PART II: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE MUNRO TELLS MORE LIES...

In the Memorandum of Decision in this case dated October 16, 2012, on page 13 going to the top of page 14, Judge Lynda Munro discusses information related to the childrens' psychologist, Dr. Sidney Horowitz.  However, as with everything Judge Munro states, there is crucial information not included in her narrative. 

 

So first let's get to what Judge Munro does say. 

 

She states that Dr. Sidney Horowitz recused himself from his role as the childrens' psychologist because Ms. Skipp sent him so many emails--he said around 22 per day for 18 months.  Apparently, Dr. Horowitz found these emails so "relentless" and their "contents so charged" that he could no longer treat the children because he was biased against their mother. 

 

Further, Judge Munro deplores the fact that the children have lost the safe haven such therapy with Dr. Horowitz would have provided. 

 

Of course, I dispute the definition of an email that this discussion presumes.  For example, when I write an email, it is a thing of beauty ordinarily including at least several paragraphs.  I can recall putting together several such emails during the course of my divorce case. 

 

However, when it comes to Susan Skipp, an email really consists of maybe one or two sentences.  So if Susan wrote 22 emails in a single day of sending out one or two sentence emails, that very same amount would be 1 very lengthy email with 22 or more sentences on it were it me.  Since Susan wrote all these emails on her cell phone, my guess is what she did was more like texting than emailing.

 

So initially although it sounds quite alarming that Susan sent out 22 emails in a single day, if she sent that many--I doubt it--once you get they were most likely single sentence emails, it doesn't seem to be quite as exciting.  I also believe that the reason why Susan Skipp sent out so many emails was because frequently no one answered her emails and she was insisting on getting an answer!  

 

Now let's move to the more important issues that Judge Lynda Munro does not mention in connection to Dr. Sidney Horowitz.  

 

For 18 months Dr. Sidney Horowitz had received these emails from Susan Skipp and did not choose to resign from the case.  

 

The actual impetus for Dr. Horowitz's resignation was that on March 24, 2012 Ms. Skipp sent to Dr. Horowitz an email stating "In addition to my children's records with your notes, please provide the diagnosis for which insurance agrees to provide long term therapy and an itemized billing since your involvement with our family." 

 

The very next day, suddenly and without warning, on March 25, 2012, Dr. Sidney Horowitz sent an email to the Guardian Ad Litem resigning from the case. 

 

Dr. Horowitz also stated, and Judge Lynda Munro included this point in her Memorandum of Decision, that it was "the first time in his professional career that I have recused myself from" a case. However, Dr. Sidney Horowitz was lying when he said that and thus he perjured himself.  In fact, he recused himself from at least another case:  Granjales v. Bell, 2009 WL 3086476, 16 (Conn. Super. 2009), and I'll bet I'd find more if I scratched the surface a bit. 

 

What Susan Skipp had discovered was that from August 23, 2010 until December 19, 2011, Dr. Horowitz was billing the children's insurance company (Aetna) with the diagnosis code of 296.22 which is "major depressive disorder."  As Dr. Horowitz testified on the Stand on August 15, 2012, the children do not have this diagnosis--their diagnosis is Adjustment Disorder. 

 

To me it appears quite obvious that Dr. Horowitz billed for the more serious diagnosis so that he could receive a higher financial reimbursement from the insurance company for that diagnosis. 

 

What he did was fraud and malpractice pure and simple. 

 

During the trial, Dr. Sidney Horowitz stated that the mistake in the diagnostic code was simply a "clerical error" and no more.  However, the description Susan Skipp provides regarding how the diagnostic code was included on the billing precludes the possibility that it could have been a clerical error.  

 

She states, "I witnessed the manner in which Dr. Horowitz submitted his billing.  At the end of each session with the children, Dr. Horowitz would fill out a billing statement, and hand write a diagnosis code onto each statement.  He would then have me carry the statement to the office receptionist.  At that point, I would pay the co-pay for the visit." 

 

In other words, Dr. Horowitz wrote out the incorrect diagnostic code onto statements he filled out for 18 months until Susan Skipp confronted him. 

 

Thus, Dr. Horowitz's explanation is simply not credible. 

