Mr. Luthmann, you repeatedly claim to be an "unbiased" reporter, yet you interject yourself into your own reporting and report on yourself; it is bizzare. Here above, you show support and favortism for FCVFC. I sent you dozens of public record court documents and flings of public record, license suspensions, sanctions, lawsuits, several bankruptcy records etc. Reading the record shows a pattern of destructive behvior, towards clients, previous employees etc.
I am also in possession of her threats to me -- in writing. I have shared with you the very questionable reputation and expertise of Dr. H I have inquired about you investigating and vetted either of them out? Example, why is this Dr. H showing a picture of a peachy fresh 35/40 year old when he is in his late 70's LOL? Have you noticed a HUGE discrepancy in Dr. H not working for any clinic he is claimed to be associated with, he is not on thier forensic database for the entire nation. Interesting, isn't it?
If you truly desire to be an ethical, Catholic man of virtue (saint in training, right?) as we are called, as a duty, to be cunning without guile, shrewed as serpants and innocent as doves) --- reporter of unbaiased nature --then do the investigations, even if they lead you to places that contradict your "support"
The OP Heidi? was right, this forum is biased, and you clearly have an agenda. There is no room in here for healthy, vigorus debate
Pre-dawn ramble here but this event is I believe of great value. Not because we didn't know where the governor stood on the issue, but because she was forced to show where she stands on this issue. This to me is reminiscent of the scenes from old vampire movies where it finally occurs to some crusader that a cross can be used to expose vampires otherwise indistinguishable from ordinary humans. The most profound aspect of this story is that the legislation survived long enough to force a state governor to take a side to prevent its potential passage.
I'm no political expert but I have come to assume that there isn't a governor in the United States of America - democrat or republican - that looks fondly to an opportunity to face the same dilemma. Every governor should recognize and openly disavow family court suffer whatever political consequences can be mustered for their failure to do so. Nothing on the state level should be addressed until the family court system has been dealt with.
I mean simply if you had limited funds to repair a home with no roof and rotten floors ...
Which would you replace first? The roof duh. Do you have to be a homebuilder to figure that out? How many other problematic issues are traceable to the destruction happening week in and week out in family courts across the nation since as far back as anyone can remember. THIS IS THE CANCER OF OUR TIME and this country can by no means whatsoever identify as 'great again' until it is destroyed.
Follow the money. Divide the number of divorces in the country by the number of family law attorneys in the US and multiply by the average cost of a divorce. You get $60k. That’s without new family law attorneys coming online. Family law is already known as the used car lot of the legal profession— they cannot make a decent, much less “abundant” living without encouraging high conflict divorces and getting into bed with the therapists and troubled teen industry with whom they do practice development seminars on the fake diagnosis of parental alienation. The entire thing is the canine dental care of the legal profession. A diagnosis no one needs only to make money. Who suffers? Kids and wallets. What is needed to solve it? Consumer education — pre-divorce counseling on how not to get robbed by your lawyer.
I wish we could share snapshots on this platform but I'll leave this fun fact here. DRC) Dr David Weinstock was also on the Domestic Relations Commitee. One can find this under inactive committees on Azleg.gov. I believe judge Bruce Cohen put this committee together. It does list all members on the page, which include attorneys from AMA and members from psychology dept as ASU.= " forensics"
Hobbs vetoed our (@azadvocacysummit) bill because it included an important element not mentioned here: HB2256 stated that testimony re: custody can only be accepted from a subject matter EXPERT. Arizona reunification therapists (Weinstock, Branton, DiCarlo, Korsten, Covert, Schroeckenstien, Vigil, Ruskin, Quinlan, Kiffmeyer, Fore, Milholich, etc), who receive nearly 100% of the AZ court appointments, do not qualify as "experts" in any field. They all have a behavioral health license, but none of them fulfill the requirements of their field to be considered experts. Simply put, does your general dentist perform your root canal? Then consider the exponentially more harmful recommendation, by a far less qualified "provider," being applied to your children.
All of the "forensic providers" routinely violate the APA Ethical Code in AZ and then hide under the Big Black Robe. HB2256 would have prohibited their testimony in family court. And Hobbs vetoed the bill to protect these providers - her longtime cohorts - which exposed her exactly as Senator Finchem, the public and your readers have noted.
Thank you so much, Richard, for posting this powerful and heartbreaking video. I started listening last night and was so moved and overwhelmed that I actually fell asleep with it playing. The sheer weight of the testimonies felt like listening to a modern day holocaust of the soul. So many families, so much suffering, and yet so few people willing to face what's happening in these courtrooms.
I woke up in the middle of the night and the video was around the 3-hour mark. One of the names mentioned really stayed with me: Dr. Bandy Lee. A mother shared her 7-minute story and quoted Dr. Lee, a respected psychiatrist and advocate who has spoken out against abuses in the family court system. Her own sister, I learned, is caught in a brutal New Jersey case, where a judge has allegedly weaponized the system to strip her of her rights and finances just one more example of the widespread corruption and devastation we heard throughout the video.
If you or others haven’t yet reached that part, I highly recommend listening to the segment around 3 hours and 6 minutes in. Dr. Lee’s name and the mother’s account deserve to be heard and remembered.
Thank you again for bringing these stories to light. You are giving so many silenced voices a chance to be heard.
I am disappointed in the lack of transparency in this article. It frames the Governor instead of giving a balanced perspective on the issue and her reasons for the veto. Likewise, the poll associates her with various nefarious motivations, while in truth she had the courage to stand up against a very flawed bill.
There is no question that the family court system needs reform and that injustices I do unfortunately occur. However, that is not really what HB 2256 is about. The true intent of HB 2256 (as is Kayden’s Law on the federal level) is to discredit the science of parental alienation, to deny that parental alienation is a form of psychological abuse, and to bar parental alienation claims from family courts. A strawman narrative has been created that depicts parental alienation as a nefarious scheme of unethical “experts” to rake in the money at the expense of domestic violence victims (see for example https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsw.12692 and https://bit.ly/43BaRY9 ).
HB 2256 aimed to attack parental alienation by placing severe restrictions against reunification programs that are designed to mitigate the psychological abuse of parental alienation. The bill’s strawman argument mischaracterizes the intent of reunification for parental alienation as well as the qualifications of its practitioners. The provisions of the bill are equivalent to asking the perpetrator of domestic violence if they are willing to participate in therapy.
While anecdotal accounts are reported in the media and in hearings, not all of them are necessarily indictive of the issues of this bill. Sob stories alone are not enough to frame public policy. Public policy has to be based upon solid foundations that will effectively and fairly deal with all aspects of any given issue. It is also the responsibility of the media to accurately present all sides of complex issues and not to create scandals where none exist. You owe the Governor an apology.
Actually, HB2256 had nothing to do with "parental alienation." It stated that the court couldn't order parents to pay for court-ordered "therapies" and that anyone testifying in custody determinations as an "expert" needed to be an actual "expert," just as every other court expects of their "experts." How does one argue that someone testifying as an "expert" need NOT be an expert?
There is nothing "anecdotal" about thousands of family court litigants coming forward with evidence that their custody ruling was based on the testimony of a "provider" who (1) is unqualified to weigh in and (2) profits from a recommendation of their continued involvement.
And before you cite anything from the "Wiley Library" at least be transparent that "library is nothing more than a compilation of AFCC blog entries passed off as "science."
Finally, Rabbi Aichenbaum, you should also be transparent that you are a "parental alienation" proponent and that your position re: what should affect public policy is skewed to benefit one special interests group. The current "public policy" of Arizona is a presumption of 50/50 which we have since learned, was promoted by a local "social scientist" who fabricated his "research."
The Governor will not be getting an apology from any parent of child of Arizona.
