The definition is under review by an expert panel appointed by the American Psychiatric Association, which is completing work on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The D.S.M, as the manual is known, is the standard reference for mental disorders, driving research, treatment and insurance decisions.

The study results, presented on Thursday at a meeting of the Icelandic Medical Association, are still preliminary, but they offer the latest and most dramatic estimate of how tightening the criteria for autism could affect the rate of diagnosis. Rates of autism and related disorders like Asperger syndrome have taken off since the early 1980s, to prevalence rates as high as one in 100 children in some places. Many researchers suspect that these numbers are inflated because of vagueness in the current criteria.

“The proposed changes would put an end to the autism epidemic,” said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at Yale University School of Medicine and an author of the new analysis. “We would nip it in the bud — think of it that way.”

Experts working on the new definition strongly questioned the new estimate. “I don’t know how they’re getting those numbers,” said Catherine Lord, a member of the task force working on the diagnosis.

Previous projections have concluded that far fewer people would be excluded under the proposed diagnosis change, said Dr. Lord, director of the Institute for Brain Development, a joint project of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, Columbia University Medical Center and the New York Center for Autism.

Disagreement about the effect of the new definition will almost certainly increase scrutiny of the finer points of the psychiatric association’s changes to the manual The revisions are about 90 percent complete and will be final by December, according to Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and chairman of the task force making the revisions.

At least a million children and adults have a diagnosis of autism or a related disorder, like Asperger syndrome or “pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified” — or P.D.D.-N.O.S. People with Asperger’s or P.D.D.-N.O.S. endure some of the same social struggles as those with autism but do not meet the definition for the full-blown version. The proposed change would consolidate all three diagnoses under one category, autism spectrum disorder, eliminating Asperger syndrome and P.D.D.-N.O.S. from the manual. Under the current criteria a person can qualify for the diagnosis by exhibiting six or more of 12 behaviors; under the proposed definition, the person would have to exhibit three deficits in social interaction and communication and at least two repetitive behaviors — a much narrower menu.

Dr. Kupfer said the proposed changes were an attempt to clarify these permutations and put them under one name.

Hundreds of thousands of people receive state-backed special services to help offset the disorders’ disabling effects, which include learning and social problems, and the diagnosis is in many ways central to their lives. Close networks of parents have bonded over common experiences with children; and the children, too, may grow to find a sense of their own identity in their struggle with the disorder.

Mary Meyer, of Ramsey, N.J., said that a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome was crucial in getting her daughter, who is 37, access to services that have helped tremendously. “I’m very concerned about the change in diagnosis because I wonder if my daughter would even qualify now,” she said. “She’s on disability, which is partly based on the Asperger’s, and I’m hoping to get her into supportive housing, which also depends on her diagnosis.”

Mark Roithmayr, president of Autism Speaks, an advocacy organization, said that the proposed diagnosis should bring needed clarity but that the effect on services was not yet clear. “We need to carefully monitor the impact of these diagnostic changes on access to services and ensure that no one is being denied the services they need,” Mr. Roithmayr said by e-mail. “Some treatments and services are driven solely by a person’s diagnosis, while other services may depend on other criteria such as age, I.Q. level or medical history.”

In the new analysis, Dr. Volkmar, along with Brian Reichow and James McPartland, both at Yale, used data from a large 1993 study that served as the basis for the current criteria. They focused on 372 children and adults who were among the highest-functioning and found that over all, only 45 percent of them would qualify for the proposed autism spectrum diagnosis now under review. The focus on a high-functioning group may have slightly exaggerated that percentage, the authors acknowledge.

The likelihood of being left out under the new definition depended on the original diagnosis: About a quarter of those identified with classic autism in 1993 would not be so identified under the proposed criteria; about three quarters of those with Asperger’s would not qualify; and 85 percent of those with P.D.D.-N.O.S. would not.

Dr. Volkmar presented the preliminary findings on Thursday. The researchers will publish a broader analysis, based on a larger and more representative sample of 1,000 cases, later this year. Dr. Volkmar said that although the proposed diagnosis would be for disorders on a spectrum and implies a broader net, it focuses tightly on “classically autistic” children on the more severe end of the scale. “The major impact here is on the more cognitively able,” he said.

In May of 2011, the founder was forced to leave his positionand serve a year probation.  In February, the justice department opened an investigation into the school after it received a complaint alleging the centre had violated disability laws.  Despite the negative publicity directed at him, Matthew Israel, a Harvard-trained psychologist managed to keep operating for so long partly because he had the vociferous support of parents of severely autistic children at the school.

And now, they are lobbying to stay open. Is that how we want them to spend their money? Or should they use it to refine alternative techniques for behavior modification?  This is appalling.

American Family Rights :: The Voice of America's Families©

Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.” K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990.

“Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights.” P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”
Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997)

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).

One of the most precious rights possessed by parents is the right to raise their children free of government interference. That right, “more precious than mere property rights,” is a liberty interest, protected by the substantive and procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Moreover, the fact that the custodians are grandparents rather than parents is legally insignificant, because families headed by extended family members are entitled to the same constitutional protections as those headed by parents, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) Even relatives who are licensed as foster parents enjoy the same constitutional rights as other custodial relatives. Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1982).

Because of the magnitude of the liberty interests of parents and adult extended family members in the care and companionship of children, the Fourteenth Amendment protects these substantive due process liberty interests by prohibiting the government from depriving fit parents of custody of their children. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 824 (2d Cir. 1977); Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1991). In the United States Supreme Court’s view, the state registers “no gains toward its stated goals [of protecting children] when it separates a fit parent from the custody of his children.” Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652.

Grandparents are also entitled to procedural due process. “An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed.2d 865 (1950)).

The grandchildren have a Fourth Amendment right not to be seized by the government for child protective purposes unless it has probable cause to believe that the children have been neglected. Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098, 120 S.Ct. 1832, 146 L.Ed.2d 776 (2000). Probable cause exists only if the officials have persuasive evidence of serious ongoing abuse and reason to fear imminent recurrence. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1987).

Grandparents cannot be dismissed from the dependency case because the dependency case is the only legal way that the state can interfere with their custody. The state must prove that they are abusive or neglectful and that the children would be at risk of immediate serious harm if returned.

FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910

In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’ Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.

The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.

Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)

Source: FamilyRights.us

CLICK TO SEE VIDEO OF RALLY
Youtube: Protest Against Henna White and OHEL 2-15-11

Accusations of Henna’s alleged illegal practices include gathering information from abuse victims under the pretense of providing them with referrals to services and assistance.  It is alleged that her office has been double timing these victims.  Allegedly, the knowledge that the victims are seeking to file an order of protection, then gets channeled to her attorney husband, Asher White, who advises the abusers “off the record”.

Media Links:

Haredi Women Protest Against Brooklyn DA’s Jewish Liason And OHEL“

Nochum Rosenberg – בזכות נשים צדקניות נגאלו – In The Merit Of The Righteous Women They Were Redeemed

The Awareness Center: (Brooklyn, NY) Religious Women Protest Against Henna White and Ohel Family Services

Joe Levin Private investigations Haredi Women Protest Against Brooklyn DA’s Jewish Liason And OHEL

zingmitProtest Against Henna White and Ohel

There is supporting evidence that once the abuser is awarded an order of protection, they then have access to grant money so generously funded for “victims” of domestic violence.   Legal fees are paid for brand name attorneys to help the abuser get custody of the children, while the real victims are further victimized using the “legal” system., created to protect them in the first place.  Many counseling and foster care organizations are closely linked to Henna White’s office. They rely heavily on her referrals to fill their quota with every child that is entered into their umbrella organization for counseling, or foster care.

And I lost my kids too in the process. Although the custody decision is not final, it’s still lost to me. And I am ****STILL**** not going back to him. Because that’s how far he went to pull me back in. This time though, I’m for real.

Abuse has been recognized as a cycle by the experts on the subject. We can only break free of that cycle if we stop reacting. The abuser will never stop. But walking away is very difficult. Some men threaten to kill themselves if you leave them. Some men threaten to kill you, or your children if you leave him… and some simply kill after separation. See my post on post-separation violence.

And then there are always those who swear they will make your life a living hell, forcing you to come crawling back to Papa. Sorry, dear, I have stopped reacting. You have rendered me homeless, childless, penniless, yet, I still have my spirit. I still have my will to live.

The world stands before me, beautiful life with its infinite possibilities. I’m not crumbling just yet.  I have so many more amazing years left to live. I guess he wants to diaper them babies. What am I going to do, fight?  That’s reacting, again. And again. DO NOT REACT. Go out there. Build a beautiful you, a beautiful life, for your children to return to you. They will come crawling back, you know that. But they first have to go through the same cycle that you went through. They too, have to learn to divorce their father, their neighbors, their teachers… they too have to learn that there is one safe place, and one safe place only.

It is your job, Mommy, to build that safe haven for them. And by going to court and fighting tooth and nail, calling police and CPS when he is hurting them… you will hurt them even more.  Now go build that safe haven for them!

You do need to be careful about children who turn into little abusers too. They come running when they want you to buy them their trousau, or to be added to the will when you are on your deathbed. Suddenly, they make an appearance by your cancer treatments. Of course, a mother’s heart will always want her offspring right near her. But by then, you will be so healthy emotionally, you will know how to react. Now go get strong, this is your obligation to your children.  By giving up (in his eyes), you are giving back (to your children).

Let me know how it goes, I want your feedback.

Please post comments below, and subscribe to this blog on the right side of this page.

Girls usually are the second or third year on the job when they get engaged.  They marry a boy who was flown home from Yeshiva specifically to get engaged. He then flies back to finish his zman. The chasunah is scheduled so that he doesn’t break a zman, usually Yomim Tovim time (Shavuos, Rosh Chodesh Nissan, After Sukkos, etc.).

Then the fun begins. They have learn each others names… and the next thing you know, she is throwing up in the morning as she rushes to go to her measly teaching job for $300 a week… he arrives to kollel at 11. He compares the lunch that his new wife packed for him, with his ‘learning’ partners. He realizes that although she made fresh brownies for him, his friend has cantaloupe. It’s now her fault that his suit is now plotzing. At night, she moves the buttons over half an inch. He breathes easier. He is turned on by watching his ‘wife’ do mommy things, stuff his mother did when he was growing up.

She continues to throw up. He now learns that when she sends him an urgent text, it means that she needs to go to the doctor.  He comes running.  She gives birth. She is pressured to get clean quickly, she was taught that withholding him for any extra hour is wrong and not her wifely duty. She takes vitamins… anything, to get clean. Finally, nearly not making it, she goes to the mikvah at 5.5 weeks. She is throwing up again.

He gets turned on by watching her nurse the baby, because that’s what his mommy used to do. He gets mad that she is losing her milk and not able to nurse the baby efficiently. He is mad that she is supplementing with formula. Go to the lactation consultant, here’s $300. Go take vitamins, drink beer. Do something!

She feels miserable. Then she finds out that she never really got her period since the baby was born… and suddenly she throws up. Bam. Positive.

They consider getting the husband a job at B&H, because over there, they hire guys with accents who cannot read or write past pre-1-a level.  He says yes. She does all the phone calls for him. She gets him a job because her uncle works in the camera department…

He starts working there. Learns stuff about life. He begins to resent that she is working. He now feels manly. His self esteem has grown. He learns about which movie is good to watch. She is plotzing.  He starts renting 24, CSI… all the shooting gory stuff. She is appalled.

She stays silent. Finally, when he stays overnight in Monticello with his friend Yitzchok on ‘business’ on some bungalow colony they might invest in for next summer… she calls the Rav who gave him his chosson lessons before the chassunah. She tells the Rav that until this marriage is stabilized, she needs a heter for birth control. The Rav has a screaming fit, and yells at her for even thinking so dirty.

It takes ten more years and 3 or 6 children later until the relationship turns into a ‘if I don’t do his laundry and he doesn’t eat my food so that he doesn’t have to comment, I think I can survive another hour’. There is no longer any communication, no intimacy… and nobody knows! But the children get older, and they are now pre-teen. This one is failing yeshiva. That one is beating her classmates…. It’s misery.  She does all the phone calls with the Rebbeim, teachers. He is now working 18 hours a day.

Finally, he gets a call from the Menahal at the Yeshiva – did you know your son is now doing much better with the tutor that your wife hired last year? HUH? WHAT? He gets mad that a “man’ was hired to do totty work, and he had no idea. They start fighting… it never ends. Every rav gets involved. Nobody can make peace anymore because of all this underlying tension. It’s a mess. This is not the straw that broke the camel’s back. There never was a camel. There is no foundation in a marriage like this. So when you add any tiny pressure, there is zero communication, no skills. It’s a dead end.  There is nothing to build from.

The Chassidish boys are immature, not educated with any secular subjects, and have no self worth outside of Kollel. The girls are over skilled, overeducated. They become “mommy’ too quickly… and nobody knows anything about relationships, chemistry, intimacy, fostering communication. They turn to movies and get the wrong idea about romance.

For all of you out there sadly nodding your heads, my heart goes out to you. My suggestion to you – build your man. Make him a human being who has discovered a healthy outlet for the things he likes in life. If he loves nature, keep sending him for those hikes. Alone, if that’s how he likes it. I know a friend whose husband is obsessed with spreading nissim related to his donations to Kupat Hair… in his spare time, he loves going around collecting their pushkas. She lets him. Gosh, if it makes the guy happy, and if helps him feel like a man? Please, by all means. Let them become a happy person. And they will shine, and rise above it all. And exceed beyond your wildest imagination. I highly, and I mean highly, recommend the book, “The Five Love Languages”. Better yet, I have the 30 minute DVD and whoever watched it says, it saved their marriage.

