PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label FATHER'S RIGHTS MONEY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FATHER'S RIGHTS MONEY. Show all posts

Friday, January 18, 2013

MORE ON FATHERHOOD FUNDED PILOT PROGRAM CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME!

(This article is written by an author who chooses to write anonymously in order to protect him/herself from retaliation.)
PART II:

The Pilot Program advises Magistrates and others to spend considerable time and money pampering their proteges in this fatherhood funded custody scheme.  Note the following description from the report:

"For example, general supportive comments from the Magistrate and other team members are designed to motivate and demonstrate support for the changed behavior.  In addition, tangible rewards, or "tokens", such as journals and writing emplements are used to assist participant performance."

Does anyone else think it might be a problem that the Magistrates are required to verbalize bias towards fathers and shower them with gifts in order to get funding under this program?  In any other universse, this would be a flagrant violation of the Codes of Judicial Conduct which require judges and magistrates to remain neutral, refrain from making statements or actions that might lead the parties or public to believe that the judge is partial.

But what if you don't want to participate in the pilot or accept those gifts?  Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  Thus, there is the following caution:

"Failure to comply with the court orders will result in the imposition of sanctions.  Ultimately, noncompliance with problem solving orders will result in the obligated noncustodial parent being removed from the Pilot and being referred for an immediate contempt hearing before a second Magistrate.  At the contempt hearing, the obligated noncustodial parent faces potential incarceration until a purge, or a set monetary amount, is paid."

So, what does the CUSTODIAL PARENT have to say about this?  Does she get invited to the party?  I mean, don't you think if you are trying to increase the father's earning capacity and esteem within the family that you might not want to incarcerate him for not playing ball with a program based entirely upon ex parte communications with a judge.  the Report continues on to say,

"The sanction for noncompliance is clearly and frequently articulated to the obligated noncustodial parent to increase the parent's understanding of the process and serve as an incentive for successful participation and compliance with the orders."

But here's the problem.  If you enroll the NONCUSTODIAL PARENT, by default, you are also involuntarily enrolling the CUSTODIAL PARENT without their knowledge.  And that custodial parent is the one raising the children, and nothing is being done to ensure that the court is "frequently articulating" to the CUSTODIAL PARENT why they are being sanctioned and their homes and being further destabilized because of someone else's noncompliance with a program they don't understand themselves to be enrolled in.

This program provides further opportunities to disrupt the lives of the Custodial Parent and the children.  For example, the use of increased court hearings to shape the behavior of the Non Custodial parent which is described as follows:

"In addition to the increased frequently of hearings, the Pilot itself is unique in that each hearing is individually scheduled for a specific time and is allotted a half hour.  This element of the Pilot uses scheduling as an additional reward or sanction for the participant's compliance with the court's orders...The frequency of the hearings or the period of time over which they are conducted is measured by behavior and progress towards the participant's goals."

This aspect of the pilot program fails to recognize that using court appearances as a reward or sanction means that regardless, you are sanctioning the child and custodial parent by taking time and resources away from the child's home.  A child who may need food or childcare, and a parent with a stable job.  A child and mother who may have preferred to use their time and resources strengthening their relationship with each other, maybe even directly with dad, rather than requiring both parents to take time off from work and obtain childcare to attend adversarial proceedings that further deteriorate their relationship.

All the while, Mom has no idea that the outcome of the proceedings will be determined not by her conduct or the weight of the evidence, but by whether or not her case profile meets the funding mandates outlined in the "Problem Solving Court" grant. This means that the Case Manager and Magistrate are required to arbitrarily reduce the amount of time the child spends with his or her mother, deplete the mother's legal rights, while at the same time providing the father (who is 90% likely to be a violent offender with drug/mental health problems) with legal and financial assistance that will increase his access to the child (who might be a crime victim.)
 
What this really represents is a money making scheme for attorney.  Read the sentence below and substitution the words GAL or Attorney in place of the word children.  Then it will make much more sense to you:

"This type of judicial monitoring will continue until the obligated noncustodial parent is in a position to manage the personal challenges that have historically interfered with their ability to provide regular and reliable financial support for their children."

Right!  Like their willingness to ensure Dad sues and wins custody.  How beneficial for the child.  I have yet to see any direct services that are provided to the children.