Thank you for your input. Let’s do some fact-checking:
Thank you for your input. Let’s do some fact-checking:
You write: Actually, HB2256 had nothing to do with "parental alienation." It stated that the court couldn't order parents to pay for court-ordered "therapies" and that anyone testifying in custody determinations as an "expert" needed to be an actual "expert," just as every other court expects of their "experts." How does one argue that someone testifying as an "expert" need NOT be an expert?
Silver, AZ has used the Daubert standard since 2012 which regulates the use of expert testimony. Why then the need for this law at all? The answer can be found on Danielle Pollack’s NSPO website. Pollack is the lead author of Kayden’s law and is instrumental in drafting state laws such as HB2256. The site makes it very clear that the purpose of Kayden’s Law is to eradicate parental alienation from the family court system. See https://medium.com/@nationalsafeparents/the-go-to-defense-tactic-of-abusers-in-family-court-since-1985-f2f4cbf40e3a for a full description from the NSPO.
They aim to do this by placing a select few members of the domestic violence community in charge of determining what is scientific, who is an expert, who can train judges and court officials, and more in order to exclude alienation claims from court. The intent of HB2256 is not to ensure expert witnesses, but to exclude parental alienation experts and anyone else who might expose false domestic violence allegations from testifying. This is precisely what it is all about.
You write:
There is nothing "anecdotal" about thousands of family court litigants coming forward with evidence that their custody ruling was based on the testimony of a "provider" who (1) is unqualified to weigh in and (2) profits from a recommendation of their continued involvement.
Silver, I do not doubt that some people have been wronged by the family courts, but did thousands of people actually come forward with evidence? What kind of evidence? Just because a court ruled against the party and the party claims that the experts were biased does not validate the allegations. Without actual verification and hearing the other side of the story, it is anecdotal.
You write:
And before you cite anything from the "Wiley Library" at least be transparent that "library is nothing more than a compilation of AFCC blog entries passed off as "science."
Silver, Wiley Online Library (WOL) is a subscription-based online platform that provides access to a vast collection of academic resources from John Wiley & Sons, including journals, ebooks, and reference works. It's a hub for research, covering a wide range of subjects like life sciences, health, physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities. It is not a blog and there is no connection between Wiley and the AFCC. The link I provided is for the Journal of Social Welfare which is available through Wiley.
You write:
Finally, Rabbi Aichenbaum, you should also be transparent that you are a "parental alienation" proponent and that your position re: what should affect public policy is skewed to benefit one special interests group.
Silver, a person’s support for a particular issue does not mean that the person’s public policy views are skewed to the detriment of anything else. This creation of a false dichotomy reduces a complex issue to a black-and-white view, ignoring the shades of gray and the various other options that could exist. This oversimplification is a logical fallacy. There is no lack of transparency in my comments.
I am all for better training and the vetting of unqualified experts and other court reforms. I also am concerned about false allegations of all kinds (domestic violence and parental alienation) and training to prevent false allegations. I am also all for regulating the misuse of reunification programs. However, I am against legislation which is not designed to address all forms of abuse and that uses strawman definitions of reunification programs to ban legitimate and necessary treatment options.
The current "public policy" of Arizona is a presumption of 50/50 which we have since learned, was promoted by a local "social scientist" who fabricated his "research."
I assume you are referring to Arizona State University Associate Professor William Fabricius. Your use of quotations marks around the words "social scientist" and "research" seem to be intended to discredit Fabricius. You claim that he fabricated his research but cite no reliable source for this allegation. This is a serious allegation. Fabricius has a robust CV with a considerable amount of research and publications (file:///C:/Users/yaako/AppData/Local/Temp/MicrosoftEdgeDownloads/fb70ca06-4d56-4ede-b799-5c5c5b930a44/Fabricius%20Vita%20current.pdf ). I could not find any documentation of research fraud in a google search. Can you please provide documentation for this claim?
I am not from AZ and I have no reason to either condemn or support her. I do reiterate my original comments that Luthmann’s article together with the almost satanic graphics that accompany it are an injustice to the Governor. Richard writes that “The problematic part of the veto is that Hobbs is protecting the court-appointed "professional bloodsuckers." That is a mischaracterization. Governor Hobbs took a principled stand that she was not against this law, but that it had to be amended to create a balanced platform that would not hurt some people in the process of helping others. She is challenging the policymakers to improve the bill. This is good public policy. If you want to see a more accurate assessment of Hobbs, see https://severedvoices.substack.com/p/arizona-governor-hobbs-protects-children?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true .
I don’t know who wrote this article, but I do see that the author doesn’t assume nefarious intent and does provide reasonable reasons for the veto.
PA does not meet any Daubert standards according to the "National Counsel of Family Court Judges: Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody CAses" -- it actually states any alleged evidence of such needs to be STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD becaue it does not meet evidentiary standards.
Why do you think such therapies could even come about? Are you suggesting that the ONLY reason for such is for these "experts" to keep litigants engaged and paying? That is the one and only reason for them? Who deems someone to be an expert? Are they not voir dired before a trial court and by both parties? Do I understand that process?
I'm wondering if you are willing or able to listen- NOT AGREE- but LISTEN to those who say they have been affected by parental alienation?
I'm wondering if it's a all possible that there is a one sided narrative here that is actually harming women and children - even young girls- by Joan Meier, Danielle Pollack (who has said that she does not believe psych abuse is real and IF it is real, then it's too difficult to diagnose) and their colleagues?
It is at all possible for you Silver to have a listen to mothers who have suffered this horrific abuse? Would you be willing to sit and hear to other stories and consider them? Again, not asking you to agree with them. Arizona bill's veto was a consideration for the other half of the story. Why don't more alienated mothers come forward? Many reasons, including shame, lack of awareness, further abuse from DV advocates, and a desire to protect their children who are also victims of abuse.
I leave you with two links that hopefully you are willing to consider. The denial of this abuse adds another layer of heartbreak for mothers (and yes, fathers) who continue to be abused not only by their ex partners, but by DV advocates, the family court system, and mental health professionals who are trained in the "voice of the child."
2. A Utah mom who doesn't speak of experts, but is brave enough to share her heartbreaking story of her alienation abuse at the hands of her children's father: https://www.youtube.com/@Parentsagainstalienation
Melissa, this is not about whether or not I believe "parental alienation" occurs. There is no dispute that people engage in alienating behaviors all the time. The issue addressed in HB2256 was that the "forensic providers" are not qualified to provide "therapy" or to offer "expert" testimony in court. HB2256 and Hobbs' veto had nothing to do with validating "parental alienation." I'm sorry for whatever harm you or your children have suffered in family court, but you are misunderstanding the intent of the bill and the real reason she vetoed it.
The problematic part of the veto is that Hobbs is protecting the court-appointed "professional bloodsuckers." Some of the people appointed do not have robust education or training and really have no business being on the court's dole. Nor should the court be in the business of "fixing people." It just adds to the Family Courts as a costly, corrupt feeding trough that harms and bankrupts children and families.
Are these people listed above NOT voir dired in an open court by both parties? Does that voir dire NOT make them an expert?
The bill also reads, "2. THE EXPERT'S OPINION IS SUPPORTED BY THE CANONS OF THE EXPERT'S 15 PROFESSION,.... 16 DOES NOT RELY ON THEORIES THAT ARE NOT CLINICALLY ESTABLISHED."
In my experience in interactions with One Mom's Battle, Danielle Pollack, Jean Mercer, and Anne Hoyer, and Reem Alsalem, all of them content that any reference to PA is not scientifically sound, not accepted by major organizations, or is "junk science." So how is line 15-16 of the bill not related to PA? This phrase, "not clinically established" is a dog whistle for people who don't think PA is real.
Finally, what qualifies them to provide therapies for brainwashed children? Is family therapy not sufficient? Is understanding of trauma bonding, Stockholm syndrome, understanding of shared delusions, inverted hierarchy, and negative attachment not what is needed? If not, then what IS needed when a child is so brainwashed, manipulated, and confused that they can not longer hold two realities at once and "must" split psychologically and reject a parent? I'm confused what treatment that requires. Where am I wrong?
