California AB 2475 To Strip Immunity from Custody Evaluators

Written by: Print This Article Print This Article   
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)

California Assembly Representative Jim Beall is back with another attempt to shut down destructive use of child custody evaluations. This new Assembly Bill 2475 has grown out of his failure in 2009 to pass his Assembly Bill 612 that wrongly aimed to ban discussion of parental alienation in family law courts. This time around, AB 2475 is on more solid ground as it aims to strip quasi-judicial immunity from private family court appointed experts such as psychological and custody evaluators. This would provide a legal fallback for civil suits for egregious cases of misconduct by these professionals.

Failed AB 612 from 2009

Last year, Jim Beall wanted to outlaw the discussion of parental alienation in family law cases. We and many other organizations that support shared parenting and protecting children from abuse and neglect vehemently opposed the AB 612 legislation he introduced. AB 612 was nothing but whitewashing of emotional child abuse to enable abusers to get away with hurting children and in many cases rewarding them for doing so. That bill, AB 612, was gutted by legislators who understood that parental alienation is a real phenomenon. Beall later withdrew the bill.

Parental alienation is hurting many children, particularly those whose parents have engaged in a high-conflict divorce or parents who have personality disorders and are prone to badmouthing and access blocking against the other parent. While a certain level of animosity is not unusual in divorces, these alienating parents are typically so self-involved with their hatred and desire for vengeance or punishment of the other parent that they do not care about the damage being done to the children.

We’ve discussed parental alienation in many past articles. One that bears repeating is Parental Alienation Book For Middle School Kids: “I Don’t Want to Choose!” and the research conducted by the book’s author, Dr. Amy Baker, which has found long-term damage in adults who experienced parental alienation as children:

(from Parental Alienation Book For Middle School Kids: “I Don’t Want to Choose!”)

Alienated children frequently are psychologically damaged in long-term ways. They often develop depression, substance abuse problems, eating disorders, and even manipulative behavior patterns similar to their alienating parents. Some compare growing up with an alienating parent as being kidnapped and brainwashed. Of her 40 research subjects covered in Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties That Bind, some notable statistics are:

  • 70% suffered from depression
  • 58% were divorced
  • Half of the 28 who had children are estranged from their own children
  • 35% developed problems with drugs and alcohol

The organizations that backed AB 612 largely consisted of groups that mistakenly believe that parental alienation is only brought up as an issue by abusive parents. This is clearly not substantiated by the experience of children and mental health professionals. Groups such as the National Organization of Women and others with seemingly neutral names like California Protective Parents Association backed the pro-child-abuse AB 612. They were doing a great disservice to California’s children. They also cast doubt on their true motives of protecting children from abuse when they advocate for ignoring a major class of emotional abuse that severely damages the long-term mental health of children even into adulthood.

Where AB 612 went far wrong is the blanket assumption that parental alienation never occurs and that there is not “scientific evidence” to support it. The agenda for AB 612 was to shut down custody and psychological evaluators and courts for discussing this abuse because some of them have mistakenly handled parental alienation claims that may have been cover-ups for actual abuse by the disliked parent. While this sometimes does occur, we strongly suspect that many of the parents who backed AB 612 are in fact parental alienators with personality disorders who cannot accept that they must stop involving their children in their conflict and have been severely restricted from seeing their children.

Nobody who is truly objective would claim parental alienation is not real or that it seldom occurs. This is at least part of the reason why so much of the family law system lined up to oppose AB 612. Sadly, I personally believe that greed and corruption may have been a larger reason they opposed it. Lawyers, judges, and custody evaluators make a lot of money on driving conflict and involving expensive experts. Still, even if many of them had poor reasons for opposing AB 612, that does not in itself invalidate the other criticisms of AB 612.

AB 2475 History

Beall’s latest family law bill was originally introduced on February 19, 2010, with provisions for the State of California to create a child welfare services function to assure that children will be free from child abuse and neglect. While that is a reasonable goal, it is vague and ambiguous, especially as it overlaps with existing functions. The bill was essentially meaningless. Frankly, having looked at two of Beall’s attempts to craft legislation (AB 612 and AB 2475), I am very skeptical of his ability to write legislation. However, what seems to happen with Beall’s bills is that more competent legislators become involved and they change drastically.

As revised on April 8, 2010, the entire focus of the bill was changed to concentrate on the family law child custody determination process and removing quasi-judicial immunity from the experts used in this process.

The April 8 revision stripped quasi-judicial immunity from professionals hired under court orders including mediators, evaluators, mediators and others engaged in ADR (alternative dispute resolution).

Many of these people do not disclose anything about the negotiations other than their success or failure to reach an agreement. As such, they had a seemingly valid point that they are not responsible for misleading courts to take actions against parents because they never submit any report or input to the court aside from a simple non-judgmental statement of whether an agreement was reached or not. The mediators were able to convince legislature members to modify AB 2475 so that it will not apply to their work. The latest version, as of April 28, limits its applicability to parties that issue reports or findings to be used by the court.

