I couldn’t agree more with this piece in Lisa Belkin’s Motherlode blog at the New York Times (New York Times, 8/26/10).
It’s written by an attorney named Chris Gottlieb who defends parents in cases in which the child protection agency accuses them of abuse or neglect and wants to take their kids and put them in foster care. In short, Gottlieb works in the trenches of one of the most emotionally difficult areas of law, and, having done so, she’s got some things to say about CPS and the courts that adjudicate those matters.
And what she says is much like what I and so many others have been saying for years. Judges and caseworkers are supposed to figure out which parents truly are a danger to their children or are unable to care for them. No one pretends that that is always an easy job; it isn’t. But that job has morphed into second-guessing legitimate parental decision making. As Gottlieb says,
One judge wants more discipline; another wants less. I have heard caseworkers criticize mothers for everything from giving their children Chinese takeout food or Kool-Aid (the mother told me orange juice was too expensive for her) to having beer in the house to letting a child get wet under a sprinkler. A judge ordered one of my clients to take her child to the park every day. Every day!
As Gottlieb points out, there is nothing in the law that permits that type of micromanagement of parents by government officials be they judges or caseworkers. The Constitution doesn’t permit it, but it happens every day, thousands of times a day. The camel’s nose is under the tent and it’s not going away. At the rate we’re going, the beast will be sitting down to dinner with us any day now.
And what gave the camel its opening? “The best interests of the child,” that’s what. As Gottlieb points out,
[O]nce government intervention in family life is authorized, the legal standard often becomes “best interests of the child.” How do courts and caseworkers determine what is in a child’s best interests? The same way the rest of us do: subjectively, inconsistently, and often erroneously.
She said a mouthful there. As it happens, I’m currently reading a book by Canadian academic Paul Millar in which he quotes clinical psychologists W. O’Donahue and A. R. Bradley on the subject of “the best interests of the child,” thus:
There is no useful operational definition of what the best interests of the child actually are. There is inconsistency across states of legal criteria for assessing the best interest of the child. There is a lack of consensus within the field of psychology as to what the relevant variables should be… The validity and reliability of standardized tests for use in custody assessments are largely unknown.
That’s the state of psychology on “the best interests of the child,” and yet how often do judges, who know far less about the matter than do psychologists, intone the mantra as if there were some certainty about the matter?
As Gottlieb makes clear, the vast majority of CPS cases don’t involve any form of abuse; rather, they’re about neglect, some of which of course is serious, but much of which is of the “Horrors, you gave the child Chinese take-out!” variety.
Governments tend to arrogate power to themselves when they can, and the breakdown of the traditional two-parent family has given states a golden (literally) opportunity to do just that. They’ve seized on family breakdown, not just to intervene in families in which children are truly at risk, but to substitute their own decisions about childcare for those of parents. ( Yakima County Commissioner Swanhart) “Kool-Aid? No, I think orange juice is better.”
There’s a reason that strangers on the train criticize Gottlieb for holding her baby too close to a newspaper or not dressing him to suit them. The loss of the two-parent family has absolutely terrified us, and with good reason. Children overwhelmingly do better in intact, two-parent families than anywhere else. And when that family system broke down, as it did years ago, governments, primarily in the form of CPS agencies and courts, stepped in.
That may be understandable, but it’s not right. What’s right is for governments to educate people about the importance to children of parents staying together if at all possible. And when it’s not possible, governments must do all they can to promote equal parenting after the split-up. Those two things will do far more and be far cheaper than all the micromanagement of parents done by all the caseworkers and judges in the world.
...Pretty simple huh?
Until you involve lawyers that are only concerned about billing for their hours and Judges that have their own agenda and prejudices.
Family court is huge business!
...
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Court Trial
"In a desperate attempt to maintain a relationship in the only ways possible (identification and alliance) with the parent who is, at the end of the alienation process, the only parent from a psychological and sometimes physical point of view, the child will mirror the personality and the distorted perceptions of the alienating parent. The blame for anxiety consequent to the insecurity of attachments will be externalized and attributed to the other parent."--social worker Leona Kopetski
Last week I had to attend a full day hearing/trial on child support. My ex wife Linda had a motion for such at an earlier hearing and the same commissioner that stole my children from me granted it to her.
What were the issues?
Linda did not believe I have cancer. This would affect her child support payment.