I watched half of the AZ Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Family Court Order Crisis. Senator Finchem, his panel is incensed and credible. The board of psychologists and judicial committe revealed much.
I'd be cautious about using uncredible sources such as Jill Soderman and her foundations. I believe AZ is s one of the states she lost her license in for fraudaulenty saying she had one when NJ had suspended it and forbade her from using it. She appears that she may engage in fraudaulent tactics as well. It's the pot calling the kettle black. The ends does not justify the means and stooping to the level of the court players makes her just as bad as them, not better.
Has anyone bothered to really dig deep into her history? How many bankruptcies she has, how many law suits. Public record is clear. All revealing a clear pattern of conduct, including her solid patterns of threats that demand silence or else she will slander, defame and libel you. She says so in writing. ANYONE and EVERYONE who displeases her or upsets her or asks too many questions or crosses her, is a target. Suits show the same, from old clients, to ex employees to opposing counsels, she has also been sanctioned for making unethical diagnoses, without consent, notice or awareness and declaring them as fact...to the point where her conduct was was found to be malicious.
Her threats towards me, in writing, are no better than the courts and our abusers. I paid her $10k to help us and she did nothing. Leads her clients around by thier noses, stringing them along, for months, asking you to repeatedly resend all yoru documents, until you finally catch on and complain and she threatens you. Tells you she will use your personal case info against you. That she will intervene on your case to retaliate.
She needs to be fully investigated. 990's, credentials, all entities, qualifications, sanctions (does the instiution really exist!?) The "whistleblower" doesn't want to be whistleblown.
Have you wondered by Cristin Badal quit? What about the several other employees? They filed suits. Why?
Has this 'ghost' Dr. Hipskind that she uses, actually been researched and vetted out? I have. Nothing adds up. That is an interesting rabbit hole to decend into.
Anyone in this game that is truly seeking to help must ne beyone reproach!! They must maintain high standards of ethics, integrity, dignity.
Mr. Luthmann, please do not taint this AZ movement with questionable entities and actors.
Let't raise it up and and preserve its dignity and integrity and not contaminate the waters with muddy characters. 1200 watched remotely, he is holding two more hearings.
No. It is not "personal history" - Your bias is showing again. I am personally vested in this for my own family, the families I support and adovcate for, for future citizens as productive members of society, future professionals and experts and politicians.
I turn to give, and already affirmed it is a matter of public interest. When entities like FCVFC threaten thier clients (like thier pattern of law suits against them show) to harm already vulnerable people and children and then utillize what appears to be imaginary "experts" -- they aren't helping us, they are harming us, and exploting the vulnerable.
This, Mr. Luthmann is your attempt to silence a dissenting voice (as so much of the court industry predators do) -- So, what makes YOU any different then the court players when you utilize this same abusive tactic?
Your logic fails regarding Lee and I redirect it properly - Perhaps Dr. Lee needs to further vet out who she assoicates with so that her own reputation isn't tarnished? If I were in her shoes, I'd take protective actions for my reputation to assure it's integrity and disassociate with anyone who may bring scandal down on me. I am reasonably confident that if Lee really knew of the ublic record of background, cases, lawsuits and pattern of threats and libel, slander, defamation against the foundation -- she would absolutely disassociate. Why don't you ask her Mr. Luthmann?
Finally, stop attempting to be inflammatory, it is just petty and immature./toxic No one is "tearing anyone down" when they share negative facts and experience. I assert that the foundation exploits us court survivors just like those "child traffickers, abusers, and pedophiles" that put us there in the first place.
I'd like to add that if you truly cared about these families and kids you would not be attacking me, nor would you be defending and protecting entities that also harm us -- you would posess and be expressing compassion, empathy, kindness and an air of "protection" rather than what is expressed on here. We have walked thru HELL - and don't need your extra "flames"
Since you support the foundation - Can you produce any evidence at all, any case proof of a single success she has had? Show me a single filing she has made that was successful.
ALL this REPORTING AND POLITICIZING and you continually fail to report on the suffering of victims. Trump admin is right MSM only focuses on the criminals. You want to be classed with the "big dogs" right?
You may try to shame me all you wish, it reflects more about you then myself.
Will you be answering any question I've asked you to be acountable and transparent?
What happened to Cristin Badal, why did she quit working for this entity?
What happened to her case, you stopped reporting on it - Why?
I'm silencing no one. If I wanted to silence you, I would block you and delete your comments as if they never existed. Your opinions and feelings are valuable and part of the discourse.
I am sorry if you feel I am attacking you. I am simply asking questions and making observations.
The history of the family court system and the people who are trying to reform it are an important part of the court system reform. I don't know Jill or Dr.lee. I will say it is important to know the history and people who are involved in the family court system reform movement. There is a confusion as to the direction of the " reform movement". I surtainly don't support the operation of the court system in it's current state. Please don't silence the voices of court survivors when they don't support the sources of your articles. The road to cleaning up family court is full of potholes. It's not just filled with good intentions. It's got some self serving individuals. The intergery of journalism is to ensure no harm. Folks bringing up information and asking questions that are relevant to the people you are promote should not offend you. It's extremely important for survivors and current litigants need to know all the facts of the " reformers". Seeking the truth and complete set of facts when making decisions on who to support in the fight to fix the court system. We appreciate the coverage and the ability to exercise free speech. Opinions, factual information and questions are discouraged? We have had enough of that at the courthouse.
Here is the problem with the coverage of family court system. Richard Luthmann in my opinion has a bias narrative against the family court reform system. The coverage in which is being used is paid for in all likelihood by equal and shared parenting. Richard Luthmann has stated that he believes that that is in the best interest of children. Unfortunately behind the shared parenting groups in New England and the parental alienation industry. " 99 percent of domestic violence cases are false accusations". Coaching people to bring it to the family court house. . This is an anti protective parents movement. It's extremely interesting to me that these articles are housing opposing sides, however when questions and concerns are raised you are automatically given a negative response. Richard Luthmann has elined himself with a group. This group has used women members to hijack Facebook groups like the one in Connecticut. Mee to family court. Kicked out the founder and is advertising the family court warrior project. Mary Ann petri a supporter of parental alienation posting and Amy jatter posting regularly in the thread. This is a highly manipulative maneuver. It's to call out people publicly. Which includes doxing a mother and domestic violence organization. Something Richard Luthmann says he stands against. You see anyone speaking out against parental alienation and 50/50 custody is quickly put down. The is absolutely a need for reform of the family court house. These groups are lead by fathers rights organization. Parental Alienation industry pushing a narrative. Pushing out especially women who speak against it. When you bring up facts or an opposing sides that don't align with what ever agenda and narrative you are seeking attention. The enemy. Journalism is supposed to take into account factual information. It's not supposed to defend a side. Ingnore. factual information questions and concerns. Sse anyone who doesn't align with the mentality is a deatractor and an enemy to the group and silenced. This is not a safe space for all family court victims to express their concerns about family court system. It's an objective to push what a group of individuals have been paying for lobbying for years . The article often attract victims of the parental alienation scam. Your only a victim of family court if you align with the mentality. It's rebranded and you are only a victim of you agree with it. . Support what is on the agenda. Journalistic intergery has been replaced with the ideals of a group. You are not allowed to question or being opposing sides. The family court system is and continues to be bought and paid for by a monitized controlling and manipulative group of people who could care less about the we being of the general public. Care less about facts and the truth. These people are going to continue to silence you and shame you cause that's what controlling and manipulative people do.
I’m not being “paid” by equal and shared parenting. I firmly believe from years of training, study, and experince that a litigation rule that presumes 50-50 custody will remove the acrimony in over 90% of the cases and lead to better overall outcomes. A 50-50 adjudicative is superior to a “character assassination” game led by trial lawyers. The ABA-sponsored game leads to “silver bullets” and false claims of abuse, often by the more powerful parent with the deeper pockets. If you don’t believe me, ask Karen Riordan. It should be about who has the best interets of the children, not who has the best lawyers.