Unfortunately, in the process, liability for social workers was also removed. This is a mistake. Social workers in the employ of the state have a well-established track record of bias, perjury, violation of law, cover-up of child abuse, and spreading false allegations of child abuse. As stated by the San Diego County Grand Jury based upon repeated investigations of misconduct by San Diego CPS social workers, social workers should not have immunity as they clearly abuse their power and have done so for years. In 1992, the San Diego County Grand Jury advised legislators that it had observed a pattern of abuse of power, perjury, bias, coercive threats, lying to parents and about parents, and sacrificing the well-being of children because of their own personal agendas. The Grand Jury did not believe these problems could be corrected without stripping social workers of immunity. Please see our previous article San Diego County Grand Jury Letter Regarding CPS Abuses for more information. Based upon the experiences we have heard and seen of San Diego CPS in more recent years, stripping social workers of immunity is still a necessary step.

Additionally, requirements for the state auditor to monitor family court compliance with the law are spelled out but the detail is insufficient to understand what is required. It is clear that the family courts are unable to police themselves and many of their judges are incompetent, biased, corrupt, and are harming families and severely hurting public confidence in the courts. As such, there does need to be a means to police the courts. Unfortunately, AB 2475 does not spell out enough details.

My suggestion is that the legislation be modified to spell out in more detail the intent of the auditing mechanism. A basic idea that seems to have merit is to create a feedback form for every family law litigant to rate the performance of the court employees, particularly the judges but also reporters, clerks, bailiffs, and others, as they experienced them in their cases. Collect the statistics and every six months publish a court employee performance list by categories (judge, clerk, reporter, bailiff, etc.) with the top rated names being those with highest satisfaction ratings and the bottom rated names the ones with the lowest satisfaction ratings. Further auditing effort should be focused on the bottom 10% of each employee category in the state and the bottom 10% of each category in each county. The state should determine the likely causes for the problems (poor local court rules, lack of training, misconduct, lack of funding, etc.) and move to correct problems via rule changes, disciplinary action, prosecution, budget reallocation, or legislation as needed. While getting rid of the bottom few percent of bad court employees each year won’t get drastic results overnight, it will be a major incentive for those who want to continue to work in the field to shape up or get out.

As it stands today, there is no real accountability for judges nor for most court employees. The vast majority of judges run for election without challengers. The public has no report card for judges. The result is the public continues to re-elect drunk drivers with repeated judicial disciplinary actions like Judge Lisa Schall of San Diego.

AB 2475 is flawed legislation in that is does not really address core issues such as default 50/50 parenting and provisions for mental health professionals involved in cases with alleged abuse, alienation, or mental illness to have adequate training and legislatively protected access to the information they need to do their jobs.

As flawed as AB 2475 is, it is still better than the status quo. Currently there is little remedy for parents and children who are harmed by incompetent, biased, dishonest, or greedy custody and psychological evaluators. Evaluators as a group will not suddenly become victims of mentally ill parents bent on revenge as the civil courts do function with a higher evidentiary standard and more rational behaviors than family law courts. But those evaluators who repeatedly engage in dishonest and harmful activities will probably find themselves sued out of practice. This is as it should be. Evaluators such as Stephen Doyne of San Diego amply deserve that fate.

I’m not alone in my assessment that AB 2475 should pass. California Coalition for Families and Children and its members have written to Assembly Member Mike Feuer, Chair of the California State Assembly Judiciary Committee, in support of AB 2475. I’d encourage you to read their letter as they come at the issue from a quite different angle than I do, yet still reach the conclusion that the legislation is worth their support.

While CCFC is certainly a very gender-neutral group, even gender-centric groups are supporting AB 2475. It is my understanding that even some of the mother-biased groups which I have heavily criticized for supporting AB 612 also support AB 2475. When you see parties from such divergent viewpoints backing the same legislation, it tends to add further legitimacy to their support.

AB 2475 Is Just A Start for Family Court Reform

The most serious problem with AB 2475 is that it doesn’t do anything to fix the most common problems in family courts, it just provides a fallback to go to civil court to deal with egregious violations of professional conduct standards. There is nothing wrong with having such a fallback. Although there is tremendous room for improvement in AB 2475, even if it doesn’t change a bit I do think it should be passed if only to provide some fallback handling for egregious misconduct.

However, I am deeply concerned that the legislature may be duped into thinking they have done something significant when in fact AB 2475 really deals only with extreme professional misconduct cases and does nothing at all to deal with the far more prevalent forms of family law abuse being inflicted upon California’s families.

Family law courts today put a huge financial drain on families. They turn parents with six-figure incomes and good credit histories into bankruptcy candidates. They turn intelligent and happy children into sad children who will do poorly in school and suffer mental health problems for decades. Yet despite these bad outcomes, the courts seem both unwilling and unable to do anything to correct the destruction they inflict.