Do these team members  address the issue of what kind of impact this program will have on the Custodial Parent?  No, they are not required to address such concerns as the Report states:

"The case manager is also available [BUT NOT OBLIGATED] to speak with the custodial parent to ensure that the goals of the process meet the needs of the entire family."

This excerpt presents the basic flaw of this program.  Essentially, it assumes that the father is the only parent whose needs matter.  At no time does this pilot program consider giving custodial mother and their children any sort of benefits, or even ask what their needs are.  It's all about FATHERS.

So how are we measuring the "success" of this pilot?

MORE ABOUT THIS CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME IN THE UPCOMING PART III

For a link to this "problem solving" pilot program please click on the link below:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/problemsolving/NH_pilot/Problem_Solving_Initiative_Report_063010.pdf




 

Thursday, January 17, 2013

FATHERHOOD FUNDED PILOT PROGRAM INVOLVED IN CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEMES CONTINUES TO ATTRACT OUTRAGE!

(This article is written by an author who chooses to write anonymously in order to protect him/herself from retaliation.)
 
PART I:
 
One would think that the measure of a "Responsible Father" is his ability to refrain from engaging in abusive litigation, violence, and drugs.  However, the Court Support Services Division (CSSD) in Connecticut rewards fathers for doing just the opposte and further rewards crooked lawyers by incentivizing the placement of children in violent homes.  Judge Lynda Munro's professional commitment to making sure that the MINORITY of unfit fathers retain ownership of the crime victims they assault and torture as demonstrated here will make you think twice about who is and is not a fit parent, as well as where your money is going.

Arising from the mandate of the Public Act 09-175, An Act Concerning Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families, here is CSSD's Fatherhood Program, an initiative innocuously entitled "Problem Solving Initiative".  You can find it at the following link:


According to CSSD, the purpose of this Fatherhood Program is as follows:

"Since the passage of AAC Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families, the Judicial Branch with the assistance and support of community partners, has been actively working to design and implement a viable problem solving court model for Title IV-D child support matters heard in the Family Support Magistrate Division of Superior Court...The Judicial Branch Problem Solving Initiative collaborated with community services providers and state agency partners, to develop and design a judicial process using multidisciplinary, court-based problem solving techniques to address the underlying issues of the parents appearing in family support court.  The goals of the Initiative include, but are not limited to:  1) increasing a parent's employment skills; 2) increasing a parent's ability to pay child support; 3) determining appropriate child support orders; 4) assisting parents in accessing the services that will help better their lives; and 5) assisting parents in strengthening their relationship with their children..."

I wonder if the mothers who appear before Judge Lynda Munro understand that her professional reputation and the failure or success of this Fatherhood pilot program rides on the Court's ability to arbitrarily switch custody to UNFIT violent fathers, many of whom are unemployed, have drug problems, are homeless, and have treatment resistent mental health problems?
 
Apparently, not only Judge Lynda Munro, but the Judicial Branch itself is deeply implicated in these custody switching schemes.  Thus, the report on the Problem Solving Pilot Program states the following:
 
"In January 2009, the judicial Branch convened the Problem Solving in family Matters Committee.  Chaired by Judge Lynda Munro, Chief Administrative Judge, Family Divison, the committee was charged with exploring the feasibility of creating a problem solving justice model to assist parents with cases in the FSMD by linking them to community services that would help them achieve the ersonal and economic stability needed to meet their support obligations.  In June 2009, the committee produced a report that contained a variety of recommendations, including implementation of a pilot problem solving court session in either the Judicial District of New Haven or Waterbury.  the report also recommended that the pilot program partner with ccommunity agencies to provide key services in areas such as housing, employment, education, fathering/parenting, and mental health and addiction services."
 
What is your definition of an unfit parent?  Do custodial parents know that judges are meeting with unfit fathers to help them with their custody cases?  Is it really a good idea to ORDER unfit and unwilling fathers with drug problems, recalcitrant mental health issues, etc. to show up for parenting time?  Shouldn't we be offering this assistance to fit parents rearing children?  Shouldn't we be asking CUSTODIAL PARENTS about whether this is safe, and keeping them abreast of these secret hearings and meetings?  I don't see anywhere that mentions this happening. 
 