You ask, why couldn’t I save my marriage? Unfortunately, mental illness cannot be incorporated into a marriage without treatment. Sad.

So now, with divorce – this is the saga. The men, who were told their entire lives – get married, have babies, do us proud… that is all they know, and that is all the aspire to. If their wife is not happy, they think that she is leaving him because SHE is not happy. They have no idea what role they played in the decline of this relationship. So it’s all her fault. Now, they must save face in their shul.

So they do one of two things. They spread stories that either she had a mental breakdown, or PPD, or BPD, or Depression… or, they tell people that she was sleeping around.

Then, they rally up the entire community to work with them. And then, when the courts hear that she is nebach so meshuga (they hear from neighbors, school teachers, her own friends…) the courts swiftly grant the husband’s custody. Hurray.  Mission accomplished

I cannot tell you how many women have reached out to me, women who went through this cycle. The only thing we can do is NOT FIGHT BACK. You cannot fight this system, because the men will then find how to make you even more miserable. They will use the kids as the ultimate pawns in this war. Walk away, and they will find no reason to use the kids against you. Horrible, but true. If you want your kids to live in peace, somewhat, walk away!  For those of you who haven’t been through this, may you never half to make that decision.

I value your feedback. Please post your comments below. To be notified of new posts to this blog, enter your email address on the right-hand corner of this page.

Take this child to any trained expert, and everything will flip 360 degrees. So how indeed, do you ‘take’ a child who is being maltreated, denied services that the Board of Education has mandated, and is clearly not functioning, but nobody is escalating this to an expert? At the end of the day, the child is losing out, and the CPS agency fails yet again to protect the most vulnerable of society; the young children who cannot choose how to better their lives, and hindered by their disabilities to coast through the typical challenges of life.

I did some research on how CPS works with investigations involving children with disabilities. When calling the main abuse hotline, I asked if a case can be escalated to a trained Autism expert, rather than an entry level CPS worker. The answer I got was, “The CPS worker would bring in the expert, should they find it necessary.” Oh, I see. So if the worker knows nothing about this disability even if she were staring it in the face, then she has a right to choose to close the investigation, claiming that she noticed nothing.

I then contacted the local regional office for ACS and asked the Deputy Director the same question. I was given the same answer. So I called the local Department of Education. I asked them, “whose job is it to ensure that the child is getting an appropriate education, and reaching their potential?” After being transferred to a specialist, I was reminded that the Board of Ed cannot force a parent to comply with the recommendations on the IEP. However, because there is a diagnosis on record, and the services in the past did enhance the child’s functioning and academic goals, I was given more resources: I was told to get an attorney and ask for custody, and then ask for a fair hearing and re-evaluation on the child.

Really? That’s what I’ve been asking for over a year. For the exact reasons that I am still asking for today. This is what it looks like when fathers and mothers disagree on a child’s needs. Co-parenting is clearly not the way to go in this scenario. It all comes down to which side can outlawyer the other side. Just like O.J. Simpson… we all know he killed her, it’s just a matter of how far they will go to untangle the evidence.

When you involve an inadequate agency such as Child Protective Services, they will undress the children and check for bruises and then close the investigation. Nothing happens when a parent willfully neglects a child’s right to an education.   If you think you know how to protect these innocent children, let me know!

Because a judge needs to invest in his career, he will leave a paper trail of ‘responsible’ decisions, so that his higher-ups can review his ‘work’ and then bump him up into a higher court for the next calendar year. This means that the files are kept in such a manner that if anybody reviews the judge’s cases, the details will be carefully documented leading the reader to understand why decisions were made. Everything makes legal sense in those files.

What happens if a judge does not write in his notes the reason for a decision? What happens if a decision is made based on verbal testimony? The review board will not read the court transcripts, only the judge’s notes. What happens if no evidence or documents were submitted in your case, and the judge’s notes leave no indication as to why he made a decision?

That is a case where the judge will start feeling a little itchy. He will not want to continue on your case if you keep asking “I need a substantive written order that substantiates this decision”. Keep saying that, and eventually your judge will lose his cool. He will most likely NOT give you the reason for his decision, especially in family courts. Supreme court orders require substantiation written at the end of the order. Make sure that he answers you on the record, so that it gets recorded for the transcripts. If he goes off the record to say his reason, repeat after him when you go back on the record. “Your honor, I will repeat for the record that you just stated that the reason for this order is because…”.  That will really tick off your judge.

Next, tell the judge you will be appealing this decision because it lacks substantiation. In the appellate division, three judges will review your case. Now, your judge will really get itchy.  It’s okay if your appeal gets denied, because at this point, the judge will probably recuse himself. No judge likes to have an appeal on his record.

Additionally, you need to put in a motion to ask the judge to recuse himself from your case.  A helpful link is at this page http://www.caught.net/caught/recuse.htm

Although your next judge might not be a gift of God either, it offers your case an opportunity to start from scratch. If your case never really had any substantiation for outrageous court orders, then the new judge will not understand what led to them, and demand a status update from both parties, as well as a case background. Plan wisely in advance, and you stand a good chance of representing your case anew, with better outcomes.

Also, you should make your complaint or inquiry known to the grievance committee that covers the county in which the judge or attorney’s office is located. Lawyers (and judges are lawyers) have to answer to the office of judicial contact. Therefore, you should submit a complaint in writing to the attorney Disciplinary / Grievance Committee so that your complaint goes on record. If enough people complain and the complaints are valid, there will be a hearing.

The following is a link to the attorney Disciplinary / Grievance Committee in NY http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/attorneygrievance/complaints.shtml

Finally, if a judge recuses himself from your case, the only way you will know is if he files a recusal notice, which has to be mailed to all attorneys on the case. If your case was suddenly reassigned for a new judge and you did not get the recusal notice, then there is a big chance that your judge was transferred in the nick of time before he messed up his career, and did that gracefully without recusing himself.

And then you think to yourself, it must be that Mr. Mom grew breasts. Wasn’t that always his dream? Snatch the kids from the mother, feed them and bathe them? Now, he can add breastfeeding to his resume.

In the Talmud, there is the following true story. “It happened with one man whose wife died and left him a nursing child, he was so poor that he could not pay a wet-nurse. A miracle happened to him; his breasts opened and he nursed his child.” Said R. Joseph: Come and see how great the man must have been that such a miracle was wrought for him. Said Abayi to him: On the contrary, Behold how bad the man must have been that the nature of mankind changed in him and nothing occurred to enable him to earn enough money to pay a nurse. Says R. Jehudah: Come and see how hard it is for heaven to change the fate of a man concerning his livelihood, that the nature of the world was changed, but not his fate. Said R. Na’hman: It is proven by this fact that a miracle occurred, but he was not provided with means for paying a wet-nurse. (source)

Now, are we smarter than those wise Rabbis? Can you top that argument?

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads Wow.

Crunchy numbers

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 5,300 times in 2010. That’s about 13 full 747s.

In 2010, there were 25 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 33 posts. There were 27 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 2mb. That’s about 2 pictures per month.

The busiest day of the year was July 6th with 177 views. The most popular post that day was About This Blog.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were mail.yahoo.com, rightsformothers.com, autism.about.com, and facebook.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for autism divorce custody, autism custody battles, autism and custody, mama grizzlies, and robin sheares.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

About This Blog May 2010
4 comments

Some men kill their wives, others steal the children July 2010
7 comments and 3 Likes on WordPress.com

Heartbreaking Video of Autistic Girls Crying to Mom from Foster Care Home July 2010
4 comments

Autism Spectrum kids literal speech and language can make you lose custody July 2010
4 comments and 2 Likes on WordPress.com

Family Courts Best Kept Secret: Say that the father is abusing the kids and you will lose custody to the abuser August 2010
1 comment and 1 Like on WordPress.com,

How the system messes up:

First, a judge will believe every horrendous allegation against you, and ‘for the safety of the children’ the judge will issue a quick and temporary custody order, while removing the children from you, or you from them.  Then, you will probably get enraged and ask for fact-finding, or, proof about all those allegations. Sure enough, after a year or so in court the fact finding will show that there is nothing on you, only a bunch of lies. By then, the judge will use the most ridiculous excuse that family courts ever created; “we don’t want to upset the status quos with the children, seeing that they are stable right now”. Say what?

Holes in this process:

1. First, the judge traumatically separates the children from their mother
2. Then, the judge declares them ‘stable’ in this environment
3. Then, the judge decides that this is a status quos not to be changed
4. Then, we all sit and wait for ‘extraordinary circumstances’ to warrant a change, such as – daddy needs to become an axe murderer.

This feels a bit like elementary school. Imagine that you misbehaved in class, so you get punished and made to stand outside of the class. The principal sees you there an hour later and asks you why you are outside. So you answer, “I misbehaved”.  So the principal asks, “are you behaving now?”  You say, “Yes”. So the principal says, “Good that means you belong outside”. Huh?

Welcome to the family courts of America.

NYPOST Reports: In Manhattan Supreme Court, four no-fault cases were filed, while in The Bronx, there were only two. In Queens, clerks didn’t have a breakdown of how many no-fault cases were filed, but overall there were 24 divorce petitions — which officials there described as a typical day. Officials in Brooklyn and Staten Island didn’t have breakdowns.

I actually envisioned long lines with lots of media coverage, so I made a trip to the Brooklyn Supreme Court two days later just to try this for myself.  At first, the Pro Se office that helps litigants file paperwork if they are self representing tried to help, but I soon maxed out their expertise. Apparently, they did not have the paperwork yet for the new Divorce law.

The packet that they gave me was very helpful for a do-it-yourself uncontested divorce, however the divorce grounds were numbered one through six, and the seventh one (irretrievable breakdown in relationship) was noticeably missing.

Because the template was with check boxes, there was no way you could enter it yourself. The clerk in the office suggested I go online and see if the website was updated with the new templates. Thankfully, their computers are available free of charge. Their webpage security though, did not allow me to open the PDF file which contained the divorce action template.

When I got back home, I checked the website for the templates, only to find that those too were not updated. So much for the new law and ease of use.

In Brooklyn Family Court, my friend had difficulty filing for an extension on an order of protection which was expiring the next day. The excuse at the 6^th floor petition room? You need a family offense to get the petition in. WRONG! There is a new law that allows an extension based on reasonable cause.

Apparently, New York is always the last to adapt to new laws and the clerks will successfully manipulate unsuspecting petitioners to follow the guidelines that they feel secure with.

TIP: Just remember to ask people for their names, so that you can tell the judge that on this and this day, this person told you so and so.

The new study is titled Autism’s Heavy Toll on Marriages and was published on 08/03/2010.

The study revealed that the divorce rate for parents of children with autism mirrors the divorce rate of the parents of children without disabilities until the child reaches 8 years of age. After that, the divorce rate goes down for parents of children without disabilities but remains high for parents of children with autism.  Parents of children with autism often continue to live with and experience high parenting demands into their child’s adulthood, and thus marital strain may remain high in these later years.”

Media Inquiries

Sigan Hartley hartley@waisman.wisc.edu
Marsha Mailick Seltzer mseltzer@waisman.wisc.edu
Email: hartley@waisman.wisc.edu
Office phone: (608) 262-8860

CPS agencies in a number of states have begun collaborating with state and local domestic violence programs to develop strategies for addressing domestic violence.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!

The domestic violence movement began less than 30 years ago in order to provide safety to battered women because public institutions were not doing so. The criminal justice system did not treat domestic violence as a crime. Batterers were not being held accountable for their abuse. Some battered women and their advocates viewed CPS as yet another public institution that blamed battered women for the harm their batterers caused to their children.

Historically, when domestic violence was identified, CPS workers have often misunderstood its dynamics and held battered mothers responsible for ending it.  If the mother wouldn’t leave the situation, the children would be removed from the mother.

CPS workers only have a few mandatory hours of Domestic Violence training. They don’t have the expert training to recognize the subtle emotional and behavioral signs on children in such horrific situations, emotional abuse and psychological abuse in particular. The CPS worker will fall right into the trap of believing the manipulative persuasive abuser and fail to realize how the victims are protecting the abuser.

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

If you are involved in a CPS investigation, ask the worker on the first visit to please bring in a Domestic Violence worker. Until they don’t bring one, you don’t have to allow them in. The DV workers are trained to pick up on children who were manipulated. This is to your advantage.

Gov. David Paterson announced Sunday that he has signed a bill making New York the last state to enact some version of no-fault divorce, meaning that people trying to leave a marriage will be spared the painful task of attacking their estranged spouse in court.

Previously, under a system the governor called “outdated,” New York judges could only grant a divorce quickly on grounds of cruelty, adultery, abandonment or imprisonment. In other words, somebody had to be blamed for the breakup.

An alternative was to legally separate for a year and get a divorce later by consent, but critics derided the system as expensive and time-consuming.

Because of the rule, some New York judges would occasionally refuse to grant divorces, forcing couples to stick together against their wishes.

In one extreme case in 2007, a jury refused to grant a divorce to a Brooklyn couple who so hated each other, the court had authorized the construction of a wall through the center of their home to keep them apart.