Courts Abuse Children and Parents Via Extremism

As a common example of abuse inflicted by the courts, consider cases involving personality disordered parental alienators. These cases account for a large percentage of the high-conflict cases which rack up massive legal fees over many years as the family is blasted into financial and emotional oblivion. The courts often initially fail to act sufficiently and encourage conflict as one parent tries everything possible to get sole custody of the children. When the courts do finally “get it” that there is an alienator involved, then they often go to the other extreme and inflict even more damage as a result. When the courts finally get around to acting, generally far too late to prevent massive damage from being done, it is common to almost eliminate parental alienators from their children’s lives as a sort of retaliation. Yet stripping them of time with their children is a form of court-enacted parental alienation and is likely to hurt the children, too.

Our view is that the tool of psychology can be valuable in family conflicts, but that in today’s family law courts it is frequently misused by incompetent judges. These judges lack any real understanding of psychology, fail to do their jobs to understand the cases in front of them, and are lazy, vindictive, and tend to be incapable of implementing workable plans for keeping children in touch with both parents, preventing further arguments, and resolving existing conflicts over time.

Such judges tend to resort to extreme “solutions” to conflicts that create even more conflict. For instance, they often fail to put into place any means to ensure compliance with court orders and avert more conflict when there are already strong indications that a case is high-conflict due to abuse and domestic violence allegations, often ones that do not appear plausible. The result is that the aggressive and often alienating parent believes they must continue to assault the target and the target parent is terrified and trying to find ways to defend himself or herself, sometimes picking means that a judge who does not understand the case cannot understand at all because they have not been in the middle of the conflict with police and CPS coming after them over false abuse allegations.

At the other extreme, the court may retaliate against a conflict-prone parent by allowing that parent only a few hours per week of time with the kids and all of it under expensive and uncomfortable supervised visitation conditions. It’s important to note that they do this to safe and healthy parents, too, often at the request of alienating parents. Any parent treated like this is going to be furious, especially if they believe it is not warranted and their children and they are being harmed significantly. Alienators already tend to be experts at creating and perpetuating conflict, yet treating them like this simply increases their motivation to create even more conflict.

Many of these alienators are the victims of child abuse and mental health problems. They need help. Instead, they are being re-victimized by a whole new set of abusers, this time abusers wearing black robes and putting fancy initial such as Ph.D. after their names rather than the personality disordered, drug addicted, or criminal parents who abused them as kids.

Kids can be helped to deal with alienating parents and maintain relationships with both their parents when psychology is used appropriately and parenting plans are implemented to ensure the kids have both substantial access to both of their parents and competent allies to help them deal with the war between their parents. Target parents also need to have the support of neutral parties who understand how to gain compliance with the plan and to keep them out of the line of fire. The alienating parents need therapists who really are in touch with what is happening, hear it from multiple angles and not just from the alienating parent, and can help resolve disputes before they become major conflicts.

However, the courts usually fail to implement reasonable parenting plans and therapy orders that will ensure the kids do not miss out with one of their parents and the family is getting competent and informed therapy. They also tend to totally fail to put boundaries on the destructive behaviors of alienators and abusers. It is common for the courts to do absolutely nothing to punish for perjury and contempt of court. Some particularly incompetent judges even go so far as to help the perjurers continue to perjure by refusing to admit evidence that shows perjury, restricting activities such as photography and recording that have yielded evidence of the perjury, and berating the party who uncovered the perjury. This sends a very clear message to the perjurer that not only is perjury rewarded, but the court wants it to continue and will punish the party who is trying to expose it.

You might wonder why this craziness happens. I believe that it is because the family law courts are intellectually crippled by their inability to see family conflicts as anything other than an adversarial processes with winners and losers. Because of this, they insist on creating losers. It’s intrinsic to the very language used through the family court system — plaintiff vs. defendant, custodial parent vs. noncustodial parent, and even the use of “versus” in case names. Every time they create a loser, they make the children losers, too. Some would argue that even the “winning” parent becomes a loser, too, as all of this litigation is hugely expensive and emotionally draining and raising children all by one’s self is not an easy task. It would be far better to avoid the litigation and have a second parent involved in some fashion.

The court system was designed around warfare inside of families that will remain in contact with each other for lifetimes. It was built around adversaries who probably will avoid each other after coming into conflict. At the time the basic principles of government and law of the United States were formulated, the idea of divorce and that two parents would go to war with each other over children was likely not even remotely considered. The legal conflicts of the day had to do with criminal matters and business disputes, not with parents and children. Divorce was for all practical purposes nonexistent.

A lawsuit over a contract dispute, medical malpractice, employment discrimination, fraud, or a criminal case all involve parties that will in all likelihood do their utmost to avoid ever having anything to do with each other again unless they can voluntarily bury the hatchet and reach an out-of-court settlement. That last case is often what you see happen in business disputes, but it seldom happens in family law cases in which allegations of abuse and alienation are being brandished as weapons.