 

In his testimony on August 15, 2012, Dr. Sidney Horowitz also stated that another reason for his decision to recuse himself from the case was because Susan Skipp filed a Motion In Limine in regard to his testimony.  However, this Motion in Limine was filed on April 24, 2012, well after Horowitz had recused himself.  So, in essence, Dr. Horowitz perjured himself again with that explanation. 

I would only ask the question of why Judge Lynda Munro allowed Dr. Horowitz to commit such obvious acts of perjury without holding him accountable. 

 

Once Susan Skipp began to suspect there were problems with Dr. Horowitz's billing practices, she then requested itemized billing statements from both Dr. Horowitz himself and his office staff.  In addition, Ms. Skipp requested copies of her childrens' medical records.  Dr. Horowitz refused to respond to either request, which is a violation of her rights, and, in my opinion, a tacit acknowledgement of his wrongdoing.  After all, if he didn't do anything wrong, why would he feel the need to withhold the requested documents?  

 

Then, in the course of making these requests, in talking to Dr. Horowitz's receptionist, Susan Skipp discovered that Dr. Horowitz only utilized one chart for both of her children.  In essence, Dr. Horowitz was billing the insurance company for both children solely under the name of the oldest child.  This again is a questionable practice. It is a standard procedure in medical offices for each client to have an individual file.  Otherwise, how can you possibly differentiate between them?

 

I can only imagine the shock, confusion and betrayal that Susan Skipp must have felt when she finally understood the nature of the original incorrect diagnosis that Dr. Sidney Horowitz had given her children.  Yes, Dr. Horowitz did call up the insurance company and reported what he had done wrong.  However, he never gave Susan Skipp a call to explain what had been going on.  For the entire 18 months the children were in his care, he had refused to provide any diagnosis to Susan, despite her frequent requests that he do so.  It is only reasonable that a mother should be kept informed regarding her childrens' diagnoses.  It is her  right to know. 

Eventually, Susan Skipp found out on her own that her children had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and became extremely alarmed.  She called up the GAL who told her the diagnosis was no big deal.  Then not long after that her daughter expressed some suicidal thoughts and Susan Skipp naturally became extremely distraught.  I will discuss this more in a later blog.

Meanwhile, the bottom line is that what Dr. Sidney Horowitz did is a serious violation of his professional ethics and he should have been held accountable for his actions. Instead, Judge Lynda Munro gave him a free pass and lied about what happened not only through the omission of facts, but also by lying outright.   

 

Once you know that Dr. Horowitz committed insurance fraud, how can you possibly trust anything Dr. Horowitz has to say. 

 

What is clear to anyone who reads Dr. Horowitz's testimony is that he found Susan Skipp's insistence on the truth annoying, while he found Shawn Tittle's obsequious fawning much more preferable.  As Dr. Horowitz reported, he really liked the father because, in his words, Mr. Tittle asked me for the names of books and articles to read and "echoed back to me that he understood" my recommendations.  What an ego boost it must have been for Dr. Horowitz having Mr. Tittle echo back his ideas. 

How could the Skipp children ever find a "safe haven" with a narcissistic, lying fraud like Dr. Sidney Horowitz?  That's my question.   

 

So, again, Judge Lynda Munro repeatedly omits and skews major parts of the story in her Memorandum of Decision regarding this case.  That is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do and disgraceful on the part of a Judge who is sworn to uphold the law. 

More on this later

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html
 

PART I: UWY-FA10-4022991-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO LIES, LIES, AND LIES AGAIN

I am one of these people who came from a very dysfunctional family from very early in my life, and one of the first thing I learned from that was how to keep my mouth shut.  If there was one thing my parents were very firm about, it was that what happens in the family, stays in the family.  Blood is blood.  It was a kind of family honor type thing. 

 

So when I ended up in therapy at the age of ten as the Identified Patient, I spent two years going to sessions on a weekly basis, staring silently at the psychologist.  Then, what I learned as the years went by is: it's a man's world, keep your mouth shut. 

 

So, you can imagine how I felt when I met Susan Skipp.  Because this is a person who will not keep silent, who will not compromise, and who expects to be treated as a human being.   This is a woman speaking up and speaking out about the corruption of family court! 

