ8C5_v21.26f1089.html
01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, August 18, 2010
By Tatiana Pina
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE — Faith Torres left her credit card and other valuables at home Tuesday when she went to Family Court. She didn’t know how her hearing was going to go, and she might be spending time in jail.
Torres is in a custody battle to get her children. On July 29, Family Court Judge Debra E. DiSegna had ordered her not to talk about her case with anyone, including the media, or post anything about it on the Internet. Torres feared DiSegna would find her in contempt of court because she had contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, and a story had appeared in Saturday’s Journal.
But after conferring with lawyers for about an hour Tuesday, Judge DiSegna lifted the gag order, though she forbade Torres and her lawyers from identifying her children or giving out confidential information about them in regard to the case.
“I was hoping for the best,” Torres said after she got out of court. “I was prepared for the worst.
“I thought I might have violated the order. … I was happy she kind of lifted it.”
But Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU’s Rhode Island affiliate, said DiSegna’s new order is still too broad, and still violates the First Amendment.
“The ACLU remains concerned about the validity of orders like these in the absence of the consent of both parties to the case,” he said via e-mail. “While parents should always be mindful of sharing private information about their children in open forums, we continue to believe that neither DCYF nor the courts can impose broad prohibitions on parents from publicly discussing their own case, as even the revised order continues to do. …
“Protecting the privacy of children is important, but so is the ability of parties to shed meaningful light on the workings of our courts.”
Torres, 29, is trying to regain custody of her children. Three of them live with her, although they remain in state custody. Her fourth child, the oldest, lives with the child’s father, Genaro Fernandez. Torres wants her eldest child to live with her.
The gag order was issued at the request of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families. Joanne H. Lehrer, the DCYF director’s chief of staff, has said it is not unusual for the agency’s lawyers, particularly in custody cases involving domestic disputes, to draft such “broad brush” orders and ask the judge to enforce them, to protect a child’s confidentiality.
Shortly before the July 29 hearing, Torres had contacted a reporter at the Providence Journal about her battle to regain custody of her children. Torres said at the time that she was trying to start an organization for women who were victims of domestic violence who had lost custody of their children. She said she formerly worked as an account manager for a properties firm and an assistant administrator for a medical clinic. She is currently unemployed.
Torres said she had participated in parenting classes, psychological evaluations and counseling for victims of domestic violence, and has still been unable to regain custody.
Torres asked a Journal reporter to attend her Family Court hearing July 29. When the reporter contacted DCYF about attending the hearing she was directed to contact the court, but the acting chief judge for Family Court did not respond to the request. On the day of the hearing, Torres said, the judge ordered that anyone not participating in the case leave the courtroom.
On Tuesday, DiSegna allowed a reporter in the courtroom for Torres’ hearing, where Torres told the judge that the court visits were financially draining for both her and Fernandez.
tpina@projo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)