Family law judges as a group do not have the training, tools, experience, knowledge, or even the basic attitude necessary to deal with these difficult cases. So just like the carpenter with only a hammer who tries to hammer everything in sight, screws included, they try to smash and crush every dispute with their judicial hammers. In the process, they create even more animosity and harm. And they do it to parties that are going to have to deal with each other for lifetimes. They turn arguments that could have been contained into outright warfare that can even result in murder and suicide. If they really wanted to protect the “best interests of the children”, they would be working diligently to eliminate themselves and their adversarial system from the way divorces are handled.

Proper Use Of Psychology In Child Custody Conflicts

Family law judges are misusing psychology in their cases. Rather than psychology being used as a tool of understanding and learning to prevent harm and repair damage over the long-term, they are trying to use it as a means to pick winners or losers because they are so caught up in their adversarial mindset. While some of the psychologists who play into this destructive court process certainly deserve bad reputations, overall what is happening is that psychology is getting a bad reputation that is undeserved. Consequently, you see attempts to pass misguided legislation like AB 612 springing up in response.

Alienators tend to have personality disorders and are typically very persuasive in their campaigns to portray themselves and the children as victims of all sorts of abuse by the other parent, most of which never occurred or which is being highly distorted. Therapists of alienators, lacking input from therapists interacting with the children and the other parent, are easily snowed by many of these people and thereby become part of the problem. They may be recruited to report the target parent for child abuse and domestic violence and create even more conflict and harm for the children. Therapists who do not well understand personality disorders and parental alienation have no business in marriage and family therapy or therapy for kids or parents going through a divorce.

However, even when a therapist is qualified, the lack of information coming from multiple viewpoints combined with laws that impeded sharing of information necessary to effect treatment for the children and parents creates a potential disaster. The courts fail to address this problem and simply set up abusive and alienating parents like these with support systems in the form of therapists who are operating in the blind. Such therapists are often hearing only lies and distortions and thereby help an abusive parent to commit more abuse and alienation as that is what they know how to do and will continue to do until they are forced to confront reality and learn to stop their destructive behaviors. The therapists cannot force them to confront reality when the therapists do not even know what it is.

AB 2475 Should Pass, But Far More Changes Are Needed

The bottom line from the above discussion is that the mechanisms to deal with egregious court expert misconduct provided by AB 2475 are needed and the bill should pass for that reason. However, the family law courts are so seriously flawed that it will take far more legislation to fix the mess than AB 2475.

The legislature should not rest on its laurels. If reform is not pursued vigorously, there is a growing chance that the public’s confidence in the courts will fall so far that they will begin to deal with the worst of the judges and courts by means that may be far more troublesome than legislative reform.

Many of these parents have had their children taken away from them and their lives destroyed by the broken family law courts with the judges and their friends laughing all the way to the bank. This abomination cannot continue for long before there are more parents like San Diego father Derrick Miller committing suicide outside a family law court or going after the parties they see as responsible for the damage they have endured. It would be very sad if it requires a trail of corpses, be it corpses of parents, children, judges, or others, to motivate the legislature to get on with fixing the disaster.

Further Reading

Eileen Lasher on San Diego CPS/Family Law Court Misconduct

Stephen Doyne and San Diego Family Law Courts Under Fire

San Diego County Grand Jury Cites Further CPS Misconduct

San Diego County Grand Jury Letter Regarding CPS Abuses

More Debate Over California AB 612 Parental Alienation Bill

Beall’s Attempt to Support Child Abuse is Defanged

California Democrat Jim Beall Supports Child Abuse

CCFC Letter In Support of AB 2475

  1. Miguel Salazar
    May 7th, 2010 at 20:56 | #1

    This bill should pass as many of the court evaulators are robbing parents of all of their money. They make fictious reports that harm children. Evaluators such as Joanne Feigin in Los Angeles County has single handedly ruined the lives of hundreds of children. In order to amplify her income, she routinely recommended custody to the known abusive parent. Two siblings were fortunate to be able to go back to their mother but it was only after their abusive father’s death from cirrhosis of the liver that they were able to live in safety. These children are adults now but they still bear the emotional scars of being forced to live with their abusive alcoholic father.

  2. momfour justice
    June 8th, 2010 at 14:01 | #2

    Joanne sounds like Dana Iscoff in SF who is harrassing and bullies female cllients. She brings forth allegations not based on facts, but nonsense theories she develops on day one or by listening to the abusive ex. Facts and forensics versus women hating would take her much further.

  3. Mirko Vojnovic
    October 1st, 2010 at 16:47 | #3

    Excellent article Chris. Kudos! 🙂

    It perfectly outlines the effects and underlying causes of the “high conflict” nature of the divorces.

    Based on my experience the most important element is that there is no real deterrent for people who lie and misguide courts (litigants, evaluators, mediators and attorneys). Until there is no accountability for perjurious misconduct this sad state of the affairs will continue.

  4. Justice Seeker
    October 6th, 2010 at 01:33 | #4

    @ Miguel Salazar
    How do you know about Joanne Feigin? We need all the ammo we can gather to discredit her. She wants to award custody of our toddler grand child to my daughter’s abusive ex-boyfriend.

