The Reunification Therapy Debate and 'Keyboard Tough' Divorce Lawyers

Linda Gottlieb's Turning Points For Families harms children, exploits parents, court filing claims

By Richard Luthmann

In a Filed Lawsuit arising from a Family Court matter in Clark County, Washington, Filip Hanik, a software engineer, has taken legal action against his ex-wife, Teresa Hanik, parental alienation consultant Linda J. Gottlieb, and her organization, Turning Points For Families. Seeking over $1 million in damages, Filip's reunification therapy lawsuit contends that Gottlieb’s practices, rather than bringing healing, have inflicted further harm on his family. Filip brings the case in his capacity and on behalf of his children, A. H. and T. H.

Teresa Hanik recently filed a motion for summary judgment in a Washington State court. She wants Filip’s case thrown out because, she says, Gottlieb and Turning Points’ therapeutic reunification programs are legitimate and not “exploitative and psychologically damaging,” as the lawsuit claims.

The court is expected to rule on the motion in the coming weeks. If Theresa wins, the claims will disappear. If Filip Hanik wins, it could hamstring Gottlieb and Turning Points' ability to practice Reunification Therapy.

Linda Gottlieb LMFT, LCSW-R

I have been trying to interview Linda Gottlieb for months. The issue of reunification therapy is controversial for some, and many readers want her side of the story on parental alienation and Reunification Therapy.

Unlike my friend and podcast mate, investigative reporter Michael Volpe, who believes the issue is settled, I am trying to have an open mind given the statements and evidence presented.

Linda Gottlieb’s side of the story is crucial. Without it, I believe Reunification Therapy is about to get steamrolled across the country.

Just recently, Volpe alerted me to a WSJ feature piece offering a harsh perspective on Reunification Therapy entitled A Court-Ordered Therapy That Separates Kids From a Parent They Love Stirs a Backlash.

Here is a part of our recent conversation about Linda Gottlieb and Reunification Therapy based on an article I recently wrote.

---

Michael Volpe
I see you wrote this article. It's called "Reunification 'Queen' Faces Legal Blow: Filip Hanik Seeks to Shut Down Linda Gottlieb's Controversial Therapy." Linda runs something called Reunification Therapy. It's been banned, and I think now five states, Arizona is one of them. New Hampshire recently banned it. I believe all 50 states will ban what she does. Now, they still allow outpatient Reunification Therapy. The kind that I think she does is like four days in a camp where you grab the kids, the kids can't even see the parent they want to see, and it's just the kids and the therapist or therapist, that's what she runs, right?

Richard Luthmann
Yeah, well, what she does is she has Turning Points for Families, which is a group that does these Reunification Camps. You have the nail on the head now you said it's been banned. I'm trying to get Linda Gottlieb. I want to try to interview her. I want to hear her side of the story. The thing about this is it's a hot-button issue. There are a lot of people on both sides of this, and the core of this is parental alienation. Her belief is that parental alienation is medically evaluated and sound. It's a condition, and reunification therapy treats it as an effective treatment.

Michael Volpe
Let me ask you a few questions. Does the American Psychological Association recognize parental alienation?

Richard Luthmann
No, they do not. And neither does the DSM-V. And in groups like the FCVFC...

Michael Volpe
People who recognize it are people like Linda Gottlieb because she's made a career out of it.

Richard Luthmann
Ok, but here's the point. Groups like the United Nations Human Rights Commission and their statements about parental alienation not having a basis. Groups like the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts and Jill Jones Soderman have said that they do not - right on their website - they'll say, we do not agree with parental alienation, it has no medical basis, and we do not even entertain that as part of any of anything we do. That being said, the advocates for parental alienation point to the DSM and say that there are five or six characteristics of parental alienation that are accepted in the DSM as actual medical type issues. So I want to get Linda Gottlieb. I want to have an interview with her. I want to ask her, what is your best argument?

Michael Volpe
The problem with parental alienation is that it's what each person wants it to be. I've heard many, many people describe their dealings with parental elimination. All the stories are different. So what basically happens is whatever happens to you feels wrong, and you feel like your relationship with your child or children is bad, and you blame the other parent. You'll say it's parental alienation. There's no rhyme or reason. There's no set standard on what exactly parental alienation is; whatever happened, in your case, that's parental alienation. That's not real. That's blue unicorns, gray unicorns, whatever you want to call it.

Michael Volpe
Everyone gets to say something different about it. Whatever happened in their case. Sometimes it's coaching the child, sometimes it's bad mouthing. And here's the thing: if you believe your ex is coaching the child, I believe that could happen. I've definitely seen that happen. I don't understand why you can't just say my ex is coaching the child. I don't know why you have to say that's parental alienation. If your ex is saying you're a terrible person, why can't you just say my ex is saying I'm a terrible person? Why do you need to say parental alienation? So, if you could just describe exactly what's going on, that, I think, would get us much farther than just saying everything is parental alienation.

Rorschach Inkblot Test

Richard Luthmann
Michael, there is. There are two points here, and I agree with you to the extent that it's a Rorschach. But I think it's a legal Rorschach. To a certain extent, we have to look and see parental alienation, both as a legal doctrine and as a medical condition. So I want to know...

Michael Volpe
That's my other problem. So here's my other problem with parental alienation. I can never tell if it's a legal term, it's a psychological term or a layman's term. See, sometimes people use it in the legal sense, and what does that mean? Sometimes, people use it in psychological terms. Sometimes, the layman just uses a layman's 'I feel alienated.' Look, if you feel alienated, who am I to tell you not, not to feel that? That's how you feel. That's how you feel.