 

So what happened in this case? Again, I'll tell you right up front so you don't have to live with the suspense.  Basically, Susan Skipp lost custody of her two children and is no longer able to see them. 

 

How did this happen? 

 

I'd say through a lot of bullying and lying, and through the spread of misrepresentations, and half truths. 

 

Who did the most of it? 

 

Well, there are a lot of competitors for this position, but I'd say Judge Lynda Munro truly wins the title in this particular case as the person who lied the most. 

 

For example, In the opening paragraph of her Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012, Judge Lynda Munro implies that both parties were on an equal footing during the court proceedings, i.e.  "Both counsel tried this case with experience and skill." 

 

Oh, give me a break. 

 

The bottom line is that for much of the time in this case Susan Skipp  was forced to represent herself.  She was lucky enough to obtain representation for the trial at the last minute.  However, let's be clear.  Susan's attorney had around one year of experience and maybe five weeks to prepare, while Shawn's attorney had over thirty years of experience and a couple years to prepare. 

 

The end result is that Shawn's attorney got away with a few things; for example, bringing in numerous exhibits that were not disclosed prior to trial.  And just, no matter how hard Susan's attorney worked, and no matter how smart she was, and she was smart, one year of experience is going to be struggling in the face of thirty.

 

Next, Judge Munro states, "Both were respectful to the parties and witnesses."  No, that simply isn't true.  I watched the entire trial.  During the proceedings, Shawn's attorney was bullying and disrespectful towards Susan Skipp and Judge Munro did nothing to stop it.  I don't think anyone should be subjected to that kind of treatment.  

 

Later in the Memorandum of Decision, Judge Munro misreports an incident which occurred with the father and places it within a false context.  Apparently, prior to judgment Shawn Tittle drove his car into the side of a fast food restaurant in the take out lane. 

 

Judge Munro explained away the incident, stating that it happened because Mr. Tittle was exhausted from work and that the situation may have been made worse by the ADHD medication he was taking. 

 

What Judge Munro doesn't say is that Shawn Tittle was charged with DUI and that he plea bargained his way out of the charges. 

 

Hello!  Innocent people go to trial and are cleared of the charges.  

 

She also doesn't mention the fact that Mr. Tittle attempted to evade responsibility by driving away from the scene of an accident and had to be pursued by police cars. In addition, it came out in court that Shawn switched places with his passenger in order to escape charges.

 

That,  ladies and gentlemen, is illegal.  It is not the behavior of a reliable or responsible person. 

 

Susan Skipp was perfectly within her rights to raise concerns about the father after this incident, and the idea that she should have shut up about it is ridiculous.

 

Another incident Judge Munro talks about is when Susan Skipp filed a complaint with the police because she believed that her ex, Shawn Tittle, tried to hit her with his car.  Judge Munro attempts to invalidate Susan's decision to file a complaint because 1) Shawn denied it, and 2) according to Judge Munro's reporting of the story, a witness told the police "he did not think the driver was trying to hit" Susan. 

 

In fact, what the witness said was that he could not state with certainty what the driver was trying to do.  And, of course, that would be rather hard to know exactly what the driver was trying to do.   

 

What Judge Munro fails to include in her discussion is the fact that during her testimony Susan stated very credibly that she believed that Shawn was trying to hit her.  Without that added point, you do not get the full flavor of the testimony in regard to that incident, i.e. that Susan was sincerely afraid for her life. 

 

In regard to DCF, Judge Munro repeatedly stated that when Susan called DCF, the department did not substantiate any abuse.  However, what I heard during court testimony is that Susan called DCF at one point because she was concerned that the children were not being  fed. 

 

When DCF visited Shawn Tittle's home they found the refridgerator in the kitchen was empty and the children stated that they were hungry. 

 

To me, these kinds of results indicate that calling DCF wasn't frivolous as Judge Munro would like to imply.  

 

Judge Munro also belittled the fact that Susan called DCF expressing concerns about the many guns Shawn owns.  Apparently, he owns 9 firearms, 6 of them handguns.  Of course, whether Shawn stored those guns safely or not as a rule, that is hard to determine.  The bottom line is that Susan had reported that Shawn had threatened her with them, and that  explains why she focused on them and expressed her concerns regarding the way in which Shawn handled the guns.