  5. L. Shadow
    October 6th, 2010 at 02:55 | #5

    @Miguel Salazar
    I don’t question your assertions, but am wondering how she makes money (beyond the evaluation) by knowingly placing children with the abusive parent. Please elaborate. I’ve met this woman, and was not impressed by her lack of professionalism. I wondered if she wasn’t a bit sinister, frankly. Reading your post has renewed that odd feeling. Any comments are appreciated. Thank you.

  6. December 4th, 2010 at 21:01 | #6

    The court system in California (laws, attorneys, evaluators, and bad novice judges). They are all destroying children’s lives and perfectly good fathers. Children’s future’s are at stake and nobody cares. Have you ever heard the screams of a child that wants her father. It is heart-wrenching!

    But, nothing can be done now – the child is 3200 miles away with her mother an boyfriend. ( who by the way, has two ex-wives and two sets of children)

    The very narcissistic mother in this case who has no family values or remorse told the courts the reason for the move was she thought she would have a better life in Wilmington, NC. And the father had an erractic work schedule because he is in the film business. I guess everyone fails to realize you have to work to put food on table and etc… And by the way was doing very well. However, the judge failed to take in consideration that the boyfriend is in the film business too. And works in Atlanta, Ga.

    The good father was the parent, that was getting the child in outside activities, church and pretty much taking over on the weekends. Not the mother – she had a hard time dealing with the child for certain lengths of time. The child has ADHD. She could not make decisions for herself without asking her parents or the father — or she would just not say a word.

    The whole system was based on what was in the best interest of the mother, not the child! This is unconscionable – it’s irreparable. And nobody cares, it’s all about dragging the situation out – money!! You have a system full of bad attorneys, bad evaluators and very novice biased judges-by the way, never been in Family Law before (3mos.). He was an ex-land development attorney.

    Please, what is wrong with this picture. It does not take a Rocket Scientist to figure out how egregious this system is and the way it is implemented.

    The true tragedy here, is the child losing her father because the novice and lying evaluator reccommended the move. He did not know the correct move away law and then stood up in court and just flat out lied through his teeth. The child is still screaming after 4 months of losing her daddy for no reason. I can’t imagine being brought up without a father. My father is my hero still at 87 years old.

    No child is better off without both parents in the same city. Divorce is hard enough for God Sakes.

    This places life long damage to the childs growth and well being. She will grow up to hate her mother and father both.