Linda did not believe I am divorced. This would affect her child support payment and I think what upset her most is that, she no longer has a reason to stalk Jan in an effort to get child support from her.
Linda had no evidence or facts to present to the judge and while not sworn in, continued to lie about the situation and facts. Bi polar disorder was very apparent as she attacked me.
She had her married live in boy friend and her girl friend that lied in statements to the court with her. They huddled together at recess like vultures circling to pick the last meat from a dying carcass.
These people are just low life scum that for what every reason have very low self esteem and by talking bad about or putting down someone else, seem to get a rush or boast to their egos in some twisted way.
Even as I was leaving the court room her boyfriend, that has destroyed him own marriage and family by bedding down Linda, mumbled this words to me; “thank god for the IRS.” I did stop and ask him what? What did you say? Like the worm he is, his head dropped and his mouth didn’t seem to work anymore. Trash gathers trash.
If your ex is like mine, protect all your love ones and do not think that the courts will be fair. You fight tooth and nail from the start with no holds barred because this will not be a fair fight and right will not win by default.
.....
Last week I had to attend a full day hearing/trial on child support. My ex wife Linda had a motion for such at an earlier hearing and the same commissioner that stole my children from me granted it to her.
What were the issues?
Linda did not believe I have cancer. This would affect her child support payment.
Linda did not believe I am divorced. This would affect her child support payment and I think what upset her most is that, she no longer has a reason to stalk Jan in an effort to get child support from her.
Linda had no evidence or facts to present to the judge and while not sworn in, continued to lie about the situation and facts. Bi polar disorder was very apparent as she attacked me.
She had her married live in boy friend and her girl friend that lied in statements to the court with her. They huddled together at recess like vultures circling to pick the last meat from a dying carcass.
These people are just low life scum that for what every reason have very low self esteem and by talking bad about or putting down someone else, seem to get a rush or boast to their egos in some twisted way.
Even as I was leaving the court room her boyfriend, that has destroyed him own marriage and family by bedding down Linda, mumbled this words to me; “thank god for the IRS.” I did stop and ask him what? What did you say? Like the worm he is, his head dropped and his mouth didn’t seem to work anymore. Trash gathers trash.
If your ex is like mine, protect all your love ones and do not think that the courts will be fair. You fight tooth and nail from the start with no holds barred because this will not be a fair fight and right will not win by default.
.....
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
What can love and respect do?
A child is a parents greatest gift from God...
If you have ever watched a video, watch this one.
If you have ever been hurt by your child, understand that only God and a willing heart can mend the pain.
Remember all the best, cut lose the rest and learn to live like you were dying.
Enjoy this video!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Take away the money and the kids will be the winners!
False accusations and Parental Alienation are terrible acts and all states should have a significant civil
remedy for it. The article below discusses a New Jersey case where apparently that is going to
happen.
From Henry Gottlieb's "Exes can sue over ruined ties to couple's children"
For the first time in New Jersey, a judge has recognized the right of parents to collect
damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress when their relationships with their
children are poisoned by former spouses.
Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli ruled on Nov. 21 that a man can sue his ex-wife
and her parents for allegedly turning his children against him by making false accusations
that he had committed sexual misconduct.
The central legal issue in the Hudson County case was whether the emotional distress
claim was a disguised complaint for alienation of affections, a cause of action New Jersey
abolished in 1935.
By then, America no longer believed cuckolded husbands deserved damages from their
wives' lovers or that the father of the bride should be able to sue the scoundrel who jilted
his daughter.
As recently as two months ago, defendants have invoked the law that abolished such actions
— the Heart Balm Act — to win summary dismissal of tort claims alleging that
parents and their children had been alienated by ex-spouses or other individuals.
But Gallipoli said an emotional distress claim is separate and distinct from the abolished
claim of alienation of affection. "Here, plaintiff is alleging that defendants' alienating
conduct has caused him emotional distress," he wrote in Smith v. Smith, Hud-L-1837-08.
"Thus emotional distress, not alienation of affections, is the predicate cause of action."
The decision creates the potential for a showdown in the Appellate Division...
Vincent and Rose Marie Smith were divorced in 2007 and though their two children live
primarily with her in Guilford, Conn., he is entitled to parenting time at his home in
Hoboken.