So what is happening?  Essentially, judges are being encouraged to summon deadbeat non-custodial parents to Court under the threat of contempt in order to determine whether they have backgrounds that are sufficiently negative to justify their participation in the Problem Solving Program.  The guidelines provided for this purpose are as follows:
 
"In situations where an obligated noncustodial parent has failed to make child support payments, an obligated parent [not the CUSTODIAL PARTY] may be summoned to court to show cause as to why he or she should not be found in contempt [which could result in jail time.]  During a pre-hearing discussion with the obligated noncustodial parent, the Support Enforcement Officer asks a series of questions to determine if any of the following criteria are present:
 
- The parent reports having a criminal record;
 
- The parent reports an inconsistent reocrd of employment or earnings.
 
- The parent reports a lack of secondary school education and/or skills necessary to meet basic employer requirements.
 
- The parent reports the existence of one or more personal factors (e.g. limited English proficiency, lack of housing, mental health needs, drug and/or alcohol abuse) that may be impeding his/her ability to fulfill the duty to support.
 
The existence of two or more of the above factors, plus the parent's willingness to participate, makes a case potentially eligible for referral to the Pilot.  The existence of the criteria is reported to the Family Support Magistrate presiding over the contempt docket.  The Family Support Magistrate canvasses the obligated noncustodial parent and reviews the reported criteria.  In addition, the Magistrate will determine if the custodial parent objects to transferring the case to the Pilot.  If the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the claimed barriers exist, the case is referred to the Pilot and an order is entered for the parent to meet with the SES problem solving case manager for a full assessment."
 
So, if the Magistrate determines that the custodial parent objects to transferring the case to the pilot, will he then cease the intervention?  As you can see, the guidelines do not say that.  This means, I presume, that the custodial parents' objections will be noted for the record and then simply ignored. 
 
Given the signficant impact that a full assessment of a non custodial parent will have on the lives of the children involved, should he be reintroduced into their lives, it is worth asking what are the qualifications of the SES problem solving case manager?  They don't tell you.  I would suspect that this is a Family Services manager getting paid under the AV/TIP grant, but again, there is no information in this regard.  So the SES Case Manager with unknown qualifications assesses the offender and gives the report to the Magistrate--but not the mother?
 
This is what the program description states:
 
"The assessment offers the Family Support Magistrate presiding in the problem solving court a detailed portrait of the obligated noncustodial parent's personal history and current needs."
 
Really?  And these services are supposed to be for the purpose of getting the parent to pay child support to benefit the child whose home the Magistrate is not communicating with?  What about the custodial parent's due process rights?  If she cannot get a copy of this report, why not?
 
MORE ABOUT THIS CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME IN THE UPCOMING PART II
 
 
 

Monday, January 7, 2013

DECEPTIVE PILOT PROGRAM THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG ON HOW FATHERHOOD FUNDS ARE SPENT!

In yesterday's blog dated January 6, 2013 I spoke about the questionable use of billions of dollars in fatherhood funding.  Thus, it was interesting to me when I stumbled across a Pilot Program tucked away in the CT Judicial Branches' Strategic Plan for the year 2010. 
 
Deception is the fundamental basis for this Pilot Program from beginning to end.  For example, look at the title.  It is called the "Problem Solving Initiative Report 2010".  In reality, it is not about "Problem Solving" at all.  It is about promoting a fatherhood rights agenda. 
 
Of course, if you were doing a search for fatherhood programs in the State of Connecticut on google, you'd probably never come across it.  After all, it has been placed under the key idea "problem solving".  Great way to  deceive citizens in this State by using deceptive language to hide information!
 
Still, it is all about fatherhood funding.  In the cover letter for the program, Judge Barbara M. Quinn announces the basis for the program as follows:  it has been established "Pursuant to Public Act 09-175, An Act Concerning Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families."
 
This act is located at the following link:
 
 
This act, which was passed in June 2009, allows a magistrate to suspend a father's child support obligations and direct him towards skills training and all the many perks that involvement in fatherhood intiatives provide.
 