I'll be more than happy to email you the same information I will be sending to the legislators in CT and judiciary committee. These are 20 something percent of cases where DV sexual abuse and other forms of child abuse are alleged. Are these studies based upon these cases. Of course not. Equal rights to children are already assumed and the standard of best interest is initially based upon them. The effects of addicted parents is well documented. As well as the likelihood of the children growing up to have the same addictions. Not just because of genetics. It's the environment that these children grow up in and mirror the behavior. Research has already been done by non basis professional that point to poor adjustments in children who are in 50/50 agreements. When there are high conflict ie abuse going on. I don't have to ask Karen Riordan. She had her children taken away from her. So it would stand to reason she would rather have some contact than no contact. Her children would have been removed anyway. Do you think that Ambrose children would be going on the parenting time? They ran like hell , only to be dragged back and the entire situation was blamed on Karen. Labeled a " malicious alienator" an agenda equal and shared parenting pushes. Now she is resold the " parental alienation" by the Connecticut specialist working through referrals and coaching services. Your buddy is working with one of worst garduim ad lithium in the state of Connecticut. Withholding evidence and playing the equal and shared parenting game. I'll be more than happy to send you the complaints of Uconn kids the shared parenting project and the harm it causing. the family court warrior project is equal and shared parenting. The Alienation group. Tell me I'm wrong. There not in the project?
This as the Whitney Decker case and her three babies where killed by the father. Court documents show she practically begged for help, she infomred the cort of his deterioration, mental unfitness etc.
Mr. Luthmann, your very position literally ENDANGERS all children in US custody cases! It does not surprise me that you work for and support the Foundation witih your own history.
Well articulated, and agreed, just posted several factors about Mr. Luthman to affirm this as well, including the claims of how he is "unbiased" but then interjects himself into his reporting and.... reports on himself. I think that is seriously some type of PD trait.
"Pushing out especially women who speak against it"
"This is not a safe space for all family court victims to express their concerns about family court system" -
---- AGREED, see my post about the entity he supports, demeanor on here, failure to vet out who he supports etc.
Blessing Herman, I will NEVER apologize to you. I have done nothing wrong. All I have done is fail to "go after" your perceived enemies.
Please get the help that you need. And yes, I am asking you to question your unhealthy and warped perception of reality. You are medically unable to discern genuine "gaslighting" if you have severe mental trauma.
"I am sorry you feel that way" is the abusive strategy. I never expected nor desired one from you. I pointed out a fact.
Another strategy is to escalate when attention is drawn to a matter, as you have so eloquently proven here. Thank you.
I simply observe believeable behavior and speak up about it when it manifests.
Ohhh!! Now you are an armchair psychologist too? Devolving into personal attacks when deflecting from the issue at hand?
"Severe medical trauma" I am sorry to disappoint you, no. 7 years of hard core healing brings about brilliant clarity...to See. You. I have been
Do ya know another strategy you using? Trying to paint someone else as crazy for rational and logical conversations. Kudos to you Mr. Luthmann for demonstrsting Richard Gardner's check list for DARVO. LOL
I live in the "reality" that no longer tolerates abusive behavior, or threats or gaslighting and I no longer JOIN them in thier delusions or gamut of strategies they deploy. I call it out. Reality.
I could qualify as an expert of sorts having survived several pathological abusers and fought hard to gain clarity and understanding.
You're not a journalist, you're a a bully who attempts to shame, belittle, diminish, dismiss.
Journalists uphold themselves to stringent ethical and moral standards.
When a man feels extremely insecure he resorts to claims of the others insanity in an attempt to discredit, very credible claims and turn focus off him.
Gardner anyone? Gotta try to make yourself feel bigger by attempting to make another feel smaller?
What is ironic is you are literally playing out the check boxes of the "playbook" we deal with exes and in court. You behavior shows tactics of an abusive person..and you don't even know you are doing it.
Richard what you are doing here is what protective moms deal with in coersive control, we address it and donxt tolerate it anymore, we teach prople how to elevate thier standards in how to be treasted.
" perceived enemy" No, it is basic caveat emptor and public interest.
Christ and I are an overwhelming majority: "Deuteronomy 28:7:
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.
Richard you can call me whenever ever you like. The only thing family court system victims ask for is the truth. You can wrap yourself up in an American. The truth liberty 🗽 and justice for all should not be about the objective of one group. You have a right to opinions but it doesn't seem fair to control media coverage to support an objective of one group. I appreciate that you have taken the interest in the family court system problems. Some of the people in the reform movement are part of the problem. It's not okay to to filter the information to public. Nothing I have said in the above statement is not true. Who sent you? Equal and shared parenting from the state of Connecticut?
We know exactly who you are working with. These are the same people who have weaponized the court system. These are the same people who have tried to silence those who have brought to light the parental alienation fraud going on in family court. Or the misuse of abuse claims. When people comment facts you defend the people pushing parental alienation. It's called splitting. It's turning people against one another. It's taking victims of the parental alienation scam once they have had their children taken away to turning people against the very people trying to help them. Anyone who hasn't lost their children and trying to help those people who have are malicious alienator and bad people cause they don't support 50/50. God forbid you tell the public about what they have done to people who speak out against the alienation industry. Liar gold diggers malicious alienator mounchousen momma bitter baby mommas. For going to court and not splitting custody. God forbid you ask for child support. If you are such an advocate for 50/50 please share your information and convince me and everyone else.
This is a really good idea. I will write an article clearly stating my position: that 50/50 as a substantive legal policy is terrible, and that 50/50 as an adjudicative procedural rule is optimal for a therapeutic jurisprudence in family court.
Richard they just let mawihinny off in the Jennifer Dulos case with a slap on the wrist. His former wife went to the police in her own divorce and reported rape and fearing for her life. The guardian ad lithium appointment on the Dolus case wasn't even on the list of Connecticut approved gals at the time. This is a perfect example of the terrible system. Mawihinny wife had the same bias judge I had when she was denied a restraining order. The judge who claims fatherhood fundamental right on another Hartford Superior Court case. A fundamental right to engage in bias conduct on the Connecticut bench in my opinion. .I believe Mawihinny used an Alford plea and is back on the streets a free man . No trial exposing family court. The bogus custody evaluation will never be discussed publicly again. A Connecticut lawyer plea bargained home free.
FCVFC is an educational and watchdog group in the public interest. Their license is the Bill of Rights.
Check out the Trial Lawyers lobby and the financials from their related entities if you want to be disgusted.
Mr. Luthmann, you repeatedly claim to be an "unbiased" reporter, yet you interject yourself into your own reporting and report on yourself; it is bizzare. Here above, you show support and favortism for FCVFC. I sent you dozens of public record court documents and flings of public record, license suspensions, sanctions, lawsuits, several bankruptcy records etc. Reading the record shows a pattern of destructive behvior, towards clients, previous employees etc.
I am also in possession of her threats to me -- in writing. I have shared with you the very questionable reputation and expertise of Dr. H I have inquired about you investigating and vetted either of them out? Example, why is this Dr. H showing a picture of a peachy fresh 35/40 year old when he is in his late 70's LOL? Have you noticed a HUGE discrepancy in Dr. H not working for any clinic he is claimed to be associated with, he is not on thier forensic database for the entire nation. Interesting, isn't it?
If you truly desire to be an ethical, Catholic man of virtue (saint in training, right?) as we are called, as a duty, to be cunning without guile, shrewed as serpants and innocent as doves) --- reporter of unbaiased nature --then do the investigations, even if they lead you to places that contradict your "support"
The OP Heidi? was right, this forum is biased, and you clearly have an agenda. There is no room in here for healthy, vigorus debate
Pre-dawn ramble here but this event is I believe of great value. Not because we didn't know where the governor stood on the issue, but because she was forced to show where she stands on this issue. This to me is reminiscent of the scenes from old vampire movies where it finally occurs to some crusader that a cross can be used to expose vampires otherwise indistinguishable from ordinary humans. The most profound aspect of this story is that the legislation survived long enough to force a state governor to take a side to prevent its potential passage.