The damage suit alleges that the ex-wife and her parents, Daniel and Barbara Marese,
began alienating the children from the father during the predivorce separation in 2006.
The defendants falsely told the children, court-appointed psychiatrists and law
enforcement officials that the father was a sex addict and had molested the children in the
past, the suit says.
And it says the children are afraid to sleep at their father's house because they have been
told they are in danger of being sexually abused.
The wife and her parents denied the allegations and argued in motions to dismiss the suit
for failure to state a claim that the Heart Balm Act had eliminated the cause of action.
Indeed, they pointed out, the term "alienating the children" is what the complaint calls the
alleged wrong.
The defense supported its motion by citing three rulings in which courts had relied on the
Heart Balm Act to throw out damage claims involving children.
Gallipoli brushed aside two of the precedents as irrelevant from a factual or legal
standpoint. The third, Rand's decision in Segal, was on point but wrong, Gallipoli said.
In dismissing the father's claim in Segal, Rand wrote, "To sustain a claim for such
damages would result in a revival of evils not unlike those banned in 1935 and would be
an exceptionally ineffective technique for resolving matrimonial differences or custody
disputes."
In recognition of the family court's role, Gallipoli ruled that if Smith wants to seek
damages from his ex-wife he must do it in a post-judgment proceeding in family court. It
would still be a damage claim and the family court has the power to arrange jury trials.
Because the grandparents were not parties to the divorce action, the case against them can
continue in the civil court, the judge ruled.
Plaintiff's lawyer Resnick says suits like his have been rare because parents and their
lawyers have been content to fight for equitable relief in custody battles.
"They feel the ultimate sanction of a transfer of custody is enough," he says.
"But it's not enough because they still do it," he says of parents who make false
accusations to get the edge in custody battles. "They are never afraid of losing custody, so
the only other thing to do is hit them in the pocketbook or the wallet."
What do you think? Is PA over money? Is the custody fight over money? If not, is it just evil Evil?
Why do the courts award money as a reward?
If the parent loves and wants custody, why do they need paid more than an adoptive parent would receive?
So, it is about money. Money for the parent conducting PA and money for the attorney aiding in the process.
Anyone see where the children’s welfare is really addressed?
Anyone see where time and money was spent investigating the best environment for the children?
Does anyone care about anything but money in family court???
The system is just broken and the kids are the ones who suffer and whose future is changed forever…based on ones fight for money…
..................
remedy for it. The article below discusses a New Jersey case where apparently that is going to
happen.
From Henry Gottlieb's "Exes can sue over ruined ties to couple's children"
For the first time in New Jersey, a judge has recognized the right of parents to collect
damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress when their relationships with their
children are poisoned by former spouses.
Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli ruled on Nov. 21 that a man can sue his ex-wife
and her parents for allegedly turning his children against him by making false accusations
that he had committed sexual misconduct.
The central legal issue in the Hudson County case was whether the emotional distress
claim was a disguised complaint for alienation of affections, a cause of action New Jersey
abolished in 1935.
By then, America no longer believed cuckolded husbands deserved damages from their
wives' lovers or that the father of the bride should be able to sue the scoundrel who jilted
his daughter.
As recently as two months ago, defendants have invoked the law that abolished such actions
— the Heart Balm Act — to win summary dismissal of tort claims alleging that
parents and their children had been alienated by ex-spouses or other individuals.
But Gallipoli said an emotional distress claim is separate and distinct from the abolished
claim of alienation of affection. "Here, plaintiff is alleging that defendants' alienating
conduct has caused him emotional distress," he wrote in Smith v. Smith, Hud-L-1837-08.
"Thus emotional distress, not alienation of affections, is the predicate cause of action."
The decision creates the potential for a showdown in the Appellate Division...
Vincent and Rose Marie Smith were divorced in 2007 and though their two children live
primarily with her in Guilford, Conn., he is entitled to parenting time at his home in
Hoboken.
The damage suit alleges that the ex-wife and her parents, Daniel and Barbara Marese,
began alienating the children from the father during the predivorce separation in 2006.
The defendants falsely told the children, court-appointed psychiatrists and law
enforcement officials that the father was a sex addict and had molested the children in the
past, the suit says.
And it says the children are afraid to sleep at their father's house because they have been
told they are in danger of being sexually abused.