For more information about the the corrupt practices associated with the distribution of billions of dollars in fatherhood funding read "A Life Sentence" by Keith Harmon Snow at the following link:
 
 
For those of you who are interested, the following legislators co-sponsored the bill:
 
 Andrea L. Stillman, Andres Ayala, Anthony J. Musto, Antonietta "Toni" Boucher, Antonio Guerrera, Arthur J. O Neill, Barbara L. Lambert, Beth Bye, Bob Duff, Bob Godfrey, Bruce V. Morris, Bruce Zalaski, Carlo Leone, Catherine F. Abercrombie, Charles D. Clemons, Chris Perone, Christopher A. Wright, Christopher L. Caruso, David A. Baram, David A. Scribner, DebraLee Hovey, Diana S. Urban, Donald J. DeFronzo, Douglas McCrory, Edith G. Prague, Edward Meyer, Eileen M. Daily, Eric D. Coleman, Ernest Hewett, Ezequiel Santiago, Gail K. Hamm, Gary A. Holder-Winfield, Gary D. LeBeau, Gerald M. Fox, Henry J. Genga, Jason W. Bartlett, Jeffrey J. Berger, Jim Shapiro, Joan A. Lewis, Joe Aresimowicz, John A. Kissel, John C. Geragosian, John W. Thompson, Joseph C. Serra, Joseph J. Crisco, Joseph S. Mioli, Juan R. Candelaria, Karen Jarmoc, Kathleen M. Tallarita, Kelvin Roldan, Kenneth P. Green, Kevin D. Witkos, Larry B. Butler, Lawrence G. Miller, Lile R. Gibbons, Linda M. Gentile, Livvy R. Floren, Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey, Martin M. Looney, Mary Ann Handley, Mary M. Mushinsky, Maryanne Hornish, Matthew J. Conway, Michael P. Lawlor, Michelle L. Cook, Minnie Gonzalez, Pamela Z. Sawyer, Patricia A. Dillon, Patricia B. Miller, Paul Davis, Paul R. Doyle, Peter F. Villano, Russell A. Morin, Steven T. Mikutel, Susan M. Johnson, T.R. Rowe, Themis Klarides, Thomas A. Colapietro, Thomas J. Drew, Toni E. Walker, Vincent J. Candelora, William Aman
 
Take note of the name Minnie Gonzalez, a representative who purported to be sensitive and concerned about issues related to Protective Mothers.  Were we deceived?
 
So getting back to this wonderful problem solving intiative, what kind of "problem solving" do we have going on here?
 
We have a program that ostensibly seeks to increase a "parent's"--they won't say father even though this is arising from a "Responsible Fatherhood" initiative and fathers are its primary focus--ability to work, a parent's ability to pay child support, and, among other things, surprise, surprise, assist parents in strengthening their relationship with their children. 

That wouldn't be by switching custody from the Protective Mother to the "parent" would it? 

Further talking about deception, the example, denoted touchingly as "A Parent's Story" which the Pilot Report chooses to discuss in regard to the Fatherhood Initiative is a Woman. 

Right! 

We are going to begin our campaign to develop a responsible fatherhood program by focusing on a woman.  Yet, let's look at the statistics for this program.  It says that 86% of non-custodial parents served by this Pilot Program were men. 

And they couldn't find a good example of a man to use as the primary example of a case from this program? 

Of course not, because they are trying to disguise this Responsible Fatherhood program and the blatant sexism it represents as a Responsible Womanhood program!  And the reason why is, I suppose, because the program participants are so unsavory. 

Let's take a look at this "woman", the public image of this program,  and find out what she is like.   She hasn't seen or had any contact whatsoever with her thirteen year old child in ten years. 

She has no home, no employment, and no driver's license. 

She is diagnosed with bipolar and mood disorders, does not comply with her treatment program and is a self confessed "raging alcoholic." 

That tells you again why they had to use a woman as their primary example.  If most people read this description, and it was a guy, their first question would be, why in the world would you want to "assist this person in strengthening his relationship with his children."  They are using presumptions surrounding issues of gender to deflect from the immediate criticism they know they'd get if citizens in the State of Connecticut had any idea that this was going on. 

Did the people who conceptualized programs like this ever wonder about how the children would feel being forced to so called strengthen their relationship with a person who is so completely dysfunctional? 

Did they wonder how the Mothers would feel being forced to interact with Fathers who are "raging alcoholics"? 

I am sure they were not too delighted. 

And get this!  This is what is the most ridiculous, the majority of participants in this "problem solving" program, up to 73% of them, have criminal convictions.  You have to wonder whether some of these men were convicted for domestic violence or the sexual abuse of their children.  After all, nothing in the program guidelines would exclude them. 