I'm no political expert but I have come to assume that there isn't a governor in the United States of America - democrat or republican - that looks fondly to an opportunity to face the same dilemma. Every governor should recognize and openly disavow family court suffer whatever political consequences can be mustered for their failure to do so. Nothing on the state level should be addressed until the family court system has been dealt with.
I mean simply if you had limited funds to repair a home with no roof and rotten floors ...
Which would you replace first? The roof duh. Do you have to be a homebuilder to figure that out? How many other problematic issues are traceable to the destruction happening week in and week out in family courts across the nation since as far back as anyone can remember. THIS IS THE CANCER OF OUR TIME and this country can by no means whatsoever identify as 'great again' until it is destroyed.
SAVE A KID! REPORT A JUDGE!
Follow the money. Divide the number of divorces in the country by the number of family law attorneys in the US and multiply by the average cost of a divorce. You get $60k. That’s without new family law attorneys coming online. Family law is already known as the used car lot of the legal profession— they cannot make a decent, much less “abundant” living without encouraging high conflict divorces and getting into bed with the therapists and troubled teen industry with whom they do practice development seminars on the fake diagnosis of parental alienation. The entire thing is the canine dental care of the legal profession. A diagnosis no one needs only to make money. Who suffers? Kids and wallets. What is needed to solve it? Consumer education — pre-divorce counseling on how not to get robbed by your lawyer.
I wish we could share snapshots on this platform but I'll leave this fun fact here. DRC) Dr David Weinstock was also on the Domestic Relations Commitee. One can find this under inactive committees on Azleg.gov. I believe judge Bruce Cohen put this committee together. It does list all members on the page, which include attorneys from AMA and members from psychology dept as ASU.= " forensics"
Michigan family court fraud @ www.judicialcriminal.com
Hobbs vetoed our (@azadvocacysummit) bill because it included an important element not mentioned here: HB2256 stated that testimony re: custody can only be accepted from a subject matter EXPERT. Arizona reunification therapists (Weinstock, Branton, DiCarlo, Korsten, Covert, Schroeckenstien, Vigil, Ruskin, Quinlan, Kiffmeyer, Fore, Milholich, etc), who receive nearly 100% of the AZ court appointments, do not qualify as "experts" in any field. They all have a behavioral health license, but none of them fulfill the requirements of their field to be considered experts. Simply put, does your general dentist perform your root canal? Then consider the exponentially more harmful recommendation, by a far less qualified "provider," being applied to your children.
All of the "forensic providers" routinely violate the APA Ethical Code in AZ and then hide under the Big Black Robe. HB2256 would have prohibited their testimony in family court. And Hobbs vetoed the bill to protect these providers - her longtime cohorts - which exposed her exactly as Senator Finchem, the public and your readers have noted.
May 12, 2025 AZ Ad Hoc Commitee Hearing on Family Court Order National Crisis
https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?clientID=6361162879&eventID=2025051019
Thank you so much, Richard, for posting this powerful and heartbreaking video. I started listening last night and was so moved and overwhelmed that I actually fell asleep with it playing. The sheer weight of the testimonies felt like listening to a modern day holocaust of the soul. So many families, so much suffering, and yet so few people willing to face what's happening in these courtrooms.
I woke up in the middle of the night and the video was around the 3-hour mark. One of the names mentioned really stayed with me: Dr. Bandy Lee. A mother shared her 7-minute story and quoted Dr. Lee, a respected psychiatrist and advocate who has spoken out against abuses in the family court system. Her own sister, I learned, is caught in a brutal New Jersey case, where a judge has allegedly weaponized the system to strip her of her rights and finances just one more example of the widespread corruption and devastation we heard throughout the video.
If you or others haven’t yet reached that part, I highly recommend listening to the segment around 3 hours and 6 minutes in. Dr. Lee’s name and the mother’s account deserve to be heard and remembered.
Thank you again for bringing these stories to light. You are giving so many silenced voices a chance to be heard.
I am disappointed in the lack of transparency in this article. It frames the Governor instead of giving a balanced perspective on the issue and her reasons for the veto. Likewise, the poll associates her with various nefarious motivations, while in truth she had the courage to stand up against a very flawed bill.
There is no question that the family court system needs reform and that injustices I do unfortunately occur. However, that is not really what HB 2256 is about. The true intent of HB 2256 (as is Kayden’s Law on the federal level) is to discredit the science of parental alienation, to deny that parental alienation is a form of psychological abuse, and to bar parental alienation claims from family courts. A strawman narrative has been created that depicts parental alienation as a nefarious scheme of unethical “experts” to rake in the money at the expense of domestic violence victims (see for example https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsw.12692 and https://bit.ly/43BaRY9 ).
HB 2256 aimed to attack parental alienation by placing severe restrictions against reunification programs that are designed to mitigate the psychological abuse of parental alienation. The bill’s strawman argument mischaracterizes the intent of reunification for parental alienation as well as the qualifications of its practitioners. The provisions of the bill are equivalent to asking the perpetrator of domestic violence if they are willing to participate in therapy.
While anecdotal accounts are reported in the media and in hearings, not all of them are necessarily indictive of the issues of this bill. Sob stories alone are not enough to frame public policy. Public policy has to be based upon solid foundations that will effectively and fairly deal with all aspects of any given issue. It is also the responsibility of the media to accurately present all sides of complex issues and not to create scandals where none exist. You owe the Governor an apology.
Yaakov Aichenbaum
www.childsafetyfirstreport.com
Actually, HB2256 had nothing to do with "parental alienation." It stated that the court couldn't order parents to pay for court-ordered "therapies" and that anyone testifying in custody determinations as an "expert" needed to be an actual "expert," just as every other court expects of their "experts." How does one argue that someone testifying as an "expert" need NOT be an expert?
There is nothing "anecdotal" about thousands of family court litigants coming forward with evidence that their custody ruling was based on the testimony of a "provider" who (1) is unqualified to weigh in and (2) profits from a recommendation of their continued involvement.
And before you cite anything from the "Wiley Library" at least be transparent that "library is nothing more than a compilation of AFCC blog entries passed off as "science."
Finally, Rabbi Aichenbaum, you should also be transparent that you are a "parental alienation" proponent and that your position re: what should affect public policy is skewed to benefit one special interests group. The current "public policy" of Arizona is a presumption of 50/50 which we have since learned, was promoted by a local "social scientist" who fabricated his "research."
The Governor will not be getting an apology from any parent of child of Arizona.
Thank you for your input. Let’s do some fact-checking:
Thank you for your input. Let’s do some fact-checking:
You write: Actually, HB2256 had nothing to do with "parental alienation." It stated that the court couldn't order parents to pay for court-ordered "therapies" and that anyone testifying in custody determinations as an "expert" needed to be an actual "expert," just as every other court expects of their "experts." How does one argue that someone testifying as an "expert" need NOT be an expert?
Silver, AZ has used the Daubert standard since 2012 which regulates the use of expert testimony. Why then the need for this law at all? The answer can be found on Danielle Pollack’s NSPO website. Pollack is the lead author of Kayden’s law and is instrumental in drafting state laws such as HB2256. The site makes it very clear that the purpose of Kayden’s Law is to eradicate parental alienation from the family court system. See https://medium.com/@nationalsafeparents/the-go-to-defense-tactic-of-abusers-in-family-court-since-1985-f2f4cbf40e3a for a full description from the NSPO.
They aim to do this by placing a select few members of the domestic violence community in charge of determining what is scientific, who is an expert, who can train judges and court officials, and more in order to exclude alienation claims from court. The intent of HB2256 is not to ensure expert witnesses, but to exclude parental alienation experts and anyone else who might expose false domestic violence allegations from testifying. This is precisely what it is all about.
You write:
There is nothing "anecdotal" about thousands of family court litigants coming forward with evidence that their custody ruling was based on the testimony of a "provider" who (1) is unqualified to weigh in and (2) profits from a recommendation of their continued involvement.
Silver, I do not doubt that some people have been wronged by the family courts, but did thousands of people actually come forward with evidence? What kind of evidence? Just because a court ruled against the party and the party claims that the experts were biased does not validate the allegations. Without actual verification and hearing the other side of the story, it is anecdotal.
You write:
And before you cite anything from the "Wiley Library" at least be transparent that "library is nothing more than a compilation of AFCC blog entries passed off as "science."
Silver, Wiley Online Library (WOL) is a subscription-based online platform that provides access to a vast collection of academic resources from John Wiley & Sons, including journals, ebooks, and reference works. It's a hub for research, covering a wide range of subjects like life sciences, health, physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities. It is not a blog and there is no connection between Wiley and the AFCC. The link I provided is for the Journal of Social Welfare which is available through Wiley.
You write:
Finally, Rabbi Aichenbaum, you should also be transparent that you are a "parental alienation" proponent and that your position re: what should affect public policy is skewed to benefit one special interests group.
Silver, a person’s support for a particular issue does not mean that the person’s public policy views are skewed to the detriment of anything else. This creation of a false dichotomy reduces a complex issue to a black-and-white view, ignoring the shades of gray and the various other options that could exist. This oversimplification is a logical fallacy. There is no lack of transparency in my comments.
I am all for better training and the vetting of unqualified experts and other court reforms. I also am concerned about false allegations of all kinds (domestic violence and parental alienation) and training to prevent false allegations. I am also all for regulating the misuse of reunification programs. However, I am against legislation which is not designed to address all forms of abuse and that uses strawman definitions of reunification programs to ban legitimate and necessary treatment options.
The current "public policy" of Arizona is a presumption of 50/50 which we have since learned, was promoted by a local "social scientist" who fabricated his "research."
I assume you are referring to Arizona State University Associate Professor William Fabricius. Your use of quotations marks around the words "social scientist" and "research" seem to be intended to discredit Fabricius. You claim that he fabricated his research but cite no reliable source for this allegation. This is a serious allegation. Fabricius has a robust CV with a considerable amount of research and publications (file:///C:/Users/yaako/AppData/Local/Temp/MicrosoftEdgeDownloads/fb70ca06-4d56-4ede-b799-5c5c5b930a44/Fabricius%20Vita%20current.pdf ). I could not find any documentation of research fraud in a google search. Can you please provide documentation for this claim?
I am not from AZ and I have no reason to either condemn or support her. I do reiterate my original comments that Luthmann’s article together with the almost satanic graphics that accompany it are an injustice to the Governor. Richard writes that “The problematic part of the veto is that Hobbs is protecting the court-appointed "professional bloodsuckers." That is a mischaracterization. Governor Hobbs took a principled stand that she was not against this law, but that it had to be amended to create a balanced platform that would not hurt some people in the process of helping others. She is challenging the policymakers to improve the bill. This is good public policy. If you want to see a more accurate assessment of Hobbs, see https://severedvoices.substack.com/p/arizona-governor-hobbs-protects-children?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true .
I don’t know who wrote this article, but I do see that the author doesn’t assume nefarious intent and does provide reasonable reasons for the veto.
PA does not meet any Daubert standards according to the "National Counsel of Family Court Judges: Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody CAses" -- it actually states any alleged evidence of such needs to be STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD becaue it does not meet evidentiary standards.
Silver,
Why do you think such therapies could even come about? Are you suggesting that the ONLY reason for such is for these "experts" to keep litigants engaged and paying? That is the one and only reason for them? Who deems someone to be an expert? Are they not voir dired before a trial court and by both parties? Do I understand that process?
I'm wondering if you are willing or able to listen- NOT AGREE- but LISTEN to those who say they have been affected by parental alienation?
I'm wondering if it's a all possible that there is a one sided narrative here that is actually harming women and children - even young girls- by Joan Meier, Danielle Pollack (who has said that she does not believe psych abuse is real and IF it is real, then it's too difficult to diagnose) and their colleagues?
It is at all possible for you Silver to have a listen to mothers who have suffered this horrific abuse? Would you be willing to sit and hear to other stories and consider them? Again, not asking you to agree with them. Arizona bill's veto was a consideration for the other half of the story. Why don't more alienated mothers come forward? Many reasons, including shame, lack of awareness, further abuse from DV advocates, and a desire to protect their children who are also victims of abuse.
I leave you with two links that hopefully you are willing to consider. The denial of this abuse adds another layer of heartbreak for mothers (and yes, fathers) who continue to be abused not only by their ex partners, but by DV advocates, the family court system, and mental health professionals who are trained in the "voice of the child."
1. page 4: https://bwjp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/TitleXV_FinalReport.pdf
2. A Utah mom who doesn't speak of experts, but is brave enough to share her heartbreaking story of her alienation abuse at the hands of her children's father: https://www.youtube.com/@Parentsagainstalienation
Melissa, this is not about whether or not I believe "parental alienation" occurs. There is no dispute that people engage in alienating behaviors all the time. The issue addressed in HB2256 was that the "forensic providers" are not qualified to provide "therapy" or to offer "expert" testimony in court. HB2256 and Hobbs' veto had nothing to do with validating "parental alienation." I'm sorry for whatever harm you or your children have suffered in family court, but you are misunderstanding the intent of the bill and the real reason she vetoed it.
Also, I read that she wrote it was vetoed for "unintended consequences."
Again, I'm misunderstanding. What were then the real reasons she vetoed it?
The problematic part of the veto is that Hobbs is protecting the court-appointed "professional bloodsuckers." Some of the people appointed do not have robust education or training and really have no business being on the court's dole. Nor should the court be in the business of "fixing people." It just adds to the Family Courts as a costly, corrupt feeding trough that harms and bankrupts children and families.
Is the court in the business of protecting children? Who steps in if a child is being abused?
ok. then clearly I am misunderstanding.
Are these people listed above NOT voir dired in an open court by both parties? Does that voir dire NOT make them an expert?
The bill also reads, "2. THE EXPERT'S OPINION IS SUPPORTED BY THE CANONS OF THE EXPERT'S 15 PROFESSION,.... 16 DOES NOT RELY ON THEORIES THAT ARE NOT CLINICALLY ESTABLISHED."
In my experience in interactions with One Mom's Battle, Danielle Pollack, Jean Mercer, and Anne Hoyer, and Reem Alsalem, all of them content that any reference to PA is not scientifically sound, not accepted by major organizations, or is "junk science." So how is line 15-16 of the bill not related to PA? This phrase, "not clinically established" is a dog whistle for people who don't think PA is real.
Finally, what qualifies them to provide therapies for brainwashed children? Is family therapy not sufficient? Is understanding of trauma bonding, Stockholm syndrome, understanding of shared delusions, inverted hierarchy, and negative attachment not what is needed? If not, then what IS needed when a child is so brainwashed, manipulated, and confused that they can not longer hold two realities at once and "must" split psychologically and reject a parent? I'm confused what treatment that requires. Where am I wrong?
I watched half of the AZ Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Family Court Order Crisis. Senator Finchem, his panel is incensed and credible. The board of psychologists and judicial committe revealed much.
I'd be cautious about using uncredible sources such as Jill Soderman and her foundations. I believe AZ is s one of the states she lost her license in for fraudaulenty saying she had one when NJ had suspended it and forbade her from using it. She appears that she may engage in fraudaulent tactics as well. It's the pot calling the kettle black. The ends does not justify the means and stooping to the level of the court players makes her just as bad as them, not better.
Has anyone bothered to really dig deep into her history? How many bankruptcies she has, how many law suits. Public record is clear. All revealing a clear pattern of conduct, including her solid patterns of threats that demand silence or else she will slander, defame and libel you. She says so in writing. ANYONE and EVERYONE who displeases her or upsets her or asks too many questions or crosses her, is a target. Suits show the same, from old clients, to ex employees to opposing counsels, she has also been sanctioned for making unethical diagnoses, without consent, notice or awareness and declaring them as fact...to the point where her conduct was was found to be malicious.
Her threats towards me, in writing, are no better than the courts and our abusers. I paid her $10k to help us and she did nothing. Leads her clients around by thier noses, stringing them along, for months, asking you to repeatedly resend all yoru documents, until you finally catch on and complain and she threatens you. Tells you she will use your personal case info against you. That she will intervene on your case to retaliate.
She needs to be fully investigated. 990's, credentials, all entities, qualifications, sanctions (does the instiution really exist!?) The "whistleblower" doesn't want to be whistleblown.
Have you wondered by Cristin Badal quit? What about the several other employees? They filed suits. Why?
Has this 'ghost' Dr. Hipskind that she uses, actually been researched and vetted out? I have. Nothing adds up. That is an interesting rabbit hole to decend into.
Anyone in this game that is truly seeking to help must ne beyone reproach!! They must maintain high standards of ethics, integrity, dignity.
Mr. Luthmann, please do not taint this AZ movement with questionable entities and actors.
Let't raise it up and and preserve its dignity and integrity and not contaminate the waters with muddy characters. 1200 watched remotely, he is holding two more hearings.
(I will await the fallout and threats)
Blessing, put your personal history with Jill aside.
Dr. Bandy Lee is mentioned in the AZ hearing on May 14 just about 3 hours in. Do you think Dr. Lee is credible?
The UN recognizes her as a world-renowned expert in human rights and violence prevention.
Dr. Lee works closely with Jill Jones Soderman.
If you want to tear people down, go after the child traffickers, abusers, and pedophiles. Not the people trying to stop them.
No. It is not "personal history" - Your bias is showing again. I am personally vested in this for my own family, the families I support and adovcate for, for future citizens as productive members of society, future professionals and experts and politicians.
I turn to give, and already affirmed it is a matter of public interest. When entities like FCVFC threaten thier clients (like thier pattern of law suits against them show) to harm already vulnerable people and children and then utillize what appears to be imaginary "experts" -- they aren't helping us, they are harming us, and exploting the vulnerable.
This, Mr. Luthmann is your attempt to silence a dissenting voice (as so much of the court industry predators do) -- So, what makes YOU any different then the court players when you utilize this same abusive tactic?
Your logic fails regarding Lee and I redirect it properly - Perhaps Dr. Lee needs to further vet out who she assoicates with so that her own reputation isn't tarnished? If I were in her shoes, I'd take protective actions for my reputation to assure it's integrity and disassociate with anyone who may bring scandal down on me. I am reasonably confident that if Lee really knew of the ublic record of background, cases, lawsuits and pattern of threats and libel, slander, defamation against the foundation -- she would absolutely disassociate. Why don't you ask her Mr. Luthmann?
Finally, stop attempting to be inflammatory, it is just petty and immature./toxic No one is "tearing anyone down" when they share negative facts and experience. I assert that the foundation exploits us court survivors just like those "child traffickers, abusers, and pedophiles" that put us there in the first place.
I'd like to add that if you truly cared about these families and kids you would not be attacking me, nor would you be defending and protecting entities that also harm us -- you would posess and be expressing compassion, empathy, kindness and an air of "protection" rather than what is expressed on here. We have walked thru HELL - and don't need your extra "flames"
Since you support the foundation - Can you produce any evidence at all, any case proof of a single success she has had? Show me a single filing she has made that was successful.
ALL this REPORTING AND POLITICIZING and you continually fail to report on the suffering of victims. Trump admin is right MSM only focuses on the criminals. You want to be classed with the "big dogs" right?
You may try to shame me all you wish, it reflects more about you then myself.
Will you be answering any question I've asked you to be acountable and transparent?
What happened to Cristin Badal, why did she quit working for this entity?
What happened to her case, you stopped reporting on it - Why?
I'm silencing no one. If I wanted to silence you, I would block you and delete your comments as if they never existed. Your opinions and feelings are valuable and part of the discourse.
I am sorry if you feel I am attacking you. I am simply asking questions and making observations.
Michigan Family Court Fraud@ www.judicialcriminal.com
The history of the family court system and the people who are trying to reform it are an important part of the court system reform. I don't know Jill or Dr.lee. I will say it is important to know the history and people who are involved in the family court system reform movement. There is a confusion as to the direction of the " reform movement". I surtainly don't support the operation of the court system in it's current state. Please don't silence the voices of court survivors when they don't support the sources of your articles. The road to cleaning up family court is full of potholes. It's not just filled with good intentions. It's got some self serving individuals. The intergery of journalism is to ensure no harm. Folks bringing up information and asking questions that are relevant to the people you are promote should not offend you. It's extremely important for survivors and current litigants need to know all the facts of the " reformers". Seeking the truth and complete set of facts when making decisions on who to support in the fight to fix the court system. We appreciate the coverage and the ability to exercise free speech. Opinions, factual information and questions are discouraged? We have had enough of that at the courthouse.
Soderman says: "unlicensed therapeutic interventionists are reaping benefits from the continuous abuse and flow of money,”
Is she speaking of herself?
What licenses does she posses?
Her 990's the last few years showed almost 1/2 MILLION dollars in revenue.
WHO is "reaping benefits from the continuous flow of money"???
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/208977871
Here is the problem with the coverage of family court system. Richard Luthmann in my opinion has a bias narrative against the family court reform system. The coverage in which is being used is paid for in all likelihood by equal and shared parenting. Richard Luthmann has stated that he believes that that is in the best interest of children. Unfortunately behind the shared parenting groups in New England and the parental alienation industry. " 99 percent of domestic violence cases are false accusations". Coaching people to bring it to the family court house. . This is an anti protective parents movement. It's extremely interesting to me that these articles are housing opposing sides, however when questions and concerns are raised you are automatically given a negative response. Richard Luthmann has elined himself with a group. This group has used women members to hijack Facebook groups like the one in Connecticut. Mee to family court. Kicked out the founder and is advertising the family court warrior project. Mary Ann petri a supporter of parental alienation posting and Amy jatter posting regularly in the thread. This is a highly manipulative maneuver. It's to call out people publicly. Which includes doxing a mother and domestic violence organization. Something Richard Luthmann says he stands against. You see anyone speaking out against parental alienation and 50/50 custody is quickly put down. The is absolutely a need for reform of the family court house. These groups are lead by fathers rights organization. Parental Alienation industry pushing a narrative. Pushing out especially women who speak against it. When you bring up facts or an opposing sides that don't align with what ever agenda and narrative you are seeking attention. The enemy. Journalism is supposed to take into account factual information. It's not supposed to defend a side. Ingnore. factual information questions and concerns. Sse anyone who doesn't align with the mentality is a deatractor and an enemy to the group and silenced. This is not a safe space for all family court victims to express their concerns about family court system. It's an objective to push what a group of individuals have been paying for lobbying for years . The article often attract victims of the parental alienation scam. Your only a victim of family court if you align with the mentality. It's rebranded and you are only a victim of you agree with it. . Support what is on the agenda. Journalistic intergery has been replaced with the ideals of a group. You are not allowed to question or being opposing sides. The family court system is and continues to be bought and paid for by a monitized controlling and manipulative group of people who could care less about the we being of the general public. Care less about facts and the truth. These people are going to continue to silence you and shame you cause that's what controlling and manipulative people do.