The wife and her parents denied the allegations and argued in motions to dismiss the suit
for failure to state a claim that the Heart Balm Act had eliminated the cause of action.
Indeed, they pointed out, the term "alienating the children" is what the complaint calls the
alleged wrong.
The defense supported its motion by citing three rulings in which courts had relied on the
Heart Balm Act to throw out damage claims involving children.
Gallipoli brushed aside two of the precedents as irrelevant from a factual or legal
standpoint. The third, Rand's decision in Segal, was on point but wrong, Gallipoli said.
In dismissing the father's claim in Segal, Rand wrote, "To sustain a claim for such
damages would result in a revival of evils not unlike those banned in 1935 and would be
an exceptionally ineffective technique for resolving matrimonial differences or custody
disputes."
In recognition of the family court's role, Gallipoli ruled that if Smith wants to seek
damages from his ex-wife he must do it in a post-judgment proceeding in family court. It
would still be a damage claim and the family court has the power to arrange jury trials.
Because the grandparents were not parties to the divorce action, the case against them can
continue in the civil court, the judge ruled.
Plaintiff's lawyer Resnick says suits like his have been rare because parents and their
lawyers have been content to fight for equitable relief in custody battles.
"They feel the ultimate sanction of a transfer of custody is enough," he says.
"But it's not enough because they still do it," he says of parents who make false
accusations to get the edge in custody battles. "They are never afraid of losing custody, so
the only other thing to do is hit them in the pocketbook or the wallet."
What do you think? Is PA over money? Is the custody fight over money? If not, is it just evil Evil?
Why do the courts award money as a reward?
If the parent loves and wants custody, why do they need paid more than an adoptive parent would receive?
So, it is about money. Money for the parent conducting PA and money for the attorney aiding in the process.
Anyone see where the children’s welfare is really addressed?
Anyone see where time and money was spent investigating the best environment for the children?
Does anyone care about anything but money in family court???
The system is just broken and the kids are the ones who suffer and whose future is changed forever…based on ones fight for money…
..................
Monday, July 5, 2010
Yakima WA family court system
Many people have wondered how such a thing could happen to me. To them, as it was to me…the whole concept of the allegations and court decision is inconceivable to them.
Below is from the court forum website and is the grading and comments on the commissioner that ruled in my case.
Take a look and fully understand that with a mother crying about abuse and threats, how the court can just ignore the evidence, Swanhart had a predisposed judgment in my case (perhaps she did not like my cowboy appearance) and it was clear to all the attorneys present in the court room. I have been there many times and many times, attorneys have spoken to me about my case and my chances of making a change in Swanhart court room.
Read below and understand;
24 complaints have recently been made against this commissioner Lani-Kai Swanhart and are available at the court forum site. 17 times they not only completed the survey of this commissioner but also left the comments below from attorneys, witness, staff members and litigants;
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
This Commissioner is completely clueless. I watched her now for a few years, and the best interest of children somehow always is never taken into consideration, and by the way she ruled, she was probably a less than adequate parent. This commissioner appears to lack any understanding of running a business, and therefore, she makes a complete idiot of herself on the bench. She has a strong biased towards men. She should not be on the bench, as her personal past, gets in the way of her ruling fairly. I give her a failing grade.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
This commissioner, was extremely biased towards me. Because of her lack of knowledge, she took the easy way out....This commissioner should not hold the position she does. Clearly, she also does not like the male figures, that have gone in front of her....I have sat in her court room several times and watched her, put the screws to men, time, and time again.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Commissioner Swanhart makes decisions with broad brushes and fails to understand or be able to cope with the complex dynamics involved in family law proceedings. She make rushed decisions, misunderstanding things and placing them in inappropriate categories and then doesn't want to hear things that do not fit into the model of the situation she has constructed. It is as if she is saying, "Don't bug me with facts, I have made up my mind." I also do not appreciate the way she treats people in general. She treats people as if she is an aristocrat and everyone before her, especially small and confused people, with little to no respect. In some instances, this is exemplified by pointless and cutting remarks directed at poor, misfortunate, people in an emotionally charged situation they are having difficulty understanding. Commissioner Swanhart is a fairly intelligent person, it is too bad she stoops to these cheap shots at people before her. In my opinion, she is burned out and has outlived her utility as a Commissioner and should move on.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