And remember, approximately 30% of incarcerated individuals are psychopaths, and if you add other personality disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder, you get almost 2/3s of the prison population.

I am sure that makes the custodial parents even more delighted to hear about their ex coming around for bond strengthening activities. 

Oh, and Naturally, with such a difficult group of fathers--I mean, parents, to deal with, Problem Solving requires a "team approach" involving "the judicial authority, through the Family Support Magistrates; Support Enforcement Services, through a case manager; community resources and treatment providers; and the parties or litigants and their attorneys." 

I get it, this means it will cost lots and lots of money and lots of people are going to be making lots of money off these fathers. 

In 2010 when this Pilot Program For Problem Solving was underway, Judge Lynda Munro, Chief Administrative Judge of the family Division directed the project.  Judge Munro is notorious for her role as judge in multiple cases in which she supported abusive fathers in their custody battles against protective mothers. 

It has been two years since this Pilot Project began, and I am sure that it has been developed considerably since then.  In 2010, the authors of this project were happy to report that participants reported feeling really positive about their experience in the program.  

I am sure they did. 

 

Sunday, January 6, 2013

HHS FATHERHOOD FUNDS USED IN CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEMES THAT TRANSFER CUSTODY FROM PROTECTIVE MOTHERS TO VIOLENT AND ABUSIVE FATHERS!

I was speaking to some friends recently who told me that in the Magistrates Court in Hartford, representatives of Fatherhood Initiatives recruit clients right outside the courthouse doors. 
 
What is the purpose of these Fatherhood Initiatives?  Ostensibly, the purpose is to assist fathers in developing their job skills, to encourage them as parents and to provide them with peer support and improve their ability to meet their child support obligations. 
 
However, advocates have discovered a more suspect motivation for these contacts.
 
In a recent article entitled, "A Life Sentence" independent journalist Keith Harmon Snow spoke about how Family Court systems across America are taking children away from fit mothers and handing them over to abusive fathers in record numbers. 
 
The impetus behind this social trend arises from millions of dollars in funds handed over to the States by the Department of Health and Human Services.  I have seen different figures in terms of how much money is involved here, but I would guess that the best estimate is approximately $150 million per year in HHS money that is specifically designated to support fatherhood initiatives, plus around $4 billion designated for the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).  Particularly advantageous to those interested in taking advantage of this financial windfall, fathers in these programs are not required to adhere to TANF deadlines or work requirements that are normally a standard for accessing these funds.
 
Furthermore, there is very little oversight of this money, which means that such programs have gotten away with using fatherhood funds to assist abusive and violent fathers in custody battles against protective mothers.  These fathers are told that they have two choices -- risk jail for failure to pay child support, or embark on a custody battle to take the children from the Protective Mother and thus eliminate child support altogether. 
 
What would you choose? 
 
Thus, fathers who have had little contact with their children for years, who have physically and/or sexually abused the children and their mothers, often fathers just being released from jail, end up fighting and succeeding in getting custody with the collusion of family court services and mental health professionals. 
 
According to Anne Stevenson, a freelance journalist, since eligibility for these programs is not needs based these fatherhood funds can be distributed not only to low income fathers, but also to middle and upper middle class fathers, even billionaires.
 
The moment a protective mother goes to trial court in order to obtain back child support, or bring financial matters of any kind before family court, these funds get dispersed to the fathers. 
 
High Conflict Divorces are a particularly excellent source of funds for family courts that have been corrupted by fatherhood funds.  High conflict divorces release funds to a broad range of family court services, GALs, custody evaluators and mental health professionals who then get involved in the case. 
 
As columnist Anne Stevenson describes it, the HHS policy of subsidizing the homes and legal battles of unfit, unwilling, and violent fathers has "created a new breed of dangerous Welfare Kings".  In these custody cases, at the beginning "only the offender is sick, but when one violent offender gets custody, the whole family needs treatment.  Consequently, it is also not uncommon for dozens of family court mental health and legal professionals to come onto such a case to sustain an abusive father's deadly custody rights through HHS programs."

The result is that everyone, sometimes even the judges, ends up getting a payoff. 
 
I have avoided discussing this matter simply because of the enormity of this situation.  How do you grapple with such a monolithic violation of the human rights of protective mothers, not only in Family Courts throughout the nation, but also here in Connecticut, in our own communities, right on our front doorsteps! 
 