 

One thing I would say, particularly after Newtowne, is why would any man with young children hold onto a bunch of guns?  Haven't there been enough accidents with children and guns, let alone bloodbaths committed by minors at their schools with guns, for any sensible man to get rid of them?  Plus, how many guns are enough?  Do you really need nine?

 

Doesn't this alone call into question Shawn Tittle's capacity for good judgment?  

 

How many men have used guns to kill family members, particularly during a highly contentious divorce? 

 

Granting that, it seems to me that Susan's expressions of anxiety and distress regarding the guns was fully justified.  I feel a terrible sense of dread and foreboding just seeing a gun.  I could just imagine the distress Susan felt knowing her ex had a whole bunch of them. 

 

And talking about good judgment, how about the "isolated prejudgment incident regarding some hair pulling" that Judge Munro mentioned in her whitewashing comments in connection to Shawn Tittle's behavior.  Apparently, Shawn Tittle pulled his son's hair as a means of discipline.  I'm sorry, I would never pull a child's hair as a method of discipline.  That is entirely inappropriate. 

 

And don't tell me that it was a single incident.  A person who does this once, will do it again and again, or do something else very similar. 

 

What bothers me here is the pattern I see emerging in these kinds of Memoranda of Decision, in case after case where fit mothers lose custody of their children. 

 

Whatever the father does wrong is no big deal--mother is exaggerating and overreacting as a way to alienate the father from the children. 

 

However, whatever the mother does wrong is an overwhelming disgrace for which mother should be condemned and lose access to her children completely. 

 

For example, Judge Munro is highly indignant that Susan took the children out of school for two days in order to share some vacation time with them.  Of course, I'd get the indignation if the children were failing academically, but that isn't the case. 

 

I had a friend once who took her child out of school for a week on a trip to Mexico simply because that was when the timeshare was available.  No one thought that was a big deal.  The school simply gave the child a packet of assignments to complete while she was away.  So why does two days all of a sudden become a capital crime? 

 

Perhaps because Judge Munro was desperately seeking a justification for trashing Susan in order to deny her custody. 

 

The other thing Judge Munro does is condemn Susan because on occasion--maybe twice--she was very late picking her children up from school.  I don't know, I remember years ago, I was so exhausted that I fell asleep on a couch and ended up being late picking my son up from day camp.  So shoot me, why don't you. 

 

In the 29 pages of this Memorandum of Decision, Judge Munro only acknowledges in a single sentence that several witnesses spoke about what a great mother Susan Skipp is, "The defendant's better qualities as an active and attentive parent were detailed in their testimony." 

 

You know, you'd think that in a Memorandum of Decision written to determine which parent should have custody of the children that the judge would have a lot more to say on this topic.  

 

Further, in her testimony on the stand Susan was able to provide detailed information in regard to her role as a mother.  You could see her entire face light up with joy when she spoke of them. 

 

One of Susan's older daughters took the time to take the stand and speak in support of her mother.  This daughter had graduated from college and was leaving in a few days for England where she is going to study for a Master's Degree. 

 

I had the opportunity to speak to this young lady and she was a bright, personable, capable and independent woman.

Clearly, Susan's parenting counted for something.  Unless you are a judge like Judge Munro and your agenda is to take custody from a good mother like Susan Skipp in another one of Connecticut's famous custody switching schemes.  

 

More on this later... 

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html



 

 

  

MS. SUSAN SKIPP'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON JANUARY 14, 2013

Testimony Jan 14, 2013

In opposition to Judge Robert Resha's reappointment:

Sen. Meyer before I begin, I'd like to comment on some issues raised during this hearing. Given your investigatory background, here's something worth investigating. With the exception of high noon shootouts, there is no hyperbole in the statement that Family Court in Connecticut is the Wild West, replete with racketeering and extortion; not only involving judges and attorneys, but mental health providers appointed by court. See addendum to this. Sen Doyle, the GAL issue is part of this corruption.

 A GAL is a function of the family court, a judiciary function. Some examples of this corruption and collusion are:

How can an arm of the judiciary, a GAL obstruct a DCF investigation which is an executive function? Also family GALs have no oversight; the only way of grievance is to file a complaint against an attorney, yet a GAL is not regarded as attorney.