I’m not being “paid” by equal and shared parenting. I firmly believe from years of training, study, and experince that a litigation rule that presumes 50-50 custody will remove the acrimony in over 90% of the cases and lead to better overall outcomes. A 50-50 adjudicative is superior to a “character assassination” game led by trial lawyers. The ABA-sponsored game leads to “silver bullets” and false claims of abuse, often by the more powerful parent with the deeper pockets. If you don’t believe me, ask Karen Riordan. It should be about who has the best interets of the children, not who has the best lawyers.
Convince me I’m wrong.
I'll be more than happy to email you the same information I will be sending to the legislators in CT and judiciary committee. These are 20 something percent of cases where DV sexual abuse and other forms of child abuse are alleged. Are these studies based upon these cases. Of course not. Equal rights to children are already assumed and the standard of best interest is initially based upon them. The effects of addicted parents is well documented. As well as the likelihood of the children growing up to have the same addictions. Not just because of genetics. It's the environment that these children grow up in and mirror the behavior. Research has already been done by non basis professional that point to poor adjustments in children who are in 50/50 agreements. When there are high conflict ie abuse going on. I don't have to ask Karen Riordan. She had her children taken away from her. So it would stand to reason she would rather have some contact than no contact. Her children would have been removed anyway. Do you think that Ambrose children would be going on the parenting time? They ran like hell , only to be dragged back and the entire situation was blamed on Karen. Labeled a " malicious alienator" an agenda equal and shared parenting pushes. Now she is resold the " parental alienation" by the Connecticut specialist working through referrals and coaching services. Your buddy is working with one of worst garduim ad lithium in the state of Connecticut. Withholding evidence and playing the equal and shared parenting game. I'll be more than happy to send you the complaints of Uconn kids the shared parenting project and the harm it causing. the family court warrior project is equal and shared parenting. The Alienation group. Tell me I'm wrong. There not in the project?
This as the Whitney Decker case and her three babies where killed by the father. Court documents show she practically begged for help, she infomred the cort of his deterioration, mental unfitness etc.
70 % of filicides are perpetrated by he fathers!!
1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/17/child-deaths-during-custody-battles/70383774007/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/18/child-custody-laws-domestic-violence-homicide-rising
Mr. Luthmann, your very position literally ENDANGERS all children in US custody cases! It does not surprise me that you work for and support the Foundation witih your own history.
And what position is that?
Well articulated, and agreed, just posted several factors about Mr. Luthman to affirm this as well, including the claims of how he is "unbiased" but then interjects himself into his reporting and.... reports on himself. I think that is seriously some type of PD trait.
"Pushing out especially women who speak against it"
"This is not a safe space for all family court victims to express their concerns about family court system" -
---- AGREED, see my post about the entity he supports, demeanor on here, failure to vet out who he supports etc.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Blessing Herman
just now
I am calling you out for your use of abuse tactic: you are gaslighting. Abusers use this to deflect, shame etc.
Your position is one of defending abusers .. which is the root cause of "high conflict" cases (misnomer).
"Key points
Gaslighting is psychological abuse through verbal, written, and/or physical actions that cause the recipient to question their reality.
A non-apology is used to deflect, pretend to apologize, and ultimately win the disagreement by placing blame back on the individual.
The insensitivity of gaslighting often lies in the lack of self-awareness and self-inquiry to address control issues and avoidance of apologies."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us?_gl=1*14rwtzd*_ga*dDh1di1oMHNHVEM2M2Rmcy1yYmJDUHFpcUJjQUNIZ21FYlZjQkhEY3VwYmtvNGJJb3ZqeEs3Y0doQ3FQWEVSVA..*_ga_5EMHF6S1M6*MTc0OTEyODY0My4yLjEuMTc0OTEyODY0My4wLjAuMA..
https://www.grouporttherapy.com/blog/im-sorry-you-feel-that-way-and-other-gaslighting-tactics
Blessing Herman, I will NEVER apologize to you. I have done nothing wrong. All I have done is fail to "go after" your perceived enemies.
Please get the help that you need. And yes, I am asking you to question your unhealthy and warped perception of reality. You are medically unable to discern genuine "gaslighting" if you have severe mental trauma.
"I am sorry you feel that way" is the abusive strategy. I never expected nor desired one from you. I pointed out a fact.
Another strategy is to escalate when attention is drawn to a matter, as you have so eloquently proven here. Thank you.
I simply observe believeable behavior and speak up about it when it manifests.
Ohhh!! Now you are an armchair psychologist too? Devolving into personal attacks when deflecting from the issue at hand?
"Severe medical trauma" I am sorry to disappoint you, no. 7 years of hard core healing brings about brilliant clarity...to See. You. I have been
Do ya know another strategy you using? Trying to paint someone else as crazy for rational and logical conversations. Kudos to you Mr. Luthmann for demonstrsting Richard Gardner's check list for DARVO. LOL
I live in the "reality" that no longer tolerates abusive behavior, or threats or gaslighting and I no longer JOIN them in thier delusions or gamut of strategies they deploy. I call it out. Reality.
I could qualify as an expert of sorts having survived several pathological abusers and fought hard to gain clarity and understanding.
You're not a journalist, you're a a bully who attempts to shame, belittle, diminish, dismiss.
Journalists uphold themselves to stringent ethical and moral standards.
When a man feels extremely insecure he resorts to claims of the others insanity in an attempt to discredit, very credible claims and turn focus off him.
Gardner anyone? Gotta try to make yourself feel bigger by attempting to make another feel smaller?
What is ironic is you are literally playing out the check boxes of the "playbook" we deal with exes and in court. You behavior shows tactics of an abusive person..and you don't even know you are doing it.
Richard what you are doing here is what protective moms deal with in coersive control, we address it and donxt tolerate it anymore, we teach prople how to elevate thier standards in how to be treasted.
" perceived enemy" No, it is basic caveat emptor and public interest.
Christ and I are an overwhelming majority: "Deuteronomy 28:7:
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.
Richard you can call me whenever ever you like. The only thing family court system victims ask for is the truth. You can wrap yourself up in an American. The truth liberty 🗽 and justice for all should not be about the objective of one group. You have a right to opinions but it doesn't seem fair to control media coverage to support an objective of one group. I appreciate that you have taken the interest in the family court system problems. Some of the people in the reform movement are part of the problem. It's not okay to to filter the information to public. Nothing I have said in the above statement is not true. Who sent you? Equal and shared parenting from the state of Connecticut?
Start your own outlet. I'm not "controlling" any media coverage.
We know exactly who you are working with. These are the same people who have weaponized the court system. These are the same people who have tried to silence those who have brought to light the parental alienation fraud going on in family court. Or the misuse of abuse claims. When people comment facts you defend the people pushing parental alienation. It's called splitting. It's turning people against one another. It's taking victims of the parental alienation scam once they have had their children taken away to turning people against the very people trying to help them. Anyone who hasn't lost their children and trying to help those people who have are malicious alienator and bad people cause they don't support 50/50. God forbid you tell the public about what they have done to people who speak out against the alienation industry. Liar gold diggers malicious alienator mounchousen momma bitter baby mommas. For going to court and not splitting custody. God forbid you ask for child support. If you are such an advocate for 50/50 please share your information and convince me and everyone else.
This is a really good idea. I will write an article clearly stating my position: that 50/50 as a substantive legal policy is terrible, and that 50/50 as an adjudicative procedural rule is optimal for a therapeutic jurisprudence in family court.
Richard they just let mawihinny off in the Jennifer Dulos case with a slap on the wrist. His former wife went to the police in her own divorce and reported rape and fearing for her life. The guardian ad lithium appointment on the Dolus case wasn't even on the list of Connecticut approved gals at the time. This is a perfect example of the terrible system. Mawihinny wife had the same bias judge I had when she was denied a restraining order. The judge who claims fatherhood fundamental right on another Hartford Superior Court case. A fundamental right to engage in bias conduct on the Connecticut bench in my opinion. .I believe Mawihinny used an Alford plea and is back on the streets a free man . No trial exposing family court. The bogus custody evaluation will never be discussed publicly again. A Connecticut lawyer plea bargained home free.