To grasp the extent of it, try typing variants of the words  "Fatherhood Initiative in Connecticut" into google--you end up with hit after hit. 
 
One of the top results I obtained when I started my investigation on google was the "John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut" which operates apparently under the auspices of the Connecticut Department of Social Services. 
 
Under this initiative, according to information sheets the Initiative provides, funds are directed towards assisting fathers in connection to custody.  For example, the sheet "Financing Fatherhood Programs" states that "Welfare funds can be used to assist never-married parents to develop joint parenting plans, develop marriage and relationship building skills, or for mediation services." 
 
Under "Building Services to Help Fathers" the information sheet says, "TANF dollars can be used to support a variety of services for fathers--employment assistance, counseling, parenting plans,  mediation, parenting education, substance abuse and domestic violence." 
 
According to Anne Stevenson, what this amounts to is that, for the purpose of switching custody from protective mothers to abusive fathers, those fathers who agree to engage in custody  battles are provided with free attorneys, free housing, free groceries, free car maintenance, gas, and other transportation costs, free healthcare and dental care, plus cash, while having all their child support obligations suspended. 
 
This information sheet further advises "policymakers", which I assume includes legislators, to "use the budget process to direct funding for the development of fatherhood programs and services." In addition, it advises them to "Use TANF funds to make competitive grants to local programs that operate fatherhood programs." and "Direct agencies to use TANF funds to assist fathers." 
 
With all these millions and millions of dollars directed towards supporting fathers, what chance do protective mothers have?
 
And these information sheets caution, "States are not spending millions of dollars in TANF resources" that are still waiting and available.  Plus, not only are there millions and millions of dollars in TANF resources out there that still need to be used, States can tap into more fatherhood funding if they approach other resources like WtW and Title XX block grants. 
 
Can you see that this is so mind boggling that I have delayed reporting on it?  I just couldn't even begin to comprehend such a monstrous situation. 
 
What this does, of course, is make me look back on my own family court case and on the many cases I have discussed on this blog and ask:  Were fatherhood funds behind each of these custody battles?  I have only just begun my investigation of this subject matter, and will continue to write more about it.  But if anyone has a comment and/or any personal experience with this issue, I would be interested in hearing from you.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

KEITH HARMON SNOW'S "SCREW THE BITCH": A QUICK OVERVIEW

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE CASES GROSSLY MISHANDLED.

On February 15, 2011 eight year old Max Liberti's behavior was so extreme that his mother, Sunny Kelley, had become desperate. All the evidence indicated that Max was being raped and tortured. At the time, Dr. Eli Newberger, M.D., an expert in child abuse who teaches at Harvard Medical School, heard that Max was having suicidal thoughts. Dr. Newberger was seriously concerned for the boy's life.

Furthermore, Max had become increasingly psychotic and uncontrollable, running around groping adults' privates, singing songs about killing himself, or dissociating, staring off, lost in space, unreacheable by his mother or the other women trying to protect and care for him. Max was hitting himself in the face, and talking about death.

Similarly, Lori Hanrahan faced her own nightmare. Her daughter, Mila, was being raped by her husband. As she explains it, in June 2009 her daughter, Mila, came home with a shredded vagina and experts concluded that her husband, Igor, had raped her.

Both Sunny Kelley and Lori Hanrahan are well respected members of their community. Sunny is a white, middle class, affluent, 38 year-old professional sound engineer living in Southern Connecticut.

Lori Hanrahan is a Professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington, D.C. Her credentials are impeccable: Over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world. She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in The New York Times.

AUTHORITIES AND FAMILY COURTS COLLUDE WITH SEXUAL ABUSERS TO PERPETUATE THE ABUSE.

"I spent two years in Maine, from 2008 to 2010, where by court order I was forced to traffick my daughter and deliver her to her father." Lori breaks down and sobs over the phone. "They made me traffic my daughter or go to jail."

In Sunny's case, there was a divorce trial which was held over the course of fourteen days in August 2011 with four additional days in October. The end result was that the Judge in the case, Lynda Munro, gave full custody of Max Liberti to his father on a silver platter. Since that time, Sunny has been denied access to her child.

Instead of the protection that they deserved from the legal system, that system delivered both Lori Handrahan's daughter, Mila, and Sunny Kelley's son, Max, to their sexual abusers. Both of these abusers were supported by the courts and appear to be part of sex crime networks. Both mothers are fighting for their children's lives at the expense of their own. They have been slandered, disabused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened and attacked. They have been financially devastated.