Family court GALs aside from no oversight are given immunity - this in itself is a violation of the constitution as only an office, not a person can have immunity. Further, I was billed over 100k for a GAL who was neither agreed to or even appointed! She provided no time sheets, no affidavits of fees. The court just ordered payment for a services that were not even performed.

The reason I am before you is to inform you that Judge Resha is not worthy of promotion to senior judge. He is a metaphor for the existential crisis that faces the state's court system, especially in Family Court. The graft, corruption, collusion and unlawfulness that plagues Connecticut's Family Court System, an industry of incentivized conflict to extract as much money as possible from litigants, is symbolized by Judge Robert Resha.

I am speaking for many who have been subject to his court and fear further retribution as I have incurred retributive consequences when questioning the unlawful actions that have taken place in Judge Resha's court. Since he is recused, I can speak, although I still fear further retaliation.

Judge Resha cannot conduct court in accordance with the law of the people of Connecticut, nor respect the rules of practice nor the code of evidence. I invite anyone to consult my file UWY FA 10-422992s to find extensive examples of trier misconduct and collusion with attorneys. I have been denied due process, participatorial and testimonial access -and even the right to an attorney in Judge Resha's court room. Aside from allowing a non litigant to sue a defendant and be awarded sanctions in his court, Resha has ignored blatant child abuse in testimony of four mandated reporters. On another occasion In March 2012, Judge Resha ruled that picking up a child by the hair does not constitute abuse.

Judge Resha made an order about gun safety in my former husband's home, twice in February 2011 and yet did nothing when my former husband refused to cooperate with weapons surrender in a restraining order when it was before his court on August 1, 2011; even when testimony provided the still illegal status of weapons. Judge Resha continues to harm victims of domestic and family violence with abuse by proxy.

Since no one really seems to care --beyond ineffective committees-- to address gender bias in court, domestic and family violence, I will cite what people seem to care about because it is certainly not the safety and well being of my children and me. Here is something more palatable than the rampant child abuse and pedophilia that is unaddressed in not only Resha's, but many family courts in Connecticut:

Judge Resha violated the constitutional rights of Danbury Hospital when he made a judicial finding of fact on 28 December 2011, in which he found that Danbury Hospital did engage in unethical and illegal behaviour by terminating the employment of Dr. Shawn Tittle for speech of a third party. He did this in a proceeding of family matters.

However, when he made this ruling, Danbury Hospital was not party to the proceedings. No notice or summons for a complaint of the Hospital's conduct regarding employment law was given to Danbury Hospital.

No evidence entered on the record revealed the basis for the finding in regard to the termination of Dr. Tittle. Danbury Hospital gave no testimony as no representative from the Hospital was before Judge Resha. The Code of Evidence was willfully neglected by the judge.

Judge Resha has no knowledge of why or how Danbury Hospital terminated employment of Dr. Tittle. The court record contains no evidence. Yet this judge has the ability to create facts of the court where none exist. Then this determination was used to deny me my fundamental constitutional rights as a parent.

The judge made a conclusion that was not based on facts. He made many such conclusions based on plaintiff's allegations rendering them as facts without evidence and assailing my character thus affecting my professional life. The judge violated Canon and conscience in conducting a court hearing, without concern for proper proceedings, constitutional protections nor simple decency.

The State does not need to populate the bench with persons such as Robert Resha. He is merely tyranny personified. His conduct is an affront to the taxpayers of Connecticut.

I ask you today not to promote this mistake of jurisprudence to the level of senior judge. He deserves censure and to be thrown off the bench.

If there is any standard of care in the people's selection of its judges, then Robert Resha should not be selected as a senior judge by honest act of the people of this State. Our citizens deserve better, and it is your duty to serve the citizens. Having been only recently aware of the ability of making a complaint on a judge, consider this a complaint that I will follow up in writing.

Thank you in advance for not selecting Robert Resha for a position of senior judge in our state. It is difficult to encapsulate 18 months of egregious misconduct into three minutes.

Again, Please read for further issues plaguing court: the racketeering, collusion and extortion that takes place between judges lawyers and mental health providers. This is typical of my case.

Susan Skipp

 

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:

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/05/a-life-sentence-family-courts-sacrificing-mothers-and-children-in-america/