    nila

  7. Buddy George
    December 16th, 2010 at 15:31 | #7

    A matter that needs investigated
    On case#VA107160
    People Vs buddy lee George 
    Los Angeles superior court norwalk California division S
    Judge the Honorable Roger Ito
    Los Angeles county district attorney Kang. 
    A case that can be proved as unconstitutional due to the following
    1.) I was denied my due process rights. 
    2.) the district attorney had me charged with prison priors and strikes that I did not have and it was not until after the verdict did she admit her mistakes. 
    3.) I was denied to confront witnesses I supoened 5 officers and only one showed up. 
    4.) the only witness that showed up was detective hakala from Whittier police department he was the lead detective and expert witness. 
    5.) there was bias with the processing of evidence he used his own lab. 
    6.) he lied under oath by saying he removed the drugs before the pre search video because he had a dog. 
    7.) the evidence in the case had been destroyed before the trial
    Evidence was destroyed 5-29-09
    The verdict was read on 8-15-09
    8.) henry salcidos law firm that represented me right before the trial caused a conflict of interest by violating attorney client privilege by having a meeting with the city of la mirada without my permission nor knowledge were he discussed my case were he was convinced by the city saying I should take a deal under the condition I move out of la mirada when I get out of prison. 
    9.) Henry salcido also told me at one point he didn’t care If I was innocent or guilty I should take a deal. 
    10.) he also told me at one point he was best friends with steve Cooley and if I gave him $180.000 and sign over the deed to our home he could make the case disappear. 
    11.) their was two retired district attorneys that were working for Henry salcidos law firm that were also over familiar with sheriffs and narcotics department that were involved in my case. 
    12.) through the whole case the la mirada mayor and council members had law enforcement harassing me their was about 300 or more calls made to law enforcement with the intent to have me harassed 
    13.) I can also prove false imprisonment. 
    14.) I was charged with possession for sales when no drugs were ever found to be in my possessing neither was any money ever recovered and according to the detective he found $13 dollars worth of drugs in our home all together in separate bags and only one had been tested the second one was never tested. 
    15.) it was unconstitutional for detective hakala to target me when their was 5 occupants living in our home at the time. 
    16.) the search warrant he used to get in our home the day he supposedly found the drugs was stamped denied. 
    17.) the second search warrant had a type -o- error and the name on the search warrant was Walter Eugene Farris a guy that I don’t know and neither did any one els that lived in our home and he had never been in our home. 
    18.)The attorney that represented me during the trial had not been given enough to to familiarize her self with my case the judge refused to give her time to overlook the case.
    19.) after we picked the jurors one of the jurors was prejudice he said no matter what he would find me guilty because he hates drug dealers the judge still allowed juror # 19 to hang out with all the other jurors until he was replaced. 
    The following needs to be investigated
    1.) violation of due process rights
    2.) my state and federal rights were violated. 
    3.) false imprisonment
    4.) harassment 
    5.) negligent
    6.) malpractice
    7.) wrongful conviction
    8.) officer misconduct
    9.) judicial misconduct
    10.) cruel and unusual punishment. Email below evidence when the evidence had been destroyed a email from detective hakala to district attorney kang. 
    11.) the city of la mirada offered to buy our home at cost saying under the condition I couldn’t live in la mirada nor Whittier. 
    12.)la mirada law enforcement was raiding our home practically daily. 
    13.) before this case started detective jerry Reyes told me as he handed me his card with his hand writing on it that if I dident help him he would screw me.
    14.) detective hakala and district attorney kang kept inflicting lies on the jury. 
    15.) I was not on probation or parole when this case started. 
    16.) our car had also been impounded 3 to 4 times every time officers said just tell us were the drugs are we won’t impound the vehicle and every time I was honest by saying I don’t have any drugs they impounded it any way. 
    17.) detective hakala went through my confidential legal mail violating my constitutional rights instead of using normal mail he used a 42 u.s.c 1983 to identify me as living here during The trial mentioning a law suite involving Copley
    18.) during the proceedings of the case no one had any idea I studied law I even represented my self in the federal courts I studied criminal and civil for about five years including 42 u.s.c $1983″s torts writs civic codes ethics even the CCR title 15 rules and regulations. 
    19.) I’m hoping to resolve this with out filing in the federal courts I’m exhausting all remedies if the matter is not resolved then I’m given not much choice because I was wronged 
    Sorry but this is frustrating I just want this matter looked into. 
    20.) I can prove the following. 
    1.)defamation of character. 
    2.) false imprisonment. 
    3.) negligence. 
    4.) harassment. 
    5.) malpractice. 
    6.) wrongful conviction. 
    7.) constitutional violations with my civil rights. 
    8.) including $10.000 dollars of damage to our home. 
    9.)reckless disregard.  
    10.) coaxing
    11.) including due process rights involved in a criminal court proceeding involving corruption. 
    12.) the situation that escalated 
    Into this case was a incident involving a parole officer mr verimontes he worked for la mirada public safety and the Santa fe springs parole department in the year 2001
    He was contracted by both at the same time their was a incident involved with are daughters boy friend driving a vehicle in a irate speed going to autozone test driving a 1997 ford explorer some car was parked 3 ft out from the curb 
    And some kids were playing in the middle of the street they moved out of the street as he was driving up hill and swerved to miss the car when we got back a neighbor showed up cussing and yelling in a violent manner as I got out of the passenger side he was trying to provoke me I asked him to calm down he told me fuck you I said I have kids and theirs no need for this he stated bull I ignored him and went next door and eventually went to the store with our cousin next door not knowing while we were gone the neighbor had called the sheriffs by time I got home their was no law enforcement around but when I reported to parole I was giving him the heads up about possible call made to law enforcement with our address he asked did you have any police contact I stated no he said don’t worry about it then that nite shows up with law enforcement to arrest me for driving with out a license I was in jail double the normal time waiting for my bpt hearing mean while I hired a attorney for ADA issues he had no idea that the attorney representing me at board had investigated his wrong doing because he went to every neighbor showing first my whole criminal past then mug shots asking if they seen me driving the attorney caught him lying under oath at least 12 times the commissioner let me go home when I had got out mr verimontes told me pack up your shit your moving back to Sacramento in such a irate manner to were other people eventually had to get him he told me that if I appealed him he would get a petition with our neighbors so I reported to parole in Sacramento and while I was there I filed a 602 inmate appeal demanding It to be exhausted so I could file a 42 u.s.c $1983 I charged him with the following
    1.) racial profiling 
    2.) negligence
    3.) harassment 
    4.) deformation of character 
    5.) false imprisonment 
    6.) I filed to a copy of the bpt hearing tape only to find out it had been damaged 3 days after the hearing when it was not suppose to be damaged for 120 days were I was entitled to a copy of it only to be denied eventually the 602 complaint allowed me to come home after he was involuntarily moved from both jobs. 
    7.) the city mayor and council members had sheriffs going through any lengths to get me for anything just to send me to prison also to force me to move from la mirada. 
    8.) we had a 2002 ford explorer literally torn apart to the point it was not worth having the interior completely destroyed. 
    9.) our home was stalked by sheriffs to the point our kids moved out. 
    10.) their are witnesses to two sheriff deputies named Morris and tousey that work for the city of la mirada telling every drug addict that I am a kingpin and a drug dealer. 
    11.) we even called the sheriffs about some one driving a car into our garage door they showed no interest in the damage done to our home. 
    12.) the sheriffs also known our home had been broken into and vandalized on numerous occasions. 
    13.) Morris and tousey also were telling people say his name you go free Morris and tousey are Los Angeles county sheriffs. 
    THIS ALL ADDS UP WASTEFUL
    SPENDING

    Buddy George – VA107160From: joanne alberry
    View Contact To: LAURIE YTARTE —————–
    ————————————————————-
    — Laurie,here is the email from the Detective 
    telling the court that all the property was
    destroyed. Sorry about all of it. Feel free to mail
    me any payments you can at my office address
    4229 Main St Suite 4 Riverside CA 92501 I will
    let you know when I find an attorney who will
    take on a governemtn entity. good luck to you
    and Buddy,Joanne ———- Forwarded message
    ———-From: Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:23
    AMSubject: Fw: Buddy George – VA107160To:
    [email protected] Hi Joanne, Per our
    conversation, here is the email from Detective
    Hakala confirming that the evidence was
    destroyed. I will request that our matter be taken
    off calendar today. Thanks. ———————-
    Forwarded by Miriam Kang/DAUsers/NLADA on
    09/25/2009 07:22 AM ————————— To:
    cc: Subject: RE: Buddy George – VA107160 I
    contacted our central property and the items
    seized in the Buddy George case (408-15814-
    0460-184) were dispoed on 05-29-09. Any other
    questions just let me know. Eric ———————
    ———————————————————–
    From: [email protected]
    [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thu
    9/24/2009 2:49 PMTo: Hakala, Eric J.Subject:
    Buddy George – VA107160 Hi Detective Hakala,
    Just as a reminder, please email me a letter
    confirming that the the property booked into
    evidence for this case has been disposed of and
    the date of disposal. Thanks so much!
    Sincerely,Miriam KangDeputy District
    AttorneyTel: 562-807-7211 

  8. Nila M. Fordyce
    February 18th, 2011 at 20:24 | #8

    I just don’t understand why the California legal system or any other legal system allows these evaluators or judges who are not experts on children-especially what’s in their best interest to keep on doing what they’re doing. They truly need to a hire professional team of Special Forces for the Family Law system and clean it out. Again they are rupturing the lives of children and the loving bonds they have with their parents. All they are doing is filling their pockets from defenseless people. I am finding out where ever you go to complain, there is always some lame excuse why nothing can be done. I believe this is what you call politics. What happened to Justice! Also, Dr. McCoy, just because a mother is a mother does not mean they are the better parent or a good mother. Just because a Doctor is a Doctor, does not mean he is a good one.
    My father who is a Doctor (a good Doctor), told me this many years ago.

  9. April 23rd, 2011 at 12:45 | #9

    It truly is insidious that these so-called experts just continue to get away with their egregious actions. And then they walk away thinking that justice has been done — smiling all the way to the bank or to another injustice. But until we are able to hold them accountable for their henious actions — nothing will change. And the system does not allow this — they will protect their own. So, it is your responsibility to sue these people for wrong doing. But after you have just finished a 2 year custody battle — then you’ve been placed with a huge child support burden, it makes it very difficult if not impossible to implement this. Again, the Family Legal System needs to hold these so-called experts accountable. This is so disgusting – it is typical politics………..

  10. Anne
    August 30th, 2011 at 19:25 | #10

    @ momfour justice
    hi! can you please help me. custody case where my x’s attorney requested Feigin, I was not able to get her off. Now report out and she believes all the allegations my x made and did not look and all the abuse I went through and he has used my child in the case, blocking contact and using him as his confident and friend to manipulate our child and others. How to find out what organizations she’s in because it seems she favors dads no matter what.

  11. sue
    September 5th, 2011 at 01:45 | #11

    Justice Seeker :@ Miguel Salazar How do you know about Joanne Feigin? We need all the ammo we can gather to discredit her. She wants to award custody of our toddler grand child to my daughter’s abusive ex-boyfriend.

    Justice Seeker :@ Miguel Salazar How do you know about Joanne Feigin? We need all the ammo we can gather to discredit her. She wants to award custody of our toddler grand child to my daughter’s abusive ex-boyfriend.

  12. Zae Anne
    November 3rd, 2011 at 00:55 | #12

    @ sue
    hello justice [email protected] salazar, I have some info. that she is unethical and bias in my case. I would like to discuss with you, i have some ideas to make things known to the courts and have her removed from the list.

  13. samara
    March 6th, 2012 at 22:26 | #13

    can any one give me some ideas or information i have 2 little girls the 730 evaluation took away from me ,and the system give to my husband 100% physical custody just cause my husband is a police officer and knows how manipulate the system and get away with everything , he lie after lie and the system belive him just for his status,he washbrain my littleones and put them against me when he is the one who parental child abduct my girls in the summer.is hard to prove when the judge only can see on one side the word of a police officer who lie and the other side the word of just an ordinary mom.

    • March 9th, 2012 at 01:49 | #14

      Samara,

      Maybe you can subpoena his police personnel file and find evidence of abusive and dishonest conduct as a cop? It’s my experience that liars and abusers are often doing both in more than just the family court venue.