Still, they have fought back on behalf of their children, but the more they have fought the more the system has restricted hammered and punished them. Every move they have made has brought further retaliation upon them. And they are not alone. It is the same story for Susan Skipp (Tittle v. Tittle), Sandra McVicar (McVicar v. Buggy), Marlene Debek (Bhatia v. Debek), Lisa Foley (Foley v. Foley), Elizabeth Richter (Richter v. Richter), and many more.

Yet, unlike some protective mothers who now live on the streets or in their cars or committed to mental health asylums, mothers like Sunny Kelley, Lori Handrahan, Susan Skipp, Sandra McVicar, Marlene Debek, Lisa Foley and Elizabeth Richter have not succumbed to the institutionalized corruption and criminality served on them in an effort to silence and destroy them--and deliver their children to the abusers. They are broke; they are exhuasted; they are depressed and disillusioned: How can society have let them down so badly? And yet, they are courageous beyond belief. And they are still fighting.

Some mothers have taken the law into their own hands and attempted to flee. For example, the documentary film "No Way Out But One" tells the story of Holly Collins, a protective mother persecuted by the family court system for trying to protect her children. A family court ignored Holly Collin's complaints of sexual and domestic violence, and the physical evidence of serious child abuse, and gave full custody of her children to her abusive ex-partner. Holly Collins became an international fugitive when she fled the United States in 1994 and became the first U.S. citizen to gain asylum in the Netherlands.

In January 1993, Linda Wiegand, a resident of the State of Connecticut, found out that the father of her second son, Thomas Wilkinson, had sexually abused her older child Ben as well as Thomas. Even though there was overwhelming evidence that the children had been sexually abused, it was not enough evidence for the Connecticut Family Court System. Thus, in January of 1994, Linda Wiegand disappeared with her children. Then in July 1996 Wiegand was found and arrested in Las Vegas, and both children were delivered to their abuser.

THE MEDIA IS SILENT.

Every effort to get media exposure for these two women's stories--whether through the New York Times or Nightline or the Associated Press, or CBS-affiliated local TV stations like WABI in Portland, or regional papers like the Portland Herald Press or the Hartford Courant--was initially met with great interest as journalists and bureau chiefs recognized "hot" stories. After a short time one promise of imminent and certain publication after another turned into refusals to return phone calls or emails. Threatened or silenced by someone, the "hot" stories went cold.

While Sunny Kelley ad most other protective parent's stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan's efforts to save Mila have resulted in a very high profile case garnering national atatention--thanks to the internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country. Still major social netowrking media--Twitter and Facebook and others--have also censored Lori and Mila's story.

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

The roads to these mothers' hell are virtually the same, and they are unique only in particulars, not in generalities. Each year, tens of thousands of families across America are being ripped apart through Family Courts and private profiteering, protecting and growing trafficking in women and children in America.

Investigations have uncovered a web of corruption involving state agencies from Connecticut to Maine, from Georgia to California. Investigations have involved FBI agents, but as often as not the FBI is part of the problem, not the solution and information delivered to the FBI is suppressed, ignored or used against the people trying to defend children and mothers from abuse.

The problems with Family Courts pervade all levels of the federal and state systems, and no United States citizen are immune: rich and poor are exploited, only differently. At the root of the problem are these central truths:

1. The five billion dollar a year budget of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provides a black hole of funding that filters millions of dollars down to "gatekeepers" posted to key positions in Family Courts, State Agencies, Law Enforcement, and affiliated non-profit organizations that have learned to milk the system;

2. Over the past 40 years, the destructive 'Father's Rights movement has evolved into a hydra that has overtaken judicial systems and social services, and it now uses them to persecute mothers and destroy families according to the otherwise reasonable dictate that access and visitation with both parents is in 'the best interest of the child';

3. The United States is both a domestic and an international hub for a trillion dollars a year sex industry trafficking in women and children.

Of course, it is not only women and children who are abused--across the nation, good men and good fathers are waking up to the national epidemic of pedophilia and sex trafficking involving federal and state governments and officials, and the horrors of 'Family Courts'.

READ ON.

For more information on these matters, please locate the more lengthy article at the following link: