PARENTS WHO ARE LOSING THEIR CHILDREN THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS ARE COMMITTING SUICIDE AT ALARMING RATES
Posted by Not Without My Child
"Not without my child " are almost always the words cried out by parents whose children have been illegally seized by child protective services or the transfer of children from the protective parent to the abuser in family courts across the country.
So many good parents righteously and correctly cannot believe that their beloved, well cared for children are seized as they stand by helplessly. The family court has access to police enforcement, which can jail a parent on charges dictated by the judge - ( refer to my writing on the case of Stephen Allen Jr./mother - Sandra Allen, jailed in the Queens Court house of Family court by Judge Rhea Friedman who retired after the uproar over the incarceration of a mother who was silently praying in the vestibule of the court, prior to attending a hearing. The mother, Mrs. Sandra Allen was jailed, then hospitalised under court order of Rhea Friedman. The hospitalisation and resulting toxic diagnoses sought to stigmatise the client forever, causing her to not only forfeit her child, but also her work career as the toxic diagnosis would follow her through the Medical Insurance Board and child Abuse registries which are distributed across the country.
The case of Stephen Allen Jr. and his family's fight for his freedom has been written up extensively, both in the NY Post News Paper and in numerous articles written by Jill Jones-Soderman, posted on her web site
fraudforensics.org.
As in the five stages of grief, so follows the stages that families go through in fighting for their children against a well staffed system whose power, authority, access to law enforcement and intimidation is not equal to the resources of the normal middle class family, or even the very wealthy. Those who are initially outraged soon learn to become fearful, humbled, humiliated as the court can make any accusation, speculation, derogatory comment they wish. The client who is generally represented by a court appointed attorney - or even a private attorney - who has to work in this court - and whose colleagues are the Judge, prosecutor, child protective services lawyers, guardian ad litem attorneys, etc. These are the people who the clients lawyer will work with every day and with the next case - and the next case - and so on. You the client are a fleeting element of your lawyers life - these others are permanent fixtures with whom your lawyer will deal as long as the lawyer is in practice in that area.
Lawyers can make deals behind the client's back - say one thing to the client and another to colleagues (refer to the article "Lawyers Who Betray Their Clients" - posted on web site theopenoffice.us).
(Click title for full article)
BLACKMAIL AND EXTORTION SUPPORTED BY LICENSING BOARD FRAUD BROUGHT AGAINST THE WHISTLE BLOWER CLINICIAN IN THE AGE OF JUDICIAL GRAFT, FRAUD, AND ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER
In the thirty nine years of practice as a clinician/family therapist (since 1972, post graduate school – MSW, PHD) and next ten years as a forensic consultant (post further graduate school MSHS – Law and Expert Witness Testimony), Jones-Soderman has only come across two spiteful, vengeful complainants against her, personally and professionally. One such complainant was Margaret Mary McVeigh a Chancery Court Judge in the Family Division of the Family Court in Passaic County New Jersey, whom she sued, along with McVeigh's various state conspirators and professional – state paid flunkies, and Karl Hindle, a citizen of the United kingdom who was and has never been a patient of Jones-Soderman in any capacity.
Margaret Mary McVeigh, whom Jones-Soderman had never met, never appeared before in her court in New Jersey wrote a letter to a licensing board in New Jersey, not even a licensing board of which she was apart. Jones-Soderman had numerous years of training and
McVeigh stated in May 2001, that Jill Jones-Soderman LCSW – P/R, PHD, had “written a report related to a domestic violence case being heard in her court”. She stated that she had not presented a copy of the report to “the attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the case involved” and that she had contacted her chambers in some manner attempting to “influence the outcome of the domestic violence case being heard” before her. Further, she stated that she had never seen the father in the case in question.
(Click Title to Read Full Article)