I have been in Commissioner Swanharts court room for many months now and have observed her rulings on issues that goes against evidence that was presented before her. It is personally appalling to me to see the court system abused in this manner. Many times she shows a pre conceived notion and bias towards and in favor of women. I have seen documents submitted for her review ignored in her decisions. I have witnessed a tongue lashing of a man accused of abusing his children and custody completely changed based on an interview of alienated children without any attempt by her court to investigate the allegations. In this case where the children were ordered into counseling with a Dr. and the mother refused and indeed violated 3 court orders for the mother to take the boys to treatment, Commissioner Swanhart did not find the mother in contempt. Commissioner Swanhart ordered for the mother to again seek treatment for the children with the Dr. and then, put situations on the Dr. and how he could conduct his sessions in his private practice. This was to appease the mother that did not want the Doctors finds or report to be submitted to the court. For commissioner Swanhart to limit a Doctors standard means of treatment after she ordered the children into treatment with him is outrageous behavior from a court commissioner. It seems that the input from a professional in child psychology is not permitted in her court room. Commissioner Swanhart shows no regard towards men, evidence or their side of any story. Indeed, she limits that input and refuses to rule in an unbiased and professional manner. Commissioner Swanhart is one of the reasons that common citizens have a deep mistrust of our court system.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
In this family case with extensive domestic violence and evidence to support it, Commissioner Swanhart found the mother in contempt for revealing the social workers, counselors, GALs, and other "friends of the court" were unethical, unprofessional, and noncompliant of court orders. It is a matter of litigants "keeping your mouth shut" when it comes to revealing the corruption running rampant in Yakima County Superior Court. Constitutional Due Process is something that she regularly ignores. The best interests of the children is a standard that she regularly ignores and, contrary to other postings, she is not biased just toward men. If a woman steps over the commissioner's line, she throws the gavel at her as readily as she would a man and will threaten with loss of custody if someone has the gumption to reveal the corruption of the courts to anyone.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Irresponsible, unparctical, and above all, biased, towards men in her court room. Swanharts, constant doodling, and unpleaseant personality, brings great concern to our Yakima county, Judicial system. Quite frankly, it is time for this commisioner, to step down, and seek, other employment.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Lani Kia Swanhart...I have been in this game for years, and it is always an unpleasant part of my day, to enter your court room. I would ask you to start reviewing the audios, of your bench time. I use a hearing device, that easily picks up everything you are saying, when you are on the bench. Your quiet, little conversations with these attorneys, is improper, and most of disgusting! Yakima county's SR judge should remove you, immediately. Your past, has clearly haunted you, over, and over. People ( men ), should not have to suffer, due to the infidelity, surrounding your personal life. You are washed up, your appearance is less than professional, as are your biased rulings.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Where do I begin!! I went with a friend that was going infront of this Judge....I got an eye opener that day!!! I must say, this Swanhart Judge is a poor excuse for our legal system....she is with out a doubt, a man hater, incompitent, and just a flat out poor excuse for a human being. I have heard stories of our Judges here in Yakima county, but I had no idea, it was this bad. I can say one thing is for sure, if Swanhart acted like that out in the real business world, she would be holding a sign, like the people on the street corners. As I watched people go infront of Swanhart this day, I felt such sorrow, for the familys that this Judge was affecting.....Two things come to mind, either this Judges childhood was severly scorned, or her adult life, has been riddled with failure. The sight of her turns my stomach now, as I know how wicked, and evil she is. I give her an F!!!!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Yakima Counties Sr. Judge, needs to look into the practices of this Commissioner. Her blatant disregard for fairness, is overshadowed by her extreme biased behavior towards the male figure. Her rulings are, impractical, and are very damaging to family's involved, especially children. This Commissioner, undoubtedly, needs to be reviewed by the Judicial review board.In the future, I will avoid this Commissioner, as much as possible. I have given Commissioner Swanhart, a failing grade.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
I appeared before this commissioner recently. Not only was she overloaded, she was quite annoying, to say the least. Her draconian behavior, and oversight of facts, are all to familiar, to the pompous attitude of Yakima county courts. I have failed this commissioner, and enough, is enough, to say the least!!
Made by: Staff/Personnel This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Words cannot properly describe the arrogance, of this Females disposition.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
The games this commissioner likes to play with peoples lives. Every time I am around her, she makes me sick!!!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Inconsistent, up and down, this commissioner is all over the place! Speaks down at you, has a negative outlook towards men, and was completely biased...Swanhart, you have made a mess of my kids life!!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
I had heard allot of negative things about this commisioner over the past 6 months, but had not been infront oif her, untill a while back. Saddly everything I had heard, is true. I witnessed parents loosing parental rights, one after the other, in simple divorce cases.....I have come to understand that ccommisioners are basically hired/appointed by our Supior court Judges. November 2012, could be a chance to bring
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
She is an embarrassment and an example of all that is wrong with the court system! I appeared before and she not only did she not read the information in my case, she did not even have my file! In her own words, in her court, in front of everyone she stated “I don’t have the file but in this case I don’t think I need it.” This is a court? This is judgment made on information before her? I don’t think so. She has made her decision before reviewing the case. Unbelievable! Get her out!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Well, this idiot gave me a contempt and totally does not seem to understand what the true meaning of contempt is. She is sexist and rascist against Fathers. Definantely helps her county/state make money off of father's who are made into slaves of the system. Its time for men to step up and overthrow a crooked and corrupt system of slavery.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
This commissioner has to go. Yakima and the family court system would be much better off without a court, then with this commissioner destroying families and lives. After having to set and listen to her belittle the men she has contact with, I found myself sick, sick in my stomach for those men that are having her biased rulings rammed down their throats while their male attorneys just feed them to this female wolf. I understand the attorneys not wanting to be on the bad side of this commissioner but how in the world can they let this injustice continue? Is the revolving money door that important? The last time I was in this court, this sad excuse for a judge was totally out of control on the very 1st case. The attorney was stating his case when Swanhart interrupted him and said his client had a credibility problem. This caught the attorney off guard and you could hear him say “What”. Swanhart responded with a smirk laugh “what, am I mumbling today?” This is outrageous and yet knowing the man she was accusing, made this totally unbelievable. I myself sat down at the court computer and went through that whole case. This commissioner Swanhart is totally off base on the whole case. No reasonable person could look at the documentation and come to the same conclusion as she stated at the hearing. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT SHE HAS A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THIS MAN AND PERHAPS MEN IN GENERAL. If she was elected, we could vote her out. As it stands, she needs fired as an out of control employee!
Do you understand now how the courts can aid in PA and destroy a family?
If you don't get anything else from this blog, understand this...family court has nothing to do with fairness or what is right!
......
Below is from the court forum website and is the grading and comments on the commissioner that ruled in my case.
Take a look and fully understand that with a mother crying about abuse and threats, how the court can just ignore the evidence, Swanhart had a predisposed judgment in my case (perhaps she did not like my cowboy appearance) and it was clear to all the attorneys present in the court room. I have been there many times and many times, attorneys have spoken to me about my case and my chances of making a change in Swanhart court room.
Read below and understand;
24 complaints have recently been made against this commissioner Lani-Kai Swanhart and are available at the court forum site. 17 times they not only completed the survey of this commissioner but also left the comments below from attorneys, witness, staff members and litigants;
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
This Commissioner is completely clueless. I watched her now for a few years, and the best interest of children somehow always is never taken into consideration, and by the way she ruled, she was probably a less than adequate parent. This commissioner appears to lack any understanding of running a business, and therefore, she makes a complete idiot of herself on the bench. She has a strong biased towards men. She should not be on the bench, as her personal past, gets in the way of her ruling fairly. I give her a failing grade.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
This commissioner, was extremely biased towards me. Because of her lack of knowledge, she took the easy way out....This commissioner should not hold the position she does. Clearly, she also does not like the male figures, that have gone in front of her....I have sat in her court room several times and watched her, put the screws to men, time, and time again.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Commissioner Swanhart makes decisions with broad brushes and fails to understand or be able to cope with the complex dynamics involved in family law proceedings. She make rushed decisions, misunderstanding things and placing them in inappropriate categories and then doesn't want to hear things that do not fit into the model of the situation she has constructed. It is as if she is saying, "Don't bug me with facts, I have made up my mind." I also do not appreciate the way she treats people in general. She treats people as if she is an aristocrat and everyone before her, especially small and confused people, with little to no respect. In some instances, this is exemplified by pointless and cutting remarks directed at poor, misfortunate, people in an emotionally charged situation they are having difficulty understanding. Commissioner Swanhart is a fairly intelligent person, it is too bad she stoops to these cheap shots at people before her. In my opinion, she is burned out and has outlived her utility as a Commissioner and should move on.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
I have been in Commissioner Swanharts court room for many months now and have observed her rulings on issues that goes against evidence that was presented before her. It is personally appalling to me to see the court system abused in this manner. Many times she shows a pre conceived notion and bias towards and in favor of women. I have seen documents submitted for her review ignored in her decisions. I have witnessed a tongue lashing of a man accused of abusing his children and custody completely changed based on an interview of alienated children without any attempt by her court to investigate the allegations. In this case where the children were ordered into counseling with a Dr. and the mother refused and indeed violated 3 court orders for the mother to take the boys to treatment, Commissioner Swanhart did not find the mother in contempt. Commissioner Swanhart ordered for the mother to again seek treatment for the children with the Dr. and then, put situations on the Dr. and how he could conduct his sessions in his private practice. This was to appease the mother that did not want the Doctors finds or report to be submitted to the court. For commissioner Swanhart to limit a Doctors standard means of treatment after she ordered the children into treatment with him is outrageous behavior from a court commissioner. It seems that the input from a professional in child psychology is not permitted in her court room. Commissioner Swanhart shows no regard towards men, evidence or their side of any story. Indeed, she limits that input and refuses to rule in an unbiased and professional manner. Commissioner Swanhart is one of the reasons that common citizens have a deep mistrust of our court system.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
In this family case with extensive domestic violence and evidence to support it, Commissioner Swanhart found the mother in contempt for revealing the social workers, counselors, GALs, and other "friends of the court" were unethical, unprofessional, and noncompliant of court orders. It is a matter of litigants "keeping your mouth shut" when it comes to revealing the corruption running rampant in Yakima County Superior Court. Constitutional Due Process is something that she regularly ignores. The best interests of the children is a standard that she regularly ignores and, contrary to other postings, she is not biased just toward men. If a woman steps over the commissioner's line, she throws the gavel at her as readily as she would a man and will threaten with loss of custody if someone has the gumption to reveal the corruption of the courts to anyone.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Irresponsible, unparctical, and above all, biased, towards men in her court room. Swanharts, constant doodling, and unpleaseant personality, brings great concern to our Yakima county, Judicial system. Quite frankly, it is time for this commisioner, to step down, and seek, other employment.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Lani Kia Swanhart...I have been in this game for years, and it is always an unpleasant part of my day, to enter your court room. I would ask you to start reviewing the audios, of your bench time. I use a hearing device, that easily picks up everything you are saying, when you are on the bench. Your quiet, little conversations with these attorneys, is improper, and most of disgusting! Yakima county's SR judge should remove you, immediately. Your past, has clearly haunted you, over, and over. People ( men ), should not have to suffer, due to the infidelity, surrounding your personal life. You are washed up, your appearance is less than professional, as are your biased rulings.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Where do I begin!! I went with a friend that was going infront of this Judge....I got an eye opener that day!!! I must say, this Swanhart Judge is a poor excuse for our legal system....she is with out a doubt, a man hater, incompitent, and just a flat out poor excuse for a human being. I have heard stories of our Judges here in Yakima county, but I had no idea, it was this bad. I can say one thing is for sure, if Swanhart acted like that out in the real business world, she would be holding a sign, like the people on the street corners. As I watched people go infront of Swanhart this day, I felt such sorrow, for the familys that this Judge was affecting.....Two things come to mind, either this Judges childhood was severly scorned, or her adult life, has been riddled with failure. The sight of her turns my stomach now, as I know how wicked, and evil she is. I give her an F!!!!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Yakima Counties Sr. Judge, needs to look into the practices of this Commissioner. Her blatant disregard for fairness, is overshadowed by her extreme biased behavior towards the male figure. Her rulings are, impractical, and are very damaging to family's involved, especially children. This Commissioner, undoubtedly, needs to be reviewed by the Judicial review board.In the future, I will avoid this Commissioner, as much as possible. I have given Commissioner Swanhart, a failing grade.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
I appeared before this commissioner recently. Not only was she overloaded, she was quite annoying, to say the least. Her draconian behavior, and oversight of facts, are all to familiar, to the pompous attitude of Yakima county courts. I have failed this commissioner, and enough, is enough, to say the least!!
Made by: Staff/Personnel This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Words cannot properly describe the arrogance, of this Females disposition.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
The games this commissioner likes to play with peoples lives. Every time I am around her, she makes me sick!!!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Inconsistent, up and down, this commissioner is all over the place! Speaks down at you, has a negative outlook towards men, and was completely biased...Swanhart, you have made a mess of my kids life!!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
I had heard allot of negative things about this commisioner over the past 6 months, but had not been infront oif her, untill a while back. Saddly everything I had heard, is true. I witnessed parents loosing parental rights, one after the other, in simple divorce cases.....I have come to understand that ccommisioners are basically hired/appointed by our Supior court Judges. November 2012, could be a chance to bring
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
She is an embarrassment and an example of all that is wrong with the court system! I appeared before and she not only did she not read the information in my case, she did not even have my file! In her own words, in her court, in front of everyone she stated “I don’t have the file but in this case I don’t think I need it.” This is a court? This is judgment made on information before her? I don’t think so. She has made her decision before reviewing the case. Unbelievable! Get her out!
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
Well, this idiot gave me a contempt and totally does not seem to understand what the true meaning of contempt is. She is sexist and rascist against Fathers. Definantely helps her county/state make money off of father's who are made into slaves of the system. Its time for men to step up and overthrow a crooked and corrupt system of slavery.
This respondent did not approve of this judge. Comments made by respondent:
This commissioner has to go. Yakima and the family court system would be much better off without a court, then with this commissioner destroying families and lives. After having to set and listen to her belittle the men she has contact with, I found myself sick, sick in my stomach for those men that are having her biased rulings rammed down their throats while their male attorneys just feed them to this female wolf. I understand the attorneys not wanting to be on the bad side of this commissioner but how in the world can they let this injustice continue? Is the revolving money door that important? The last time I was in this court, this sad excuse for a judge was totally out of control on the very 1st case. The attorney was stating his case when Swanhart interrupted him and said his client had a credibility problem. This caught the attorney off guard and you could hear him say “What”. Swanhart responded with a smirk laugh “what, am I mumbling today?” This is outrageous and yet knowing the man she was accusing, made this totally unbelievable. I myself sat down at the court computer and went through that whole case. This commissioner Swanhart is totally off base on the whole case. No reasonable person could look at the documentation and come to the same conclusion as she stated at the hearing. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT SHE HAS A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THIS MAN AND PERHAPS MEN IN GENERAL. If she was elected, we could vote her out. As it stands, she needs fired as an out of control employee!
Do you understand now how the courts can aid in PA and destroy a family?
If you don't get anything else from this blog, understand this...family court has nothing to do with fairness or what is right!
......
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A road map for us and all our childern
So Saul clothed David with his armor, and he put a bronze helmet on his head; he also clothed him with a coat of mail. David fastened his sword to his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. And David said to Saul, “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested them.” So David took them off. (1 Samuel 17:38-39 NKJV)
David was confident that he was loved and valued by God just for who he was: a little shepherd boy. He knew that what God had taught him in the fields, God could use to vanquish his enemies on the battlefield. I still feel awe for this young man who turned down the king’s armor and went off to face a giant. Basically David was saying, “I don’t need to be something that I am not.”
That story inspires me to see the places in my life where I am trying to be someone else, too. What messages am I sending by the clothes I wear? The diets I start? The career ambitions I have? We need to be the example for the next generation of being enough as we are.
Maybe we don’t reach as many young people as we could because we are trying to teach them to wear the armor we think they should wear. We mean well, but we may be trying to fit them into our own idea of who they should be. Saul meant well in offering his armor.
Instead we could tell them that God loves them and created each and every one of us for a special purpose. We could be showing them how to find themselves in the Bible instead of just making them conform. If we could teach each child to honor what God did when creating them, maybe they wouldn’t feel the need to become an “Emo,” a “Goth,” or a “Skinhead.” They might not be looking for confidence through plastic surgery and designer labels. Instead, they could become: themselves.
Are you reaching and teaching our children to be themselves—a unique person created by God? Reach out and help them to explore who they really are, not just who we want them to be.
Scripture Of The Day: But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 19:14 (NKJV)
Love you Colton
.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)