Racketeering leads to child abuse in Texas
By a PPC Member
Judges, Child Support Enforcement, Family Court Services, Child Protective Services and court appointed professionals are disregarding and proactively working against mothers who make legitimate sexual abuse complaints against fathers. Instead of protecting the child from the perpetrator, the judges are giving the father more access to the child(ren) by giving them more visitation and custody than before the allegations as a measure to sanction the mother for asking the court to protect her child(ren).
In my situation, I observed physical and behavioral evidence of sexual abuse on my own child after her father and I divorced 5 years ago. After further research of the father’s past, I obtained documents that showed substantiated abuse of another biological child and he relinquished all parental rights to this child. After the court appointed amicus attorney reviewed the police reports, Social Service’s report, child’s interview, outcry to a doctor, and mother’s affidavit the amicus chose to believe that all of this information was discredited and the judge agreed. The temporary restraining order was terminated. My child’s prior therapist wrote to the court out of concern for my daughter but was ordered to never be in another session with my child. The judge appointed a new therapist and increased the father’s visitation while denying me future holidays.
The judge wanted to speak to my seven year old alone and would not allow anyone in the chambers other than the amicus attorney. She refused to make the meeting a matter of record by a court reporter or by having the meeting heard over a speakerphone. I learn later that this is the moment that the judge in other cases has claimed Parent Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.) and walks your child out the back door of her office and into the hands of the abusive father. She then calls you in chambers and you are told, “This is the worst case of Parent Alienation I have ever seen and you have lost custody of your child(ren)”.
After six trips to the court house with the attorneys and judge writing temporary orders behind closed doors, I am finally before the judge and she is sitting on the bench. The father’s attorney, who was referred to the father by the amicus attorney, asked the judge to order me to take a psychological evaluation. The Judge obliged but refused to order the father to take an ABEL test or polygraph because she “didn’t want to put him through all that”. The judge also states that even if the child out cried at this point she would not even believe it.
The District Attorney’s Office in another state, offered the Tarrant County Texas case worker two other criminal documents that the father had civilly sealed years ago. Instead of the case worker acccepting the documents she told my attorney that the D.A’s Office in the other state would not cooperate with her requests. In our court hearing the judge, amicus attorney, and father’s attorney all agreed that these documents were sealed and not only could we not get them, but that they would not be willing to release them. As we found out later, the District Attorney’s Office in the other state only needed a letterhead from Tarrant County requesting the documents and they would pick off the civil seal and provide the court the documents.
This organized case-rigging is to ensure that the mothers that complain of abuse are discredited. These judges that are facilitated by secret judicial groups and are cross-affiliated to father’s rights groups are contributing to the corruption of our Family Court System. Knowledge of this pattern has come from sources such as father’s rights literature, HHS-ACF (Health and Human Services Department- Administration for Children and Families) Access and Visitation program funds and AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) documentation.
Judges and parent coordinators handling these pro-father rigged cases are leaving trails of evidence simply because they feel they are protected by judicial immunity and regulation. Examples of such evidence:
- Refusing to hear witnesses brought by mother.
- Terminating child support to mother and redirecting to pay amicus attorney.
- Ignoring statutes that protect children from parents with credible evidence of past sexual abuse.
- Amicus attorneys setting up meetings with school without ad litem.
- Lying about the content of conversations amicus’ had with children and using the same therapists, amicus’, psychiatrists, county case worker, therapists and mediators in abuse cases.
- Allowing and promoting the father to not abide by court orders yet will find mother in contempt if she behaved as such.
- Instead of following the Attorney General’s Guidelines to set up child support, the court appoints by name the Director of Child Support Enforcement to decide if the father should pay the thousands of dollars in arrearages and what amount (if any) support should be paid by father.
The National Quality Improvement Center on Nonresident Fathers and the Child Welfare System, National Fatherhood Initiative, American Humane Association and American Bar Association on Children and the Law created the Father Friendly Check-Up (FFCU). This is a tool to encourage more non-resident father involvement in the courtroom through the court administrative functions. The checklist defines a non-resident father as “a father who did not live with his child at the time the alleged abuse or neglect occurred.”