The new measure requires only that one spouse swear under oath that a relationship has broken down for at least six months.

The change had been opposed by the New York Catholic Conference, which had said it made marriage disposable, and the state chapter of the National Organization of Women, which worried that it could make it easier for wealthy men to hide assets during a divorce proceeding.

The bill passed the Assembly with a substantial margin of support, then squeaked by the Senate by just three votes.

Source: Newsday

If a man threatens to take away the kids if you dare leave him, please read Some men kill their wives, others steal the children

Moms, if you dare say in court that your child has special needs, or autism, you will be accused of having Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy/Factitious Illness By Proxy or Borderline Personality Disorder, or anything else in the DSM handbook. Abusive men seem to refer to the DSM as their personal bible.

Make sure to speak to the wonderful people at Protective Mothers Alliance International.  PMA is an international organization co founded/codirected by Lundy Bancroft and Janice Levinson. The PMA family consists of protective mother-driven advocates working together as a tight team for change.

Also speak to Mothers Against Munchausen by Proxy Allegations – MBPS – MSP

Justice For Children is a national nonprofit organization of citizens concerned about children’s rights and their protection from abuse.

I contacted Dr Elizabeth Thayer for some insight on this terrific program.

Dr. Thayer, what happens when parents who loved each other enough to create a child, then turn to the courts to tear each other apart? What can people do if a program like yours in inaccessible to them because the parents simply are not on the same page for the “best interest of the children”?  If disagreements were not resolved in the marriage, how can it be expected to be resolved with joint custody?  Even if the disagreements are not about “autism and fathers in denial”, there are still many instances where disagreements become so bad, it just explodes.

And then, the heavy questions: What happens in a case of emotional abuse where the husband tells the wife “if you will leave me, I will make sure you never see these children for the rest of your life”.  Then, they claim to the courts that the mother has emotional issues, is mentally ill, and cannot take care of the children.  With your experience in hostile custody battles, how can you advise a couple in this situation, so that they can find peace, let go of the allegations, and keep a stable relationship so that the children can one day grow to be healthy adults?

Elizabeth S. Thayer Ph.D.

Elizabeth S. Thayer Ph.D. Responds:

I will try to answer your questions knowing that these are pivotal questions and quite complicated.

1.  If parents choose a litigation approach wherein they increase the conflict and put children into the process we know that the conflict will affect them in multiple ways.  Conflict is the highest risk indicator for children of divorce.  The results are long lasting and create indelible scars for everyone thus impairing the parents ability to work together throughout the childrens’ lifetime.  The children then inherit the conflict as adults and continue to have to live their parents’ divorce.

2.  There are more opportunities to learn to work together as parents than you think.  Many states now have mediation programs through the courts, we have trained others in different locations (including the family service agencies throughout CT), parenting coordination is growing rapidly, and there are many individual therapist now well versed in divorce parenting work.

3.  When disagreements are not resolved in a marriage it does not mean that they can’t be resolved after divorce because they are no longer about the marriage but solely about the children.  That is an important distinction and the essence of what makes the co-parenting work cooperatively.

4.  Lastly when there are such threats as you related in your second paragraph, you need a team to work with the family including a good Guardian Ad. Litem (GAL in Ct.) who will work with the clinician involved and with the attorneys.  Again the parents need to truly understand the effects of their conflict on the children and that nothing is worse than that.  Unfortunately sometimes children need to become symptomatic before the parents can see the truth. We count on parents’ love for their children, a team of professionals dedicated to the same cause (individual therapists included), a  court that will continue to send the same message, and childrens’ voices asking parents to stop the warfare.

Dr. Thayer, thank you so much for your dedication to the cause. I hope that many parents as well as children can be helped by your expert guidance and continued dedication.

Dr. Thayer can be contacted for divorce mediation and more, information below:

Elizabeth S. Thayer Ph.D.
Beacon Behavioral Services LLC
40 Dale Road
Avon, Ct. 06001
860-676-9350 ext.12
www.beaconbehavioral.com
ethayer@beaconbehavioral.com

General email: email@beaconbehavioral.com

To make a referral to the PEACE program or to get more information, please call Ms. Sandra Pelletier, Office Manager at (860) 676-9350 (ext. 27).

P.O. Box 461 – Monticello – Georgia – 31064
Telephone: 770/385-9799
Internet E-Mail: louisalasher@mindspring.com

SOME SUGGESTED QUESTIONS  FOR QUALIFYING  OR CHALLENGING  “EXPERT” QUALIFICATIONS

(Also Useful in Selecting an Expert)

Note: Expertise with regard to “child or adult maltreatment (abuse/neglect) through deliberate ‘problem’ falsification” – including labels such as Munchausen by Proxy, AKA Factitious Disorder by Proxy – does not exist merely by virtue of being a physical, mental health, investigative, or other kind of professional.  It is necessary to have solid knowledge and experience specific to this subject area – which is very specialized in many ways. It also should be noted than an expert with regard to Factitious Disorder, including Munchausen Syndrome,  is not necessarily an expert regarding this kind of abuse/neglect – and vice versa. Remember – MBP Maltreatment, for example, is listed under the term “Factitious Disorder by Proxy” in DSM-IV only as a suggestion for further study – not as a formal mental health diagnosis. This kind of maltreatment  is not a mental health diagnosis – but it is a recognized form of child or adult abuse/neglect manifesting as physical abuse and/or emotional abuse and/or sexual abuse and/or various kinds of  neglect – and is label for a particular pattern of behavior..

1.  Do you consider yourself to be an expert regarding “child or adult maltreatment (abuse/neglect) through deliberate ‘problem’ falsification” – for example Munchausen by Proxy AKA Factitious Disorder by Proxy?

2.   What is your formal education specific to Munchausen by Proxy AKA Factitious Disorder by Proxy or related child abuse/neglect ?  How many hours of formal education would you estimate you have received specific to this area?  Where did you obtain the education?  Who presented the information?  When is the last time you received education/training in this area?  What aspects did any of this formal training cover?  Investigation?  Confirming or non confirming?  Case planning?  Case management?  Get the specifics.

3.   What is your informal education specific to Munchausen by Proxy AKA Factitious Disorder by Proxy or related kinds of abuse/neglect?   (examples of specific articles and books read etc. – and who was the author of each?)  What is the last article or book you have read regarding this subject area?  What aspects did any of this informal training cover?  Investigation?  Confirming or non confirming?  Case planning?  Case management?  Get the specifics

4.  What articles or books have you submitted and/or published specific to Munchausen by Proxy?  What aspects      of Munchausen by Proxy were included in each?  What aspects were covered?  Investigation?  Confirming or non confirming?  Case planning?  Case management?  Get the specifics

5.   What educational programs have you designed specific to this subject area?  What aspects were covered?  Investigation?  Confirming or non confirming?  Case planning?  Case management?  Get the specifics.

6.   What educational programs have you presented specific to this subject area?  What aspects  were included? What aspects did any of this formal training cover?  Investigation?  Confirming or non confirming?  Case planning?  Case management?  Get the specifics

7.   In how many suspected or confirmed  child or adult maltreatment cases of this kind have you been involved? What was your specific role in each?   At what point did you become involved?  At what point did your involvement end?

8.  Do you have a working  knowledge in general investigative techniques?  (not therapy or therapeutic assessment),.

9.  Would you agree that this kind of child or adult abuse/neglect manifests as physical abuse and/or sexual abuse and/or emotional abuse and/or various kinds of neglect?  Why or why not?  Explain.

10.  Do you have a working knowledge of physical abuse investigation?  Emotional abuse?  Sexual abuse?  Various kinds  of neglect?  (not therapy or therapeutic assessment).

11.   What is the definition of Munchausen by Proxy AKA Factitious Disorder by Proxy?  What is Malingering by Proxy?

12.  What is the criteria you use in confirming or non confirming Munchausen by Proxy AKA Factitious Disorder by Proxy?

13.  What specific methodology should be used I in determining whether the criteria for MBP/FDP is met?

14.  Name a few internationally recognized experts in this subject area.

15.  If the term “Pediatric Condition Falsification (PCF)” is being used or has been mentioned

…..What is Pediatric Condition Falsification (PCF)?

…..Is there a difference in meaning of terms between PCF and MBP/AKA FDP?

…..Is there any difference in concept or criteria between PCF AKA FDP?

A - MSBP is never linked to Autism
B - In the genetic roulette of Autism, there is oftentimes more than one child with ASD in the custody battle. MSBP does not present with a focus on more than one child.

Marc D. Feldman, MD

Marc D. Feldman, MD
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487

Michael Light, M.D.

Michael J. Light, MD
Department of Pediatrics
Miller School of Medicine
University of Miami
1600 Northwest 10th Avenue
Miami, FL 33136-1015
(305) 243-4664
(305) 243-6387
(305) 243-5757

Louisa J. Lasher, MA
P.O. Box 461
Monticello, Georgia 31064
louisalasher@mindspring.com

Mary S. Sheridan, PhD, ACSW

Mary S. Sheridan, PhD, ACSW
Department of Social Work - Hawaii Pacific University
1188 Fort St. Mall, Suite 201B, Honolulu, HI
Tel1 (808) 566 2489
Tel2 (808) 955-9573
Office Phone: (808) 566-2489
Office Fax: (808) 544-9306
Email: msheridan@hpu.edu

William R. Long, M. Div., Ph. D., J. D.
Email: drbilllong@gmail.com
MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY (“MSBP”)/FACTITIOUS DISORDER BY PROXY (“FDBP”):   A Guide for Judges, Lawyer and Parents by Bill Long 6/8/08

Interrogations and Disputed Confessions: A Manual for Forensic Psychological Practice Gregory DeClue, PhD, ABPP, by Gregory DeClue, Ph.D., ABPP, Forensic Psychologist

Gregory DeClue, Ph.D., ABPP, Forensic Psychologist
Tel: 941-951-6674
email: gregdeclue@mailmt.com, gregdeclue@me.com
mail: 16443 Winburn Place, Sarasota, FL 34240-9228
office site: 3616 Webber St., Suite 207C, Sarasota, FL 34232

International Experts:
Lisa Blakemore-Brown Child Psychologist, Expert Witness and Expert in Autism
Charles Pragnell, an independent social care management consultant, a Child/Family Advocate, and an Expert Defence Witness – Child Protection ,
Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, doctorate in the social sciences (interdisciplinary: sociology, anthropology, psychology)
Earl Howe, House of Lords, Countess Mar, House of Lords,
Michael Nott, Former Radio and Television Journalist,
Clifford Miller UK Lawyer,
Dr Michael Innis Pathologist and a Haematologist ,
Dr Harold Buttram MD, FAACP

—————————————-

Responses so far:

July 5, 2010

I don’t know a lot about this topic (i.e., about the autism part of it), but do note that there appear to be no reports in the professional literature of autism per se being falsely alleged in MBP cases.  In other words, it might occur, but, if so, no professionals have published the account, at least based on my search of the PubMed database.

Good luck with your efforts.

Marc D. Feldman, M.D.
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry

Adjunct Professor of Psychology
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama

mdf@myself.com
http://www.munchausen.com

Below is a response from Dr. Brian Freedman, Clinical Director, Center for Autism & Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute:

July 30, 2010

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your personal story. Here at Kennedy Krieger, we see the challenges faced by families of children with autism every day and we marvel at the resiliency and strength of these families, especially moms like yourself. We know how important it is to listen to families, as they are in the best position to be an expert on their child’s autism. In fact, Kennedy Krieger has a national online research registry at www.ianproject.org that collects information from parents and individuals with autism to share with researchers. The IAN Project is exploring everything from diagnosis and treatments to maternal/paternal stress. We encourage more parents to register and share their valuable knowledge. My research into the rate at which parents of children with autism remain married is indeed only one insight into the experiences that parents are facing. Hopefully this work will pave the way for researchers to further explore the experiences and circumstances of parents of children with autism. I couldn’t agree with you more that there is much for us to learn and understand about the challenges that families like yours are facing.

Brian Freedman, Ph.D.,
Clinical Director, Center for Autism & Related Disorders
Kennedy Krieger Institute

Links for Parents: Join the IAN Network https://www.ianresearch.org/signup

KKI IAN :: Interactive Autism Network – Linking the Autism Community and Researchers – The Interactive Autism Network (IAN) is an innovative online project bringing together tens of thousands of people nationwide affected by autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and hundreds of researchers in a search for answers.

I am a proud Mama Grizzly!

I have written to Sarah PAC about my Mama Grizzly campaign, read below:

First of all, thank you for the amazing opportunity to be heard! My name is X and I am a mother of four amazing children, two of them have Autism.  We are in New York.

All across America, mothers are losing custody of their children in family court, losing it to their abusive spouses. In the most emotionally charged cases because of Autism, the courts least understand how to rule in those situations. From what I have researched, fathers are in denial and appeal to the courts that the mother is dragging the child around for unnecessary therapeutic services, upsetting the children.  For the “safety” of the children, the father is given custody.

If this phenomenon scares you, know that many doctors and lawyers are validating my statements. I am putting all of my research on this blog http://autismcustodybattles.wordpress.com and have sadly quite the following.

Mothers are crying for your help. We need the court officers to be educated, or to allow the experts into the courtroom.

We need a law that forces parents to follow the Board of Educations recommendations on the IEP. The Board of Ed has professionals doing evaluations. The IEP shouldn’t just be a recommendation, it should be a law. If a child with autism has a recommendation for 30 hours of Special Ed each week, the parents should be forced to comply.

Please help us help our children. We are strong, we can do it. If God gave us these children, it is because He knows we can handle it. But we need laws to protect them.

In June 2010 the New York State Senate passed the S7000B insurance law that makes all Autism testing and services covered by insurance. This law only enables thousands of New York families to receive the benefit of evidence based, clinically proven interventions and treatments for autism spectrum disorders, like Applied Behavior Analysis therapy (ABA), as well as screening and diagnostic services.

It is a “better-than-nothing” law, and we need more. We need more laws, and we need to modify this a bit, more like the A6888.

I have a following of moms who are bursting at the seams, waiting to be heard. We have ideas, we have the passion, and we have the intellect.

And many of us no longer have custody of our innocent children.

SarahPAC P.O. Box 7711 Arlington, VA 22207
(202) 747-1812 Email: info@sarahpac.com

If you are in support of this cause, let your voice be heard. Join the herd and comment below. Don’t forget to check both boxes so that you can be notified when a new post is made.

Marsha Malick, Phd

A published finding on November 10, 2009 claims that Mothers of children with autism have stress levels similar to combat soldiers. “For the “daily diary” study, mothers were contacted at the end of each day and asked a series of questions about time use, episodes of fatigue, leisure activities and stressful events. The data were compared with a nationally representative sample of mothers of children without disabilities drawn from a study known as MIDUS (Study of Midlife in the U.S.), directed by Carol D. Ryff, a UW-Madison professor of psychology.”

“We need to find more ways to be supportive of these families,” says Smith, noting that the added care giving burden and potential health problems associated with chronic stress can be a devastating combination.”

I contacted Dr. Marsha’s office on July 20, 2010 and spoke to Eric schafer@waisman.widc.edu. I am awaiting for some words of encouragement to moms who have been so anxious due to their stress, that the courts actually twisted that around as mental illness, and for the ‘safety’ of the child, handed custody over to the father. Most often, those fathers are in denial about the autism from the start which puts the child’s best interest at serious risk. How heartbreaking.

Myra, a mother in Colorado writes an all too familiar story “the reason I lost custody was because our child was diagnosed with Autism and the court felt our child would be better taken care with his father because he can afford private therapies.” All Myra asks for is your prayers.

Many parents of children who have extensive needs due to Autism Spectrum Disorder will sue the Board of Ed each year and win using Section 501 (503,504,508) and win the case. Once you win the case, the Board of Ed will allow you to place your child in a school other than public school, and will fund the tuition fees. This is only if the hearing officers rule that the school is a better placement with more appropriate services for your child’s needs, better than the public school that was originally recommended in the IEP.  Read about The Wrightslaw Special Education Law

All these laws help give children the best chance at education so that they can reach their full potential. What about parents in denial? What happens when a father or mother claims there is nothing wrong with the child? NOTHING HAPPENS. The Board of Ed cannot sue the parent for educational neglect, but parents are suing the Board every year!

It takes hours and hours to engage a child to use pretend play as a learning tool.  The Autism community is split about the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of ABA versus Floortime therapy. It doesn’t matter who has more research and studies. It only matters about the child’s response. If the child is making progress, that’s what you need to care about. Personally, I don’t care if they are reaching new milestones by drinking placebo juice.

Just to explain to you how much work, sweat, and time it takes for an Autism ABA Therapist to teach a child how to use pretend play and turn it into a learning experience, please watch this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrPquD_pdm8

Seeing this, you get the feeling that these kids stand a chance of learning and growing from it.  What about children who are denied services because their parents never follow through with the Board of Ed mandate? It’s a crying shame.

In Family Court, you cannot force a custodial parent to commit to the Board of Education’s mandated therapeutic services. Apparently, the ‘big medical professional a.k.a. parent gets to make that decision. How absurd.

Post-separation violence can take many forms, including physical or sexual assault, threats of physical abuse, stalking, harassment, and threats related to taking custody of the children or refusing child support.

Wikipedia on Domestic Violence: “Clinicians should not relax their vigilance after a battered wife leaves her husband, because some data suggest that the period immediately following a marital separation is the period of greatest risk for the women. Many men will stalk and batter their wives in an effort to get them to return or punish them for leaving. Initial assessments of the potential for violence in a marriage can be supplemented by standardized interviews and questionnaires, which have been reliable and valid aids in exploring marital violence more systematically.”

Then there is the case of The Obsessed Abuser, Family Violence Prevention Fund www.endabuse.org “He may make threats to kill himself or her if she leaves him, asks for a separation or divorce. He often says, “If I can’t have you, no one will.” This behavior may persevere months or years after a separation. His criminal record can include violations of protective orders or situations where he has disturbed the peace as he pursues or harasses his partner. However, some of these men have clean records – only the partner knows about his jealousy and possessiveness.”

Spouse Murder and Separation Violence – Finally, I found the official terms for these behaviors.

Men like O.J. Simpson, think they are the abused spouses are very dangerous during separation and divorce. In one study of spousal homicide, over half of the male defendants were separated from their victims. G.W. Bernard, H. Vera, M.I. Vera, and G. Newman, “Till Death Do Us Part: A Study of Spouse Murder,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10 (1982).

Bristol, CT Police Department  has compiled some data:
Men, who believe they are entitled to relationship with battered women or that they “own” their female partner, view women’s departure as an ultimate betrayal which justifies retaliation. (Saudners & Browne, 1990; Dutton, 1988; Bernard el at, 1982)

Evidence of the gravity of separation violence is overwhelming.

Husband threatening to declare wife insane and threatening to take the children away:

In the book  The batterer as parent: addressing the impact of domestic violence on family It is common for batterers to threaten to take children away from the battered woman by proving her to be an unfit mother (Doyne et al., 1999). Threatened or actual litigation regarding custody or visitation can become a critical avenue for the batterer to maintain control after separation (Shepard, cited in Straus 1995).

For this reason, some lawyers advise women not to tell courts or mediators about child abuse or domestic abuse because, by doing so, they risk losing custody to the alleged abuser (“Custody Litigation,” 1988; Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004).

Message to Victims that you will often see posted says:

REMEMBER, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A CRIME.
IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.
YOU CAN GET OUT OF THIS SITUATION.
YOU DESERVE BETTER.

Really? What can I do to get out this situation? You can only get out of it if you do something before this situation has exploded in your face.

In the News: Kimberly Smith was murdered in her Oconomowoc home Oct. 1 2009 during a custody battle.

Below is a note that my son wrote to me after we were separated when the court ordered me out of the house and away from the children. When he saw me the first time after a few days and visitations began, this was the first thing he gave me.

It reads: “Dear mommy, I would like to have more and more hugs” (misspelled)

To me, this was so touching, the child literally wants to be near me all the time. Now, what if a court ordered psychologist sees this. They have a right to make their opinion become law! Suppose they read it and say, oh, this means the mother never hugs the child.

Oh well. The brutality of how court ordered evaluators and psychologists can hurt your children so much in family court.

Highly recommended Speech and Language Therapists in NY

StrivRight – The Auditory School of New York

Frank Lorusso, MS
5804 17th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11204

Debra Reisberg
5804 17th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11204
(732) 297-0292

Perri Hecht Speech and Auditory Services
995 East 21st Street
Brooklyn, NY 11210
Phone: (718) 377-3783
Fax Number: (718) 377-5659

A helpful tip: children with cochlear implants have excellent speech therapists who work with auditory processing issues. Those are the therapists you want for your child with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

In this video Linda Hodgdon discusses how speech therapy can help students with autism.

Caught on viedotape: Judge Garson accepted $1,000 and a box of cigars from Paul Siminovsky, a divorce lawyer who regularly fraternized in Garson’s chambers

“The poor need legal aid, not pressure to pay bribes. They need proof that
everyone is equal before the law.”
— Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg

Warning Signs of Bribery of the Family Court Judge in a Custody Case

1 – If you tell any court appointment worker about sexual abuse and you lose custody to your abuser, then you know that your CPS worker or Lawyer or Law Guardian involved in child trafficking Rings.  They will bribe the courts to give custody to the batterer and then use the children for their child trafficking rings.   In the case of Alanna Krauss, the child was begging to live with the mother for fear of Domestic Violence, which was ignored. In the case of Amy Neustein, the mother repeatedly reported sexual abuse to the attorneys, Judge Deutsch, and Ohel local division for children’s services in Brooklyn NY. Her please were ignored.

Media Links:

Example One: Nancy Shaefer exposes Childrens Protective Service CPS as pedophiles in the system.  (Former State Senator of Georgia and her husband Bruce were found brutally killed)

Example Two: Famed Child Psychiatrist Dr. William Ayers retained by the court for forensic evaluations enjoyed years of trust in the courts until he was exposed as a pedophile. His victims testified after years of believing they must submit to his rigorous ‘treatment’ by order of the courts.

2- Your Family, Friends, and supporters are not allowed into the courtroom.  Even if the family court is open to the public and media, the very people you will want in the courtroom are thrown out by the judge. This is because they do not want anyone to believe your bizarre story about what went on in there. When you tell people, they will say you are making it up. This gives them the freedom to order you around without having to answer to your supporters.

3- It feels like the judge already knows what he needs to order without you even opening your mouth. If you walk into the courtroom with a list of evidence and documentation, they will not hear you out. They will not let you submit your documentation or evidence. Ever wonder why?  Even if you show mind-blowing information, if they don’t take it from your hands, they didn’t have to enter it into the case thus not hearing you out.

4 – The CPS worker or Law Guardian testifies that the Mother appears to have mental health issues. Note: they are not mental health professionals and have no legal right to make allegations, ye the judge will hear them out without a doctor’s evaluation report citing your mental illness. Furthermore, the alleged mental illness is enough to pass custody over to the father. Again, nobody ever got proof of your mental illness. May times it’s left off at “friends and neighbors say she is nuts”.

5 – Judge taking out large sums of money in the form of property loans and later paying them back is one method that a judge might employ to conceal the fact that he or she is being enriched from an outside source. When a judge’s income is inadequate to serve as the source of loan repayments, it is likely that the funds are coming from somewhere else.

6- Cronyism leads to liars appointed as forensic evaluators. You are not entitled to your report. You don’t understand how your meeting with the evaluator turned into a negative blast-fest in the courtroom, while you listen in horror. NY TIMES “Though they have been around for years, court-appointed forensics have become increasingly commonplace — and controversial — in New York, which may be the high-conflict custody capital of the nation.”

7 – You are deemed to be an unfit parent, had your parental rights stripped of you, without a  conviction before a jury of peers.  Oftentimes, this is a temporary ruling based on “urgency” of the testimony of the CPS ACS worker in the courtroom.  Unequal custody rulings by a single judge are wrong and you have a constitutional right to have a trial by jury.  By then, though, they will not hear you out because by the time they schedule it, the children have been with the father for so long, the court will prefer to keep that as a status quo. This is done on purpose.  “Psychologists are included in the slander process through court ordered “evaluation” of the psyches of family members, turning legal matters into alleged psychological problems, and defamation of character by these alleged “professionals” who oblige the courts’ requests for their services.”

8- You feel like the reason your case keeps being adjourned is not for fact finding but for prolonging litigation thereby lining the pockets of the professionals of the system. “Courts and evaluators sit in passive judgment, yet rarely render guidance. Evaluators are scientifically incapable of identifying the “better” parent-yet earn millions from desperate parents by pretending they can. Attorneys rarely end conflict, but regularly use courts to encourage litigation, absorb resources, and harm their clients, children, and community.”

9 – Your free legal aid lawyer asks you for “money on the side”. You drop the lawyer. Your mess gets worse in court.

10 – You take the kids to the law guardian for an interview, or the CPS worker arrives to your home. In either case, they already have a pre-formed character opinion on you. You might even see the law guardian look at his notes as he already has a file of information on you. Whatever you say makes no difference. They already know you are “mentally ill” and will say that in court. The visit or appointment is just a formality for record keeping. Even if you sit in silence they already know what they will do with you in court.

SPEAK UP!

If anything like this has happened to you or is currently happening. Wake up! It’s true and it’s happening nationally across America in the Family Courts we turn to for “justice”. If we can join hands and make light of what is happening, we stand a chance of ending this corruption.

Judge Robin K. Sheares

Robin K. Sheares, Brooklyn Family Court Judge was removed from the bench on July 14, 2010 after she sent a mom named Sukhwant Herb to Rikers Island for resisting her idiotic order to have her 9-year-old son visit his father Seon Jonas Sr., a serial rapist who’s serving 27 years in an Arizona prison. Herb was sentenced to a minimum of 50 days and never offered bail.

Top court administrators transferred Judge Robin Sheares to Brooklyn Civil Court for violations of the state Code of Judicial Conduct – including biased behavior in her tirades and decisions from the bench

Read more: Judge Robin Sheares, who jailed mom for keeping son from visiting rapist dad, transferred

The New York City Bar Association disqualified Sheares after interviewing her and about 20 other attorneys and judges who were familiar with her work. The evaluation criteria included integrity, impartiality and intellectual ability. A lengthy confidential report on Sheares was prepared and the “not approved” rating was issued on Aug. 29, 2006

It is a “better-than-nothing” law, and we need more. We need more laws, and we need to modify this a bit, more like the A6888.

S7000B/A10372A allows insurance companies to deny basic interventions such as speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and ABA therapy on the ground that they are not “evidence based”, “peer-reviewed” and “clinically proven.”

These new requirements would preclude coverage for almost all interventions for autism,
even those determined by a licensed physician to be medically appropriate and necessary. This standard would also serve to discriminate against individuals with ASD who would be required to meet this higher insurability standard, whereas all other individuals in New York would be required to meet only the traditional and less onerous “medically necessary” standard.

The Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy joins the authentic autism community In Support of Assembly Bill A6888B.

We urge the legislature to support an insurance bill that would meaningfully enhance
insurance coverage for individuals with autism. We believe that Assembly Bill A6888B,
legislation supported by the overwhelming number of autism organizations and families in New York, offers our children the best opportunity for fair and adequate insurance coverage.

We have learned from our practical legal experience in handling insurance coverage
disputes that insurance companies, with disturbing regularity, successfully avoid coverage for many therapies vital to children with ASD. We need legislation that will mandate certain basic non-experimental therapies that are medically necessary for children and individuals with ASD. We need legislation that will prevent insurers from denying coverage when a legitimate medical practitioner determines that therapy is medically necessary.

ELIZABETH BIRT CENTER FOR AUTISM LAW AND ADVOCACY
Jodi Bouer, Attorney At Law
Lisa Colin, Attorney At Law
Mary Holland, Attorney At Law, Director
Robert J. Krakow, Attorney At Law
Kim Mack Rosenberg, Attorney At Law

Want to do more? TAKE ACTION

Write to your Your State Upper Chamber Representatives, Your State Lower Chamber Representatives, Dean G. Skelos, Senator, Senator Sheldon Silver, Assembly Member, Harvey Weisenberg, Assemblyman, Assembly Member Kemp Hannon, New York State Senator, Chairman of Senate Health Committee, Pete Grannis, Assembly Member

Join my Facebook Cause “Autism Custody Battles, Spare the Children!”

Become a Mama Grizzly for “Sarah Palin Call for Mama Grizzlies in November 2010 Elections”

Check the status of BILL NUMBER:A6888B “An act to amend the insurance law, in relation to requiring health insurance coverage of the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders”

************************* UPDATE August 18, 2010: S.7000B/A.10372A hits the Governor’s desk.  He has 10 days to sign the bill into law!  Call him today at (518) 474-8390 and tell him to sign!

What usually happens in cases where the couples cannot agree on big issues? They have to come up with white lies and slaughter each other in court in order for one of the grounds to be proven true. Only then can you get divorced.  The new law stipulates that a marriage is over if the parties have lived apart for six months. Once all the financial matters have been settled, the divorce becomes final.

• (S3890A/Hassell-Thompson) to provide individuals with the ability to seek a divorce without litigating fault. Other significant reforms include:
• Establishing post-marital income guidelines for maintenance awards (S7740A/Hassell-Thompson).
• Ensuring that all parties can afford counsel from the beginning of divorce proceedings (S4532A/Sampson).

No-fault divorce supporters, including the state Bar Association, argued the current system causes hardships because it forces couples to endure a one-year trial separation before divorcing – or one spouse must accuse the other of cruel treatment, adultery or abandonment, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §170.

The Assembly approved the measure 113 to 19. A spokesman for Gov. Paterson said he will review it.  Many trial lawyers enthusiastically support the no-fault legislation, which they have argued would simplify the divorce process. However, they have concerns about the spousal support element of the package to which it is linked.

Would New Yorkers like to swap their divorce rate for the 56% rate of its neighbor, New Jersey, and have 75,900 divorces per year? Or Connecticut’s rate of 60%, yielding 81,000 divorces in New York?

Yes, Yes, Yes!  Because these numbers do not reflect happy marriages. They reflect not-divorced-yet people. I know of two people who are already remarried under the Jewish Divorce allowance (GET) but the court is still not finding any grounds, forcing these two people to be civilly married. And this is going on for seven years. Can’t these people get divorced simply because they want to?

In cases where autism splits up a family, what do you suggest the mother tell the courts on the grounds trial? Quick, pick one: cruel and inhumane treatment, adultery or abandonment.  Ding!  Can’t pick one? You now must remain married.

Mike McManus, author of “How to Cut America’s Divorce Rate in Half” and his wife, Harriet, co-chair Marriage Savers, a ministry whose goal is to help churches and communities reduce their divorce rates and raise marriage rates.  They asked, “Is that a legacy New York wants for its children – more poverty, more academic failure, more unwed births, more crime?”  Yes, because it is still better than sharing a home where children’s issues are not addressed, they become psychiatric, educationally neglected, and their potential not reached, by order of the court.  Come to Brooklyn Family Court, Mr. McManus. Bring your wife along too. Speak to all these mothers of children with autism. Ask them what it is like to disrupt their children’s routines with visitations. And speak to the mothers who have lost custody because they do what is right for their children, such as Board of Ed recommended speech therapy, etc.

Just ask these mothers. We can tell you that we would embrace poverty over hostility.  We will not merit to see academic failure, unwed births, or more crimes. Because we will help our children reach their potential. Like we always did. Give us a chance to get divorced, and be able to do what is right for our kids.

Annette G. Hasapidis, co-chair of the Legislation Committee for the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York, said no-fault would permit victims of domestic violence to get out of dangerous situations faster and make it less likely they’ll have to testify in court against their abusers. Also, she said, issues of monetary support will be dealt with more quickly.

“Victims of domestic violence need safety and independence, and our current system of divorce laws does not reliably provide them with either.  It is time to reform our divorce laws so they no longer present such an insurmountable obstacle to victims,”  Ellen C. Schell,Esq., Legal Director CDWBA Legal Project, Inc said.

And my final argument is that big government has a no fault marriage policy. You can get married to each other without asking permission. You don’t need to solemnly swear to get along, not hurt each other, or threaten to rob a bride of her future children. You can simply get married. And so too, we should simply be able to get divorced without all the drama of white lies regarding custody and divorce grounds. Enough of all the suffering.

Brian Freedman, PhD, lead author of the study and clinical director of the Center for Autism and Related Disorders at Kennedy Krieger Institute, said the findings seem to debunk a lot of the general understanding about high divorce rates among parents of children with autism.

Dear parents: If you read this press release (http://www.kennedykrieger.org/kki_news.jsp?pid=8851) and you are involved in a custody battle and you are also a parent of a child on the autism spectrum, we need you!

Please let your voices be heard.

Contacts:

Megan Lustig, PR Kennedy Krieger Institute
Phone: 202-955-6222
mlustig@spectrumscience.com

Dr. Brian Freedman at freedman@kennedykrieger.org

–

My email to Dr. Freedman and Megan Lustig:

Dr. Freedman, I am writing to you with all due respect to thank you for debunking the autism divorce rate. However, I challenge you to take a trip with me to the NY Family Courts one day. For arguments sakes, July 14 2010.  What you will learn there will astound you. Although couples may not be getting divorced, they are certainly involved in horrendous custody battles. And of all the fathers and mothers in the family courts involved in custody battles, (many of them never married), of all the ones I personally asked, their families were touched my autism.

Personally, I have 4 children, 2 of them already diagnosed on the spectrum. The baby has all the precursors too. I lost custody three months ago. The allegations? “mental health issues” “excessively dragging the children around town for unnecessary therapies, confusing and upsetting the children. Temporarily, for the safety of the children, the mother should be excluded from the marital residence”.

My baby was breastfeeding at the time.

Dr. Freedman, I am turning to you because your findings had the ability to reach global attention. I feel that you might want to take a simple visit to the courts and just see what is going on. Perhaps you can change the word “Autism/Divorce” to “Autism/Custody battles”.

It happens to be that I am married still to my abusive husband. I cannot get divorced until I agree to the custody arrangements. How can I agree?  How can I allow a man to raise four children, it goes against all of what nature has designed?  How can I sit back and humbly hand over the SSI disability checks, courtesy of our federal government, while my spouse proudly proclaimed in court that he “firmly disputes the diagnosis” and then proudly closed their IEP cases with the Board of Education. For his ego in courts, there is nothing wrong with the children. For his wallet, the disability checks work well with him.

I am pleading to you to rethink this ‘myth’ and approach it from a new angle. If you need me to walk the walk and get poll sheets filled out by other parents in the courts, I am offering my reliable and unshakable devotion to the cause.

Thank you so much.

Sincerely,
A grieving mother of four, NY

Response from Dr. Brian Freedman, Clinical Director, Kennedy Krieger Institute

Posted on July 30, 2010

If you would like to contact Barry L. Goldstein, his email address is Barryg78@aol.com You can read more about his book on his website http://www.barrygoldstein.net

Isn’t it sad that the court continues the abuse using a system that is failing the very ones we seek to protect? This phenomenon has spread across the nation. Parents disagree over the needs of their child. They fight about it. They cannot resolve it. Mother petitions for custody. Father gets custody. The purpose of this bizarre practice is to enrage the mother into pouring money into the legal system. By angering a mother enough, the lawyers can safely predict a 3-5 year custody battle in the courts, which ensures a comfortable retirement for themselves.

Rightsformothers blog author recently posted a link to Jimmy Carter speaking about violation of women’s rights. http://rightsformothers.com/2010/07/05/jimmy-carter-religion-is-one-of-the-basic-causes-of-violations-of-womens-rights/ you might want to check out this video clip.

If you speak up, you will get your mouth shut and your head chopped off, just like Barry Goldstein.

The couple started the Tackling Autism Foundation in order to bring parents of special needs children closer together. Once a month, the organization chooses some deserving parents to participate in the Timeout for Two program. Through the program, parents of autistic children are able to have a night out while their children stay with a Texan behavioral therapist. This is a benefit for autistic children and parents alike.

“This is a good time to just kind of sit back and relax with your wife and remember before all this happened, you were friends, you fell in love, you got married,” Scott Jackson told Fox News.

Although I love the idea of “Time Out for Parents of Autistic Children” it is too little, too late for parents fighting for custody. Ask any of those parents if they ever attended a support meeting together. Most often, the answer is no. And worse: “he wouldn’t allow me to go to those functions”.  Fathers in denial will put up a tough fight to preserve the family name, claiming there is nothing wrong with the kid. If you dispute the autism to begin with, you never do arrive to support groups, date nights, and time outs for parents.

Scott and Ashley Jackson, can you help single parents fighting for custody, too?

The treatments Coman’s son received are also the subject of a bitter divorce and custody battle between Coman and his wife. She has been a proponent of the therapies for the boy, according to divorce court records.
What I find particularly disturbing are the facts and how they are a pattern we can all recognize in custody battles.

• · Divorce court records cited by the Tribune claim the boy’s mother is a proponent of the therapies.
• James Coman and his son were featured last year in “Dubious Medicine,” a Tribune series that examined risky, unproven treatments for autism based on questionable science. The media loves this sort of controversy. They feed right into it without researching the facts. If your child has autism, you will be desperate to find a way to help them. DAN doctors are sought out, and other therapeutic services are paid for out of pocket, such as NAET therapy for cleansing heavy metals in the system. Lawyers and people in the media have no idea how challenging this is for parents. They have no idea how costly this is, and it gets better. Parents will very often try the SCD diet, the GFCF diet, etc. incurring huge debt for the expensive ingredients. What moms get for that is “Father Sues” and a painful custody battle.
• family-practice physicians Dr. Anjum Usman of Naperville and Dr. Daniel Rossignol of Melbourne, Fla. — are prominent in the Defeat Autism Now! movement, which promotes many of the alternative treatments the Tribune scrutinized.
• Coman alleged in Cook County Circuit Court that Usman and Rossignol prescribed “medically unnecessary and unjustified” chelation treatments, designed to force the body to excrete toxic metals, even though the child did not suffer from heavy metal poisoning. The treatments carry a risk of kidney failure, the lawsuit alleges.
• Rossignol prescribed these treatments solely over the phone, having never seen the child in person, according to the lawsuit.
• Coman’s son was found to have elevated levels of lead, aluminum, tin and mercury — some with results Doctor’s Data listed in the “90 percent range of metal contamination,” according to the lawsuit.

I guess I can find comfort that the doctor was sued, and not the mother. How many mothers were alleged to be suffering from Munchausen’s By Proxy Syndrome, and only because they are they support the therapeutic services for their children with autism? If you were hurt by this scandalous behavior of fathers in denial, please let your voice be heard.

Mrs. Coman, please tell us how you feel!

warriormom writes on the ChicagoNow website – Even the Tribune decided to ‘take a side’ in an autism divorce battle by showcasing James Coman’s lawsuit with two doctor’s and the testing company, alleging that they harmed his son with “dangerous and unnecessary experimental treatments”. The treatments Coman’s son received are the subject of a bitter divorce and custody battle between Coman and his wife. I think the real story here is much simpler than the Trib made it out to be…with the title being something more like “Divorce gets messy; father sues doctors in order to smear mother and get custody”. That may be a bit closer to what appears to be going on with this particular family. If those treatments were so ‘horrendous’, than why would he agree to them as a parent? Additionally, earlier in the article, he describes his son as an ‘playful, funny, and outgoing’. Hmmm….sounds like a child in recovery from ‘autism’ to me most likely in part to his mother and ‘those’ doctors.
SpectrumPublications.com – According to Jim Coman, the only way to stop those treatments was to take his wife to court. While both parents confirmed that the courts ordered the treatments to stop, they don’t agree why it was ordered. Coman contends the court ordered the treatments to cease because he believes they are doing harm to his son.

The biomedical and conventional treatments are only the beginning of a long list of issues the couple is working on resolving. The Comans continue to live under the same roof but barely speak to each other while the couple leaves the decision for the courts to decide what treatments and therapies are best for their son. The stress of divorce and daily living may not be the best fit for the children who are caught in the middle of an ongoing struggle between adults.

Autism runs in our family but because I battle depression and anxiety to red flags for autism I am being mistreated in a cruel way. I am a great mom and made sure my girls were taken well care of and even helped heal there guts from bleeding with supplements and GF diets. I am now forced to live without my precious girls since April 17th,09 and all they want is to come home. Our social services need reform badly. My girls need there momma and there medical needs are not being met. I am clinging onto prayer knowing Jesus knows what kind of mother I am as a autistic adult,he blessed me with these children. Autism isn’t easy to live with but I raised them all there life alone and my oldest who is 25 and neurotypical. God please let there be justice in this cruel world for autistic families. I love you my sweet girls and I will get you back. To see my other videos search AUTISTICSSURVIVE and judge for yourselves. We are family,were just all Autistic. The bible say’s to love one another this is his greatest commandment. Pray for us!! Linda,Montanna and Shellbe Souza

FACTS:

1) MSBP does not present with Autism

2) MSBP is when a mother focuses one child only. In the genetic roulette of autism, you can see more than one child with ASD in the same family, as well as one parent too.

The Autism Research Institute (www.Autism.com) posted an article by  Former law professor, Dr. Bill Long, who wrote a review paper for lawyers and judges on MSBP. Dr. Long’s Executive Summary is below.

Former Law Professor Debunks Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy Myth

In recent years, several mothers in the autism community have been accused of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP), in which the mother is thought to be imagining the medical problems in her son/daughter. Former law professor, Dr. Bill Long, wrote a review paper for lawyers and judges on MSBP. Dr. Long’s Executive Summary is below.

See the unabridged report (41-page .pdf)
William R. Long, M. Div., Ph. D., J. D.; July 12, 2008

MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY (“MSBP”)/FACTITIOUS DISORDER BY PROXY (“FDBP”):
A Guide for Judges, Lawyer and Parents
Dr. Bill Long; drbilllong@gmail.com
Executive Summary

For more than 30 years prosecutors, social workers and many mental health professionals have used a diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP as a means of taking children from their caregivers and then, often, bringing charges against the caregiver for abusing the children. At the heart of MSBP/FDBP is the allegation that the caregiver (usually the mother) is either lying about the medical symptoms experienced by the child or has induced real symptoms through poisoning or other injurious actions against the child. Why would the mother/caregiver do such a thing? Those who “believe in” the diagnosis argue that she does so in order to get attention from the medical community, often for unmet needs in her own life, and become the center of attention in a complex medical drama that she is inducing. Thus, the heart of a MSBP/FDBP allegation is that the mother or child’s caregiver is secretly “working the system” and trying to deceive multiple levels of medical staff as she goes about her nefarious design of injuring and perhaps even killing her child. Because the allegation of MSBP/FDBP relates to child endangerment, it has been a “hot button” sub-issue in the larger world of child abuse that has been at the fore of American social services and law in the past generation.

It is often difficult for prosecutors to “prove” that a mother has actually injured her child, especially since so many of the mothers alleged to be “MSBP/FDBP” “moms” themselves have medical training, personal charm, apparent solicitude for the child’s well-being and the well-being of the medical staff attending the child. Direct evidence (e.g., eyewitness testimony of induced poisons) is hard to come by; circumstantial evidence, too, is often scanty. Thus, the allegation of MSBP/FDPB—that the mother suffers from this “syndrome”–can be a sort of evidentiary boost for the prosecution when its case might otherwise be weak. By arguing that it is consistent for the sufferer of the “syndrome” to be an outwardly caring mother, one who eagerly seeks medical advice and affirms the medical staff, prosecutors can leap over a sometimes yawning evidentiary gap and help the state pry the child away from the parents. Then, as is argued in the paper, prosecutors need only refer to vague “studies” that show that children returned to MSBP/FDBP mothers face a significant likelihood of physical danger and even death at the hands of the caregiver, and courts almost always deprive parents of their child/children. Though child abuse is a significant problem and one that ought to be seriously addressed at all levels of society, the allegation of MSBP/FDBP can function as a evidentiary “short cut” to help make a prosecutor’s case for him/her when direct or circumstantial evidence is lacking.

One of the criteria for MSBP identified in a classic study is that the child’s symptoms abate when separated from the perpetrator. This is taken to be a sign that the caregiver induced or fabricated the symptoms. Yet, when the classic article using this definition is examined, one finds that the statistics she provides not only don’t support her point but actually lead to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, her evidence points to most cases of worsening of symptoms happening in the hospital. Of course, one could argue that these symptoms were induced by the caregiver in that context, but she does not so argue. In addition, if one thinks about this point for a moment, one would normally expect the child’s symptoms to abate when give over to the medical professionals. Perhaps as a result of the flimsiness of this criterion, later papers and definitions of MSBP don’t include it as a feature of MSBP.

I argue in the paper that the result of this kind of thinking and action has led to dramatically bad consequences for parents and their children, children who may have medical conditions that are difficult to diagnose and treat. If the mother, for example, denies that she has induced the physical ailment in her child, the state can say, “Ah, a denial is a sure sign that the mother is guilty of being an MSBP/FDBP mother. Thus, we recommend the child be taken away.” If, on the other hand, the mother “confesses” to having induced the illness in the child, the child will be taken away because a confession serves as direct evidence of the mother’s abuse of the child. Thus, mothers accused of being an “MSBP/FDBP mom” are in a Catch-22 type-of-situation. Shadowy allegations often are enough to take a child away from parents; and denials of abuse protect them no more than a confession.

With this the problem before us, I do two things in the paper: (1) describe the history of the diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP since its inception in 1977 and divide that history into four “sub-periods,” so that we can see the nature of the syndrome as it emerged in psychology and was developed in law; and (2) point out a number of vulnerabilities in the diagnosis that my historical discussion has uncovered. Four major difficulties with the diagnosis are: (a) its definition; (b) who is able to diagnose it; (c) who suffers from it (mother or child); and (d) what statistical evidence we have of the phenomenon. I argue that the cumulative effect of these problems is that that courts ought to stop accepting a diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP until they are satisfactorily cleared up. The remainder of this summary states my conclusions on (a)-(d).

First, with respect to definition, I show how the “classic” definition of MSBP in a 1987 article and the psychological definition of FDBP (the “successor” name for it), which appeared in the 1994 DSM-IV, differ in crucial ways. The 1987 article makes the mother’s intent and denial crucial to the definition of MSBP, while the 1994 definition focuses more on the induction of symptoms in the child than on caregiver intent. Indeed, in my article, I point to four ways in which the definitions aren’t consistent. On top of this is the fact that a new definition was introduced in 2000 as a significant professional group dealing with abused children created yet a third parallel syndrome—“Pediatric Condition Falsification.”
Second, the issue of who can diagnose MSBP/FDBP is a subtle one with wide-ranging ramifications. If it is only diagnosable by a mental health professional, then it will be done after suspicions are raised and tests are administered to the one suspected of MSBP. If, however, it is more of a “hypothesis” than a “conclusion,” social workers, educators, police, or anyone who might come in contact with a child whom they “suspect” might be a victim of MSBP can “diagnose.” But this difference of opinion on who can diagnose goes right to the heart of what MSBP is—a “syndrome” or a “suspicion.” The literature, as well as court cases, are confused on this point. A subsidiary point is when such a diagnosis may be made—at the beginning of the relationship between caregiver and professional or only after a process of examination has concluded?

Third, there is the issue of who suffers from MSBP. Most literature today says that it is the caregiver who does, but the classic 1987 article talks about the children being afflicted by MSBP.

Finally, there is disagreement on the statistics for MSBP. How prevalent is it? The early studies talked about its comparative rarity. Indeed, the 1987 study only found 117 cases of it in the previous 22 years of literature review—about 5.3 cases per year. But by the mid-1990s, some articles were claiming that the condition was not rare at all, and that courts, prosecutors, social workers and doctors must be on their guard to “smoke out” some of the hidden ways that this “syndrome” goes unnoticed. Along with great differences on the number of cases of MSBP is the related issue of the treatment of children if they are released back to their “Munchausen home.” With almost no foundation, some of the literature claimed that there was about a 20% chance that a child who goes home to Munchausen caregivers is going home to die. But when the 1987 study suggested a much smaller number, even the inventor of the “syndrome,” Dr. Roy Meadow, wrote to the publication saying that the 1987 numbers were highly inflated. Thus, we have a major statistical problem on our hands that needs to be resolved before such a diagnosis should be allowed in court.

Finally, it should be noted, the “godfather” of the diagnosis, Dr. Roy Meadow, has now been discredited in his native England for giving expert witness testimony in more than one case where he opined on statistical matters where he was later shown to have no competence, and his opinion contributed to separate jury’s finding that two mothers had murdered their children.

Therefore, until these four problems are addressed by those who still support a diagnosis of MSBP/FDBP, I recommend that it should be interred alongside its eponymous ancestor, Karl Friedrich Hieronymus, Freiherr von Munchausen.

.Furthermore, Autism parents hit by abuse claims (as reported by BBC News) Wednesday, 4 April, 2001, writes that-

Paul Shattock, from the Autism Research Centre in Sunderland, said: “Munchausen’s by Proxy is a very trendy condition at the moment, and some people are being over-zealous in labelling people with it.

“And when a label like that goes onto someone’s file, they are stuck with it forever.”

Another valuable post by Christina England on Vactruth.com 04/08/2010 writes “I have decided to use my experiences and have studied to become a journalist to expose the issues raised and help other families that have been falsely accused of child abuse after their child has been vaccine injured.”

Note: although I don’t want to divert and create a vaccine debate here, I personally do not agree with vaccines causing autism, but rather, the vaccines make lots of symptoms pop out and show suddenly at the same time.

When Christina England chose to foster two boys with Asperger’s Syndrome and other medical challenges, Child Protective Services was alerted and she was placed on the “at risk register” to be watched for abuse. How long until autism and child abuse will be disproved?

What hurts me the most is what she writes:

Before my accusation, I was a foster mother, I was fostering a child with severe Down’s Syndrome and challenging behavior aged six, that child was immediately removed from my care. I am qualified as a Portage Teacher to work with children that are disabled in their homes. This means I am qualified to work out programmes of small steps to help the parents teach their disabled youngsters new skills. I am also qualified in learning support for children with disabilities.

Apparently, Down’s Syndrome is a very visible disability, and nobody accused her of MSBP but as soon as she adopted the two boys with Asperger’s, which is a hidden disability, she was accused Of MSBP and the accusations were never disproved. She continues to be plagued by these false charges and is not allowed to serve on many community functions, despite her long standing experience with serving children with disabilities.  What an outrage.

Although you will find lots of slanderous posts disclaiming Ms. England’s investigative journalism, I feel that the Child Protective Services agencies still look at hidden disabilities as a possibility for MSBP.

Recommended Links:

• FALSE AND HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE ALLEGATIONS OF MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY
  presented by Dr Helen Hayward-Brown. This paper was written in 1999 and presented to the 7th Australasian Child Abuse and Neglect Conference in Perth.
• http://www.msbp.com -M.A.M.A. – the discredited theory of Mothers Against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Allegations

Imagine trying to explain to an autistic kid, who is so rigid and sticks to his or her routine. Imagine trying to explain that on THIS Saturday you will NOT be with Mommy, you will be with Daddy.  Try putting that on a Picture Activity Schedule Board and PECS!

In an article by Autism and Custody Issues: Points for Separating Parents by North Carolina Family Lawyer:

While changes in daily routine and the home environments can be tough on all kids whose parents are separating or separated, children with autism typically have heightened sensitivity to such changes, said Dr. Cynthia Sortisio, a child psychologist based in Durham, North Carolina who has worked with autistic children and teen-agers for more than fifteen years. “Even small changes in the environment that would be unnoticed by other children, or deemed insignificant, such as changes in the lighting or smells in a home can prove bothersome to a child with autism,” she said.

If you try to appeal to the judge about this, you will most likely be accused of Parental Alienation Syndrome and so many other creative disorders, designed to make it easier for the judges to come to swift conclusions. How wrong.

After Jadan Smith, Joshua’s father left to North Carolina for a funeral, his son Joshua was taken by CPS in San Antonia Texas.

Again, as is usual in high profile and widely reported custody battles in the media, you will read lots of slander about Jadan Smith, and how he had originally fled North Carolina to escape child abuse charges, but CPS caught up with him in Texas.

No matter how much dirt you read, an autistic child does not belong with strangers or to be farmed out into foster care. A biological father who is not an axe murderer is better for the care of the child with regards to stability and structure!

The reason that NC is still keeping Josh? Educational neglect and despondency. Educational neglect because he wasn’t registered in a NC school and despondency because he didn’t have a permanent home in NC Neither is legal under the uccjea. And keep in mind, they were Texas residents who were private schooling/homeschooling in Texas.

The crooked Brooklyn lawyer planning to skip jail for helping convict disgraced judge Gerald Garson was led out of a courtroom in handcuffs on 6/26/2007 – despite prosecution pleas for leniency.  Although he previously admitted to bribing judge Gerald P. Garson to fix his cases, said on 9/07/2004 that he did not think he was committing any crimes as he was testifying against Judge Garson’s former clerk, Paul Sarnell, and court officer Louis Salerno – charged with taking bribes to steer the lawyer’s cases illegally to the judge between 2001 and 2003.

Siminovsky said he had only hoped to curry favor with Garson to get lucrative court appointments.  In addition, prosecutors provided financial records as evidence, as well as testimony from Siminovsky. Siminovsky testified that he entertained Judge Garson with lunches, dinners, and drinks, nearly always paying the bill, and gave him money and cigars, in exchange for favorable treatment and legal assignments. The prosecution alleged that before Siminovsky began cooperating with prosecutors, he had already entertained Garson more than 40 times, spending $3,149. The lead prosecutor had asked Garson: “Why did you do this with Siminovsky? Why did you take care of him?” And that Garson had replied: “I like him. And he kind of reminded me of myself.”

On the morning he was arrested, Siminovsky was taken to the Fort Hamilton prison-like army base in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn for questioning. He confessed to wrongdoing within half an hour, and subsequently to bribery. He made a deal with the investigators, agreeing to cooperate in investigating Garson and in his prosecution, in exchange for a reduced charge pursuant to a plea bargain, and the promise of a positive letter from the DA to Siminovsky’s sentencing judge. Within hours, he was wearing a hidden body microphone in a sting operation, as he joined Garson for lunch at the Archives Restaurant on Adams Street. He continued to wear the wire for weeks, in meetings with Garson.

He testified for 13 days at two trials. He ultimately helped prosecutors win guilty pleas or convictions from nine people.  Whether there was a quid pro quo for law guardianships was not so clear, even after prosecutors called a court clerk to testify about guardianships assigned in 2002. Siminovsky received 24 guardianships, while the next-highest number assigned went to an attorney who received 18. The third highest number assigned was 11 guardianships.

Siminovsky pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor for having given unlawful gratuities, as part of his plea bargain. In June 2007, Acting Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey G. Berry, a visiting judge from Orange County, New York, sentenced him to a year in prison, the maximum sentence for the misdemeanor. He also lost his license to practice law, and agreed never to apply for reinstatement.

Others charged with felonies linked to the Garson bribery scheme were: the “fixer” (sentenced to 16 months to 5½ years in prison), a court officer (sentenced to 1–4½ years in prison), two of Siminovsky’s clients who paid what they understood were bribes (sentenced to three months in prison and 150 hours of community service, and to 210 hours of community service, respectively), and a former Garson law clerk (acquitted). Two long-time employees in the main court clerk’s office, who were not arrested, were suspended without pay.

The leader of that investigation was Michael F. Vecchione, a deputy district attorney assigned to the case.

Gerald P. Garson

Gerald P. Garson (born c.1932) — of Brooklyn, Kings County, N.Y. Democrat  Lawyer; Justice of New York Supreme Court, 1998-2003, suspended from State Supreme Court in 2003. Convicted in April 2003 on bribery and misconduct charges, sentenced in June 2007 to three to ten years in prison and lost his law license. In December 2009, after 30 months in prison, he was released for good behavior at the age of 77.

The Story

In October 2002, Frieda Hanimov, an Israeli émigré nurse, called a hotline at the District Attorney’s (DA’s) Office. The mother of three was at the time embroiled in a bitter child-custody dispute, that was being heard by Garson. She complained that she had been told that her husband, Yuri Hanimov, had bribed the judge to fix their case, and that he had done so through Nissim Elmann (reputedly a “fixer”, who arranged bribes in divorce and custody cases) and Paul Siminovsky (the divorce lawyer whom Garson had appointed as law guardian for her children).

The woman had learned this when she herself met with Elmann, seeking to bribe Garson. Elmann told her that she was too late, inasmuch as her husband had already paid a large bribe to receive a favorable ruling. Within days, the DA’s Office had her wearing a wire, and meeting with and secretly taping Elmann.

Watch the CBS video interview

Detectives with the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office exposed Elmann’s bribery scheme by intercepting numerous telephone conversations through the use of court-approved wiretaps and undercover surveillance. Garson was indicted and arrested in April 2003 outside of his Upper East Side apartment. He was convicted of taking a $1,000 cash bribe and a $275 box of cigars to settle custody in a divorce case.

Read more on the Daily News Website

A video surveillance picked up Garson soliciting a check – presumably for the campaign of another civil court judge — from attorney Paul Siminovsky who had several cases in front of the jurist, as well as accepting cigars from him for allegedly giving the attorney “pointers” on how to handle clients and other jurists.

Justice Berry, responding to defense arguments that Mr. Garson would probably die in prison without treatment for alcoholism, allowed Mr. Garson to attend a detoxification program until July 5 before beginning his sentence. Taken in to prison on June 5, 2007, Garson was released early from jail on December 23rd 2009, 6 months before ten year sentence because of good behavior and completion of a substance abuse program.

Mr. Garson who, when confronted with bribery evidence in early 2003, first told prosecutors of a scheme to sell judgeships and then agreed to wear a wire. In about five years on the bench, Mr. Garson, 74, had handled some 1,100 divorces, deciding child custody cases and dividing families’ financial assets. On surveillance recordings, he has been seen accepting Dominican cigars and cash from divorce lawyer, Paul Siminovsky.

Others charged with felonies linked to the Garson bribery scheme were: Siminovsky, two of Siminovsky’s, and a former Garson law clerk. Two long-time employees in the main court clerk’s office, who were not arrested, were suspended without pay.
Bribers
Ezra Zifrani and his daughter Esther Weitzner pleaded guilty in February 2004 to one misdemeanor conspiracy charge. They admitted having given $5,000 to Elmann (the “fixer”), to influence Garson’s handling of a custody dispute between Weitzner and her ex-husband involving their five children.[50] They said that Elman “clearly implied” he was going to bribe Garson.[50] They did not know, however, whether the money was actually paid to Garson.[50] Supreme Court Justice Michael Ambrosio ruled in August 2004 that Weizner was an unfit parent for her children, because she paid the bribe.[51] In exchange for their pleas and their cooperation in the investigation, in August 2007 they were each sentenced to 210 hours of community service and three years of probation.[52]
Avraham Levi pleaded guilty in June 2004 to having given the “fixer” $10,000 in December 2002, to get his case in front of and obtain favorable treatment from Garson (a Class E felony). There was no evidence that the money ever made its way to Garson. Subsequent to the husband’s payment to the fixer, Garson awarded him exclusive custody of the couple’s two oldest sons. Garson did not have an opportunity to rule on the couple’s house, because he was arrested beforehand. In 2005, after the bribery scandal had broken and the case was moved to another judge, 100% of the martial residence was awarded to the wife. For his role in the corruption scandal, Justice Berry sentenced Levi to three months in jail, 150 hours of community service, and five years’ probation following his release.  Court officer and law clerk Louis Salerno (a 24-year-veteran court officer, who had been placed on modified duty) and Paul Sarnell (Garson’s former senior law clerk, who had retired in 2002), were tried for allegedly accepting bribes to steer Simonivsky’s cases to Garson. Their five-week trial ended in August 2004.

Prosecutors charged that Elmann would send potential clients to Siminovsky, who would would then in turn enlist Salerno or Sarnell to steer his clients’ divorce cases (which were supposed to be assigned randomly) to Garson.  Prosecutors said that when Siminovsky needed a case to come before Garson, the defendants would go to an administrative clerk and tell her that Garson wanted the case reassigned to him. According to the prosecutors, the defendants received thousands of dollars in cash, plane tickets, and plastic bags of electronic equipment from Elmann’s warehouse for their efforts.

Siminovsky testified at their trial. He said that after Salerno demanded $2,000 in order to have a Siminovsky case assigned to Garson, Siminovsky slipped the money into Salerno’s pocket as they stood at adjacent urinals in a public courthouse restroom in Brooklyn.  The court officer was also videotaped accepting a DVD player and VCRs from the lawyer in front of the Joralemon Street courthouse on March 27, 2003. Salerno was convicted of two felonies, bribe-receiving and receiving a reward for official misconduct, and sentenced in August 2007 to 1–4½ years in prison.

Sarnell’s counsel maintained that anything improper that Sarnell might have done was done on Garson’s orders.  Sarnell was acquitted.

The “Fixer”
In February 2005, Nissim Elmann, portrayed by prosecutors as a “fixer”, pleaded guilty to seven felonies and six misdemeanors. He had been charged with bribery and conspiracy, for accepting bribes in divorce and child custody cases that he steered to Garson.

Elmann was a Crown Heights, Brooklyn, wholesale electronics dealer and salesman, with a business named “DVD Trading” on Brooklyn Avenue. He himself had appeared before Garson as a divorce litigant in 2000. He subsequently boasted in the Orthodox Jewish community in central Brooklyn, beginning in 2001, that for a price he could help parties in divorce cases make sure their case was heard by a sympathetic judge.

Elmann admitted to accepting thousands of dollars of cash (including $24,000 from three divorce litigants), and passing them on to Siminovsky to arrange preferential treatment for litigants in six cases before Garson. Though Elmann had asserted to his potential clients that he had direct contact with Garson (telling one mother, for example: “He will do everything for me. The problem is how much [will] you sacrifice?”), evidence later showed that he only had contact with Siminovsky, and he later admitted he did not know the judge.
Elmann was sentenced in August 2007 to 16 months−5½ years in prison, with Justice Berry saying “Justice is not for sale”. Elmann was denied parole in 2008, and was not eligible to try again until July 2010.

The broad corruption investigation, led by Michael F. Vecchione, a high-ranking assistant district attorney, began with accusations that Justice Garson was taking payments to manipulate divorce cases.

Bruno Bettleheim though, through a series of articles throughout the 1950s and 1960s populised the theory, at a time when the incidence of autism was beginning to be diagnosed more regularly. Not everyone was willing to accept the concept that the condition was the fault of women, most notably Bernard Rimland, a psychologist with an autistic son, and founder in 1967 of the Autism Research Institute (ARI) and the Autism Society of America. He also wrote Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior (1964). Rimland managed to even persuade Kanner, through the quality of his research and writing, that there was a neurological explanation for autism, and Kanner in response wrote the forward to his book.

Comparing MSBP and The Refrigerator Mom theories

The relationship between the Refrigerator Mom theory and MSBP/FII theory isn’t necessarily clear-cut across the world. In the US autism support groups have banished Bettelheims theory to the scientific gutter, and it is nigh impossible to employ a false or spurious MSBP allegation against the mother of an autistic child without risking the wrath of an expensive civil action. In England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland though, where the use of MSBP/FII has reached such common usage against women it is often considered as the first diagnosis rather than the last final explanation of a child’s condition, enabling the employment of blame against women for autism to be thriving like never before.

Bettelheim simply expressed his conviction that autism disorders were caused by women failing in their duty to provide emotional support for their children, leaving the children bereft of communication skills and an inability to socialize. MSBP/FII though steps beyond the bounds of Bettelheim’s theory with a huge leap; now instead of being simply accused of being remiss or somehow lacking in the emotional suite required by young children, women are now (and have been for over a decade) accused of being devious, vindictive schemers who deliberately inflict ASD or ASD-like conditions upon their children, and then have the temerity to demand assistance and support services for their children. In this regard MSBP/FII isn’t the Refrigerator Mom theory by any other name – Bettelheims writings never suggested any deliberate intent. MSBP/FII though retains the concept that AS Disorders are caused by women, but this time with deliberate intent.

Sir Roy Meadow’s theory of MSBP, published in the The Lancet just 10 years after in 1977 proved to be a lifeline for those who believed in Bettelheim’s theory. Although initially given little credence, MSBP, from the 1990s onwards, was employed to blame autism, or symptoms that appeared like an Autistic Spectrum Disorder-on women. In the intervening years it has became a de rigor exercise for many child protection professionals to employ a ‘standard’ MSBP allegation against a woman with an ASD child.

Using the concept that the mother or female carer (the MSBP theory rarely applies to male suspects) caused the child’s autism, or symptoms that ostensibly appear as an ASD, MSBP goes far further than the misogynist dreams of even the most ardent “Refrigerator Mom” Theory advocate. Rather than having to prove a failure to emotionally connect with an infant, because the woman is “emotionally frigid,” child protection professionals employing MSBP/FII have taken Bettelheim’s theory and run with it into a zone where the woman actually deliberately causes the child’s autistic spectrum disorder through deliberate intent, or has inflicted symptoms on a child that “look similar” to an ASD. Furthermore the woman is able to perform this feat using a process as yet undetermined by science or medical or criminal forensic science. Although some court-appointed experts believe that ASD-like symptoms can be inflicted deliberately on a child by a woman with MSBP, the means to actually perform this aren’t divulged. Presumably the absence of sensory and emotional input from a very early point in the infants life — i.e. “Refrigerator Mom” activities (or lack of rather) would suffice to explain how a “Munchausens Mother” would actually cause a child to be autistic or to produce a outwardly not-very-convincing approximation of an ASD.

Through its employment in the secret family court system, the use of the MSBP theory had a perfect vehicle in which to thrive. For those child protection experts and professionals inclined to seeing children forcibly removed from parents, either for financial gain or to satisfy dogma (or both) then MSBP has proven to be a god-send. Even better, through the restriction of the issuing of secretive family court judgements (see Paul Rowen MP and Rt. Hon. John Hemming MP) there is little danger that the testimony of secretive family court-appointed experts would ever be challenged by opposing experts, as their testimony would never see the light of day through an Appeal Court judgement one way or the other.

The abuse of AS Disorder children and women with ASD children is perhaps the most unreported medical scandal of the last fifty years. The abuse of both the children and families by medical and social work professionals continues to this present day, almost unabated. The political element in the seemingly official encouragement of the use of MSBP/FII allegation against women with AS Disorder children will probably, in the years to come dominate discussions about social care policies internationally. As more children taken forcibly from families and mothers reach the age of 18, and more women find that the secretive court gagging orders have expired; allowing them to speak freely.

(this post was composed using information from this website)

Bernard Rimland, Autism Pioneer 1928-2006

Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., a visionary autism research pioneer and the man most responsible for debunking the “refrigerator Mom” theory of autism, died Nov. 21, 2006 in San Diego at the age of 78. A California psychologist and father of a child diagnosed with autism at age two, Dr. Rimland wrote his landmark book “Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior” in 1964.

Rejecting the theories promoted by psychiatrist Leo Kanner and psychoanalyst Bruno Bettleheim, Dr. Rimland argued for a biological, specifically a neurological, basis for autistic behavior. He documented the similarities between brain injured children and autistic children, liberating parents from the destructive guilt associated with having an autistic child and pointing autism research in the direction it should always have taken: investigation into the biological mechanisms underlying brain and immune system dysfunction.

Recommended Reading:

• No, Parents Don’t Cause Autism – Though They Can Often Help to Treat It
• Dehumanizing Motherhood (Anonymums’s Blog) In dramas about custody cases, little appreciation is attributed to her endearing sacrifice to her body, livelihood and well-being to give the child life.  Her contributions to humanity is reduced to nothing but a childish tug of war.  Truth be told, that it was never a fight between two equals, but an opposing battle between david and goliath as the struggle of equality for women to be equal to men was not yet won, let alone the rights of mothers who were well behind the status of women.
• Movie:I Am Sam DVD, New Line, 2002 ISBN: B000066HAS
  Michelle Pfeiffer and Sean Penn give career-defining performances in this humorous and heart-warming film about a mentally-challenged father who enlists the aid of a high-powered attorney to help him regain custody of his daughter. An all-star supporting cast and a spectacular soundtrack complete this unforgettable story of life, love and laughter.

The judges will disregard the autism diagnosis and order forensics on everybody. If the warring parents already have the custody order temporarily awarded to the father, then the father will have to take the child to the evaluations.  Small surprise if the evaluator report “nothing wrong with the child” to the courts.

The autism diagnosis is based heavily on early childhood development. If daddy was out working all the time will little jimmy was home and severely delayed with many developmental milestones, do you think daddy will tell the forensic evaluator? Does daddy even remember how Jimmy used to stim with hand flapping at 11 months but then switched to vocal stims at 14 months? I bet daddy won’t tell the evaluator any of that.

And that’s how custody cases get settled. He said, she said. What an outrage.

NY Times – For Arbiters in Custody Battles, Wide Power and Little Scrutiny
By LESLIE EATON
Published: May 23, 2004

When warring parents head to court to fight over child custody in New York, their lawyers often let them in on a little secret: The most powerful person in the process is not the judge. It is not the other parent, not one of the lawyers, not even a child.

No, the most important person in determining who gets custody, and on what terms, is frequently a court-appointed forensic evaluator. Forensics, as they are often called, can be psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers; they interview the families and usually make detailed recommendations to judges, right down to who gets the children on Wednesdays and alternate weekends.

And the judges usually go along.

Forensic reports, which the parents pay for, can cost as much as $40,000 or even more. There are no standards for who can be an evaluator or what should go into an assessment. The court system does not track who gets these lucrative appointments, much less whether evaluators tend to favor fathers or mothers or joint custody.

Some lawyers and parents suspect that cronyism plays a big role in some appointments, but given the secrecy surrounding matrimonial cases, that is hard to prove, or disprove. Others say there is nowhere to lodge complaints about mistreatment. And many — including some forensics — question whether there is any scientific basis to justify the evaluators’ recommendations.

In Suffolk County, judges repeatedly appointed a psychologist who was not licensed to practice in New York State. In Manhattan, an evaluator remained on a case even though there was evidence that he had had business dealings with one spouse’s lawyer. In Westchester County, an expert charged parents $57,000 for a report that the judge found extremely biased toward the father.

Though they have been around for years, court-appointed forensics have become increasingly commonplace — and controversial — in New York, which may be the high-conflict custody capital of the nation. But similar debates about custody evaluators are going on across the country, experts say, as divorce rates continue to rise and courts try to cope with the needs of children caught up in a contentious process.

“It’s boiling over everywhere,” said Peter Salem, executive director of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, based in Madison, Wis.

In Arizona, the governor recently signed a law changing the state’s process for investigating complaints about psychologists, in part because of controversy over forensic evaluations. In Louisiana, a committee of the state board governing social workers is considering creating standards for evaluations.

And over the last few years, California has adopted a series of court rules that require training for forensics, set standards for evaluations and provide mechanisms for filing grievances against evaluators, said Philip M. Stahl, a psychologist and frequent lecturer on custody evaluations. “It’s the only state where the rules are very specific,” he said.

In New York, forensics’ roles are being debated at judicial conferences, psychiatric conventions and impromptu meetings of disgruntled parents. Even the court system has decided to take another look at them, through a commission appointed in February by the state’s chief judge.

Forensics “have really become arbiters of what happens in a case,” Raoul L. Felder, the divorce lawyer, said disapprovingly. “I just think somehow they’ve seeped into the judicial process.”

Some people think that is as it should be. “With some exceptions, I didn’t try a contested custody case without a forensic assessment,” said Philip C. Segal, a former Family Court judge now in private practice. “They were extremely helpful, even critical.”

Custody cases are difficult and emotionally fraught, he said, adding that judges need help “analyzing the family dynamics, analyzing the parents’ respective abilities.” Judges must decide custody cases based on the best interest of the child in question, and they can appoint a “neutral expert” whenever they think it would be helpful in making that decision.
Some judges ask the parties’ lawyers to agree on a forensic or to provide a list of candidates; others simply name an evaluator. Some judges have very specific questions they want addressed; others just call for an evaluation. Many, though not all, want detailed recommendations.

The American Psychological Association’s guidelines state that while evaluators may determine whether either parent has severe psychological problems, that is not their main goal. Rather, evaluators are supposed to judge the parties’ “parenting capacity” and how that fits the psychological needs of the child.

Forensics themselves do not agree on how to conduct a proper examination. Some order psychological tests, while others avoid them; some interview baby sitters and teachers, while others do not.

In the end, the evaluator gives the court a report that usually makes detailed recommendations about custody arrangements. The parents are not generally given copies; in some cases, they are not even allowed to read the reports.

At that point, the parents usually settle, “which we would much prefer, for the parties’ sake,” said Justice Jacqueline W. Silbermann, the administrative judge for matrimonial matters in New York State. The reports’ usefulness in encouraging settlements is one reason judges order them, she said.

But what pleases the judges sticks in the craw of some litigants, who say they feel bludgeoned into settling by a report that does not favor them, even when they believe that the report is deeply flawed. Some lawyers contend that the evaluations actually discourage settlements in certain cases because the favored party feels no need to compromise.

The only way to challenge a forensic report is to go through a full trial and then cross-examine the evaluator; parties can also hire their own experts to critique the court-appointed forensic, but generally cannot have the family evaluated by someone else.

In the meantime, judges are reading evaluators’ reports and making decisions based on them, with no way to know whether the observations and conclusions are correct, said William S. Beslow, a prominent matrimonial lawyer in Manhattan.

“In eight years, I have not participated in a case with a forensic report that was not substantially erroneous in one of its major conclusions,” Mr. Beslow said. “And some are so wrong that they have disastrous consequences for families.”

Underlying all the concerns about forensic evaluators is the question of whether they are offering the court scientific expertise or unsubstantiated opinions.

Jeffrey P. Wittmann, a forensic who has done hundreds of evaluations, says that his colleagues have been giving the courts both, and that they should stick to the scientific evidence. Dr. Wittmann, co-director of the Center for Forensic Psychology in Albany, said he stopped making specific recommendations to judges six years ago, and has urged colleagues to do the same.

The reason, he said, is that forensics do not really know, with any degree of certainty, what is in a child’s best interest. Little scientific research on the subject exists.

Forensics do provide courts with useful information, he said, but drawing conclusions about the child’s best interest and making recommendations on custody and on visiting is inappropriate, even unethical. “We have become like mini-judges,” he added, “and it’s a big mistake.”

Among psychiatrists and psychologists, Dr. Wittmann’s argument is far from the most extreme. William O’Donohue, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is calling for a moratorium on forensic evaluations until more research is done.

“Psychologists don’t have the knowledge to do what they attempt to do when they do custody evaluations,” he said.

Many custody decisions, he said, involve not scientific findings, but competing values, like a father’s wish that his child excel in sports versus the mother’s emphasis on studying.

While mental health experts have been debating these issues for several years, the legal world has been slower to recognize them, at least in New York.

Enter Timothy M. Tippins, an Albany lawyer who increasingly specializes in cross-examining forensic experts. For almost a year, Mr. Tippins has been writing articles in The New York Law Journal questioning the role and expertise of forensic evaluators in custody cases. He has teamed up with Dr. Wittmann to write a paper titled “Empirical and Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance.”

Among its recommendations is a call for judges to “begin to help the psychology discipline rein in itself” by not demanding or accepting specific custody plans.

In March and April, the two presented their arguments to conferences of New York State judges; later this year, they will speak to judges at the state’s appellate level.

Some judges have welcomed his arguments, Mr. Tippins said. “I think they had on their antennae that something was amiss with these reports.”

In part as a response to Mr. Tippins, Dr. Alex Weintrob organized a symposium on the scientific basis of expert testimony in matrimonial disputes at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting this month in Manhattan.

Dr. Weintrob, a well-known child psychiatrist who does evaluations, said later that “there is more science than some people give us credit for.” On the other hand, he added, “it is important that we be aware of our limitations,” citing as an example the lack of follow-up studies to see if forensics’ predictions worked out. “We all know it and are a little embarrassed by it.”

Even proponents of forensic evaluations are troubled by the secrecy that envelops the business, and the large sums of money that change hands, by order of the court.

“It’s an industry, and it’s unregulated, and it affects precious family rights,” said Andrew I. Schepard, director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University. “It would be lots better if this process were more transparent.”

The secrecy alone raises questions in the minds of some parents. One woman, a Manhattan financial analyst who spoke on the condition that her name not be used because her court case is continuing, said she had heard from other parents that the evaluator in her case had a history of recommending that custody go to fathers. But, she complained, there is no way to know for sure.

In Kaye v. Kaye, an extremely bitter divorce case in Manhattan, the mother discovered that her court-appointed forensic had participated in a business venture with four other people involved in her case, including her ex-husband’s lawyer.

This gave her grave doubts about how neutral he truly was, she said, speaking on the condition that her first name not appear in print. Judges are required to disclose their ties, she said, “and the same should be true of neutral officers of the court.”

Justice Judith J. Gische denied the woman’s request for a mistrial, ruling that the business — a limited partnership with a divorce-related Web site called SoftSplit.com, now defunct — was a for-profit educational venture, and that the lawyers, forensics and others involved were not “in business” together. An appeal of that decision is pending.

But the conflict-of-interest allegations about SoftSplit, which were reported by The New York Post last year, are still stirring up such hard feelings among lawyers and forensics that Donald Frank, the lawyer for the mother, refused to discuss the case.

Few parents are willing to talk publicly about their experiences for fear of seeing painful family matters aired in the press, or of being dragged by into court by the other parent. They also say they are often dismissed as disgruntled litigants who are angry that the evaluator did not favor them (which, of course, they often are).

The American Psychological Association’s ethics committee reports that a rising percentage of the complaints it receives involve forensic evaluations. And Dr. Spencer Eth, a member of the ethics committee of the American Psychiatric Association, said local branches of his group also investigate many complaints about forensic evaluations. While such complaints seldom result in a psychiatrist’s being suspended or removed from the association, he said, doctors are sometimes reprimanded or educated about the proper way to conduct evaluations.

The association takes on this role in part, he said, because state licensing boards tend to be ill-equipped to deal with problems that crop up in psychiatric practices, including some that are almost etiquette issues: a doctor’s rudeness, for example, or his failure to return telephone calls.

New York’s court system does not have a formal mechanism for receiving complaints about forensics, and because they are officers of the court, they cannot be sued for malpractice.

The rules governing matrimonial matters are being re-examined by a commission appointed by the state’s chief judge, Judith S. Kaye.

The commission will examine the role and use of forensic examiners, said Justice Sondra Miller, the appellate division judge who is leading the group. After holding public hearings, she said, it will make recommendations to Judge Kaye, probably in about a year.

In the meantime, however, some lawyers say they believe that judges are becoming more skeptical about forensic reports, and may use them a little less. One such lawyer is Norman M. Sheresky, who represented a mother who prevailed in a Manhattan court despite an evaluator’s recommendation in favor of the father. The judge tossed out the report’s findings as biased, he said.

“I think that will happen more and more,” Mr. Sheresky said. “I think the judges are getting wise.”