      Rob

  14. Zoe
    May 12th, 2012 at 20:28 | #15

    @sue
    RE: Fiegin, maybe we can all meet and organize to make a difference and get her off of the court approved evaluators.. She’s feed by attorneys she attends the San fernando bar association meeting regularly. AVOID THIS EVALUATOR WITH ALL COSTS DO NOT SIGN HER PROTECTIVE STIPULATION. AVOID

  15. Mary
    June 8th, 2012 at 19:12 | #16

    @Miguel Salazar

    Many good points are made.

    My hard experience is there are parents who either
    1. falsely accuse a parent of abuse
    2. parents who KNOW there is abuse and don’t make up stories about it.

    With the whole parental alienation thing – when a therapist comes into a family believing the abusers tactic of PA – anything the ‘protective parent’ says or does gets construed as alienation. Its a trap. I am in it. There is medically documented abuse, 3 custody evals in past (no recognition of pas at all), and STILL court ordered therapists are honestly brain washed by this theory.
    Please people, read the Saunders Study – released April 2012 by the US Dept of Justice. Accusations of parental alienation should NOT be credited when there is documented abuse. It vilifies the protective parent, and worse, treatment for the child is halted and not awknowledged – the child gets no support and the protective parent is forced to basically alienate their own child after being abuse – to please court appointed therapists that they are “co-parenting” with the abuser. Read some psychology. Read the Saunders report. It does not work. There is a little common sense that could be thrown in here too.
    Please – read Saunders – his goal is to educate the family law court system, all the court appointed coparent counselors, family therapists, custody evaluators, GAL’s, and judges – NEED MUCH TRAINING IN THE DYNAMICS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE by domestic violence advocates (who work for almost free out of their love for kids) to adequately even begin to address domestic violence/child abuse. Sorry – these ‘professionals’ at this pt in time, do NOT have the maturity, or capacity to be diagnosing parental alienation. Its a cop out when it comes to kids and women (or men) getting physically and emotionally harmed – there is no excuse and we adults should not make excuses acceptable. Child abuse and domestic violence is NOT acceptable – at least not in my world.

  16. Zoe A.
    January 22nd, 2013 at 18:59 | #17

    @ sue
    Justice seeker: please post contact information, I have news on your so called evaluator and her ethics. I have evidence she works for attorneys that hire her, notice the volume of cases and so all low rate, she pumps out her cases to get the dirty attorneys what they want. Parents BE AWARE, DO NOT SIGN HER PROTECTIVE STIP, remove her if you can.

  17. Scott Couper
    August 30th, 2013 at 15:07 | #18

    @Zae Anne
    @sue
    Would you please provide me with your info on Feigin. She recently did an evaluation on my Move away situation and did not contact certain collateral people I had instructed her had information about my case. She is siding with my ex wife and is being extremely prejudice and I need to discredit her immediately as my court date is fast approaching and we are cross examining her on the stand.

  18. anonymous
    March 13th, 2014 at 05:56 | #19

    Go to the following website to leave your review for Joanne Feigin LCSW. Hopefully she gets enough bad reviews to put the site at the top of search results and she loses clientele and credibility. Horrible “evaluator”. Her work and report came entirely short of an evaluation or common sense analysis.
    http://npidb.org/doctors/behavioral_health/clinical_1041c0700x/1962504951.aspx

  19. Zae
    August 12th, 2014 at 05:04 | #20

    @ Scott Couper

    @scott and others. Be careful, her signed waiver is tricky and she will not be accountable. Avoid her, she will only work to prove your x is right, especially if she/he is emotionally anusive.

    Please post your contact info and I have some info for you.

  20. shi
    August 16th, 2014 at 00:50 | #21

    Joanne Feigin just did my evaluation and it was completely one sided and biased. I am possibly losing my child due to her comments. Her fees are exorbitant and she disregarded everything I had issues with and lauded over my ex’s accusations as if they were the truth. I am so distraught over the possibility of losing my child. I dont know what to do but ask for another evaluation that was not suggested by her scumbag attorney.

  21. Zae
    March 8th, 2015 at 19:58 | #22

    Please send email/contact info. re. Feigin, have it that may help you. Avoid using this evaluator or anything she sales.

  22. Zae
    March 8th, 2015 at 20:04 | #23

    @scott couper
    @shi

    For anyone researching Joanne Feigin LCSW

    Avoid Feigin, don’t hire her. Presumptively remove her from your court appointed evaluation. How can you be reached, I have info, that may help you prove her corruption and lack of ethics.

  23. Miguel Quevedo
    May 1st, 2015 at 17:57 | #24

    I need of your help. I need that some of you testify against Joanne Feigin in my upcoming hearing, she is about to ruin my relationship my my daughter. Please give me a call at 1.310.200.3397 as soon as possible.

  24. Ceejay
  1. February 11th, 2011 at 18:58 | #1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *