NOTE: This piece first appeared on TheFamilyCourtCircus.com.
By Richard Luthmann
A CLOCKWORK OREGON: THE SHOCKING SUSPENSION
It started with an official message.
“In reviewing the visitation note from this week, I need to suspend your visits. This decision is based on your comments about fighting for them in court.” — Christina Schlichten, Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS).
That message, sent to protective mother and Registered Nurse Martina Flanigan, exposed the cruel absurdity of the Oregon child welfare system. Flanigan wasn’t punished for abuse or neglect. She was punished for trying to get her children back through the courts.
Her kids had been taken from her and dumped into foster care. The man they feared most—their father—nearly got them back.
That transfer was halted only when science finally spoke louder than bureaucracy.
A SPECT brain scan from the Amen Clinic, interpreted by renowned neurologist Dr. S. Gregory Hipskind, showed evidence of traumatic brain injury in one of the children. The patterns were consistent with strangulation and physical abuse.
“That scan was a game changer,” said Jill Jones Soderman, director of the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC.org).
“It proved these children weren’t delusional. They were survivors of horrific violence,” Soderman said.
Still, DHS found a way to retaliate. Martina Flanigan produced scientific evidence in court. She was punished by a system run by hall monitors, bureaucrats, and sadists.
A CLOCKWORK OREGON: THE SYSTEM THAT KEEPS FAILING—ON PURPOSE
Flanigan’s nightmare is one of many. In Oregon, the Department of Human Services and the family court system have become adversaries to protective parents.
“They’re running a racket,” said David Wiegel, Wall Street Wizard and Founder of the Family Court Fraud Warrior Project.
“Parents all over the country like Martina are criminalized for loving their kids too much and daring to challenge a system whose business model is fraud,” Weigel said. “If you or I ran a business like they do at Family Court and DHS, we would be taken out in handcuffs in a matter of hours.”
Social worker Steven Jackson exemplifies the problem. He dismissed clear abuse disclosures, labeled Flanigan as “alienating,” and nearly forced the kids back into their abuser’s hands. His reports were later debunked, but not before enormous damage was done.
Jackson also targeted Martina’s parents, Deanna and Richard Flanigan, with a false and baseless CPS “founded” disposition. DHS accused them of “mirroring” their daughter’s beliefs about the children’s father, with no evidence, no interviews, and no due process.
Deanna and Richard Flanigan had adopted a narrative that was confirmed by science. Now, the State of Oregon is punishing them, their daughter, and the children for having the audacity to FOLLOW THE SCIENCE.
In a formal reply and reconsideration letter, the grandparents wrote:
“No one contacted us. No one asked for our side. We were found guilty of loving and protecting our grandchildren.”
The U.S. Supreme Court case Troxel v. Granville (2000) established that parents have a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment to control the upbringing of their children, which includes making decisions about grandparent visitation. The Court ruled that a Washington state law allowing third parties to petition for visitation rights over parental objections was unconstitutional, as it infringed on this parental right.
BRAIN SCANS STOPPED THE ABUSE—FOR NOW
The tide turned when Flanigan’s legal team, backed by FCVFC, introduced scientific evidence. The Amen Clinic’s SPECT scans showed neurological trauma in the children.
“Courts have ignored this kind of proof for decades,” Soderman said. “We finally had irrefutable evidence of damage caused by abuse.”
Dr. Hipskind’s report described “very abnormal” brain activity consistent with traumatic axonal injury and oxygen deprivation. It wasn’t hypothetical—it was forensic.
The court could no longer pretend it didn’t see. It refused to return the children to their father. But it still hasn’t returned them to Flanigan.
Instead, they remain in foster care. Visits are tightly monitored. Flanigan gets only one hour per week—and now even that’s been suspended for stating the obvious: she’s fighting to get her children back.
A CLOCKWORK OREGON: THE TARGETING OF JILL JONES SODERMAN
The woman who helped bring this evidence to court, Jill Jones Soderman, is now under fire from Oregon officials.
The Oregon Department of Justice and Psychology Licensing Board have filed motions against her, accusing her of practicing without a license—even though she does not present herself as a licensed clinician in Oregon and acts solely in an advisory, educational, and advocacy role.
“They’re retaliating against me because I exposed them,” Soderman said. “I’m not the problem. The problem is that they’re running a child-trafficking scheme with federal dollars.”
That funding comes from Title IV-D and Title IV-E, federal programs that reward states for placing children into foster care and enforcing child support orders.
Critics call it “Designer Child Trafficking.”
“These kids are financial assets,” Soderman said. “The state makes money when they’re taken from their families. That’s why reunification is sabotaged.”
WILL ANYONE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?
Despite the victory in court, Flanigan’s children are still not home. And no one at DHS has been punished for their role in this abuse.
Meanwhile, watchdogs like Soderman continue to face bureaucratic harassment and legal threats.
“Jackson should be fired. DHS should be investigated,” said veteran family court journalist Michael Volpe, co-host of The Unknown Podcast. “Instead, they’re doubling down on attacking the whistleblowers.”
Soderman agrees.
“This is A Clockwork Orange,” she said. “But the parents aren’t criminals. The state is making them into criminals for trying to protect their kids.”
She added, “It’s not enough to win one hearing. These children deserve to go home. The people who tried to destroy their family must face the consequences. Otherwise, this will keep happening to others.”
We asked Oregon Social Worker Christina Schlicten, previously sued by other grandparents, for comment. She did not respond as of press time. Here is what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, April 24th, 2025 at 9:24 AM
Subject: Request for Comment
To: cdschlicten@yahoo.com <cdschlicten@yahoo.com>, christina.schlichten@msn.com <christina.schlichten@msn.com>, clschlichten@yahoo.com <clschlichten@yahoo.com>
CC: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, juliemholburn@yahoo.com <juliemholburn@yahoo.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, Paul Boyne <paboyne@gmail.com>, Michael Phillips <mikethunderphillips@gmail.com>Dear Oregon Social Worker Christina Schlichten,
We are journalists preparing a piece about the matter concerning Martina Flanigan and her children, the Oregon Department of Human Services, and the Family Courts.
We invite comments so that our readers can have a fair and balanced view of the facts and judge them for themselves. We have a few questions:
I. Background and Role in the Case
1. What is your official role and title within the Oregon Department of Human Services?
2. How long have you been involved with the case of Martina Flanigan and her children?
3. Can you describe your responsibilities in relation to the custody and visitation determinations for the Flanigan family?II. Suspension of Visitation
4. On what legal or procedural basis did you suspend Martina Flanigan’s visitation with her children?
5. Was the decision to suspend visitation based solely on Martina’s comment that she was “fighting for them in court”?
6. Can you explain how such a statement constitutes grounds for suspension of a protective parent’s visitation rights?
7. Did a judge or supervisor approve or review the decision to suspend visits before it was enforced?III. Due Process and Family Rights
8. Was Martina Flanigan given formal notice or an opportunity to respond before her visits were revoked?
9. Are there written guidelines or policies that permit DHS staff to suspend parental visits based on verbal expressions of advocacy?
10. Do you believe it is appropriate for a state employee to penalize a parent for participating in the legal system?IV. DHS Conduct and Investigations
11. DHS reportedly issued derogatory findings against Martina’s parents, Deanna and Richard Flanigan, without interviews or evidence. Can you justify that process?
12. What criteria were used to determine that the grandparents posed a risk to the children?
13. Were the grandparents ever interviewed or allowed to present their side of the story?V. Response to Medical Evidence
14. Were you aware of the Amen Clinic’s SPECT brain scan results showing trauma consistent with strangulation and abuse?
15. What steps did DHS take to review or respond to Dr. Gregory Hipskind’s report?
16. Did DHS ever consider the possibility that the children’s claims of abuse were truthful?VI. Title IV-E and IV-D Incentives
17. How much Title IV-E funding has DHS received in relation to the placement of the Flanigan children in foster care?
18. Is there any internal tracking of how financial incentives from federal programs impact child custody decisions?
19. How do you respond to allegations that DHS policies are influenced more by funding formulas than by child safety?VII. Public Accountability and Oversight
20. Will DHS conduct an internal review of its handling of the Flanigan case?
21. Has DHS responded to the formal complaints filed by the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts?
22. Are you willing to make a public statement to address the perception that DHS is retaliating against protective parents?VIII. Personal Response
23. Do you believe your actions have been fair to Martina Flanigan and her children?
24. What would you say to critics who claim that your department is weaponizing child welfare laws to punish advocacy?
25. Are your actions “covering for” your colleague Steven Jackson?
26. Do you believe you should face a disciplinary inquiry with the Oregon licensure board?
27. Are you open to meeting with independent advocates or journalists to discuss the broader issues raised by this case?Again, we expect to go to press shortly. If you have any responses or comments, please provide them as soon as possible. If we receive them after publication, we will incorporate them in a follow-up.
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
THE FINAL QUESTION
Will Oregon ever answer for what it’s done to Martina Flanigan and her children?
For now, they remain separated.
The mother is punished for caring.
The children are punished for speaking up.
And the state continues its silence.
One scan changed the case. But the system hasn’t changed. Not yet.
Share this post