Cher in Moonstruck (1987)

Richard Luthmann
Unless you're Cher in Moonstruck. "Snap out of it!" Right?

Michael Volpe
But look, you know PTSD is, is one thing and the other thing, I always use this, a torn ACL. If you tear your ACL, there is a specific X-ray that will know if it is partially torn.? Is it fully torn? Is it the ACL? Is it the UCL? Is it the MCL? You're going to know with the exact 100% certitude how bad it is, how long you're out with parental alienation. You go to one of these people, like Linda Gottlieb, and you tell your story, and they decide purely, in a subjective manner, whether or not it's parental alienation.

Richard Luthmann
I want to interview Linda Gottlieb. I've talked to many people who think she's a brilliant woman. She has medical credentials, or she actually has educational credentials that support her. And I want to hear her side of things. But the problem is that everybody against her says that she's the "Queen of Broken Hearts" and that the Reunification's Queen of Broken Hearts is not helping any families with her camp. She's actually hurting people. In the article, I have sixteen-year-old Mia's testimony before the California Senate. I talk about some of the other individuals who talk about these camps and what they do to kids. For them, it's almost like another form of abuse.

---

Michael Volpe isn't the only person who noticed the Hanik Lawsuit article about the reunification therapy lawsuit.

We had contacted Teresa Hanik's lawyers for comment before publishing the article. Her lawyers, The Vern McCray Law Firm, PLLC, did not respond to our request for comment. I found that quite odd because the outfit represented themselves to be courteous. According to the law firm's website:

At The Vern McCray Law Firm, PLLC, our rule of practice is to "Treat others how you would want to be treated." We treat our clients like they are our family, and that is how we look after and defend their best interests.

After publication, it was an entirely different story. Attorney Roxana T. Manesh sent me a scathing email about the reunification therapy lawsuit.

Attorney Roxana T. Manesh

On Sunday, August 18th, 2024 at 11:55 PM, Roxana Manesh <roxana@vernmccraylaw.com> wrote:

Hi Mr. Luthmann,

I see that you have published a few articles relating to my client, Teresa Hanik. In your recent article.

I also see the Statement: "We contacted the Vern McCray Law Firm for further comment, but we have not received a response as of press time."

I am the attorney of record and can verify no attempts were ever made to contact my office or myself, by phone, email, or any other form of communication.

I request that you remove this article and any others you have published relating to my client.

I am unsure what the extent of your involvement has been in this matter, so I'll ask for you to disclose that as well.

Regards,

Roxana T. Manesh, Esq.

Attorney at Law| The Vern McCray Law Firm

Investigative Reporter Richard Luthmann

I was compelled to defend my reporting on the Reunification Therapy lawsuit to Attorney Manesh. She flexed her index fingers as a "Keyboard Tough Girl." And I am still a bit confused. If the McCray Law Firm follows the Golden Rule and wants to treat others as they would like to be treated, doesn't that mean they expect scathing emails in response to their own missives?

I guessed they wanted "scathing," and I tried my best.

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 5:09 AM
To: Roxana Manesh <roxana@vernmccraylaw.com>
Cc: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>; RALafontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>; RickLaRiviere@proton.me; modernthomasnast@proton.me
Subject: Re: Teresa Hanik

Dear Attorney Manesh,

You take issue with my published article: Reunification 'Queen' Faces Legal Blow: Filip Hanik Seeks to Shut Down Linda Gottlieb's Controversial Therapy.

First and foremost, here is the communication that was sent to your law firm at 5:27 EDT / 2:27 PDT on Friday, August 16:

------- Forwarded Message -------
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Friday, August 16th, 2024 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Teresa Hanik matter
To: mccraylaw@vernmccraylaw.com <mccraylaw@vernmccraylaw.com>

Good afternoon,

I am a reporting writing an article about the Hanik matter pending in Clark County Superior Court. I saw the summary judgment motion your firm filed on August 9 on behalf of Teresa Hanik.

Is it fair to say that Teresa Hanik believes Filip Hanik's legal claims fail for these reasons?:

1. Lack of Credible Evidence: Theresa argues that Filip's claims are unsupported by credible evidence, making them speculative and unsubstantiated.

2. Misrepresentation of Facts: She contends that Filip has misrepresented the facts, particularly regarding the nature and impact of Linda Gottlieb's programs.

3. Questionable Legal Standing: Theresa suggests that Filip may not have the proper legal standing to bring the claims, as his arguments may not directly relate to any personal legal injury.

4. Reliance on Discredited Theories: She argues that Filip's claims are based on discredited or outdated theories that lack scientific or legal merit.

5. Failure to Meet Legal Standards: Theresa believes that Filip's legal arguments fail to meet the necessary legal standards required for the claims he is asserting, which may include issues related to causation and the appropriateness of the remedy sought.

6. Procedural Deficiencies: Theresa also points out procedural deficiencies in Filip's filing, suggesting that these may undermine the validity of his legal claims.

Do you have anything to add about the legal arguments advanced?

Do you have any other comments?

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Richard Luthmann

Writer, Journalist, and Commentator

------------------------------------------

I asked for your client's side of things. I also published an entire section of the article laying out your client's technical arguments to get the case "chucked" on summary judgment. Your client did not respond. I am happy to write a follow-up incorporating your client's statement. I think the write up absent your client's input fairly and accurately detailed what is happening in this legal case.

Second, your email on behalf of Teresa Hanik is independently significant. I have neither the desire nor the inclination to educate attorneys about newsgathering and the law. Presumably, you and the members of your firm slept through law school the day they taught the First Amendment and anti-SLAPP laws, or else you would have never put what you did into writing. Here's why:

"I am the attorney of record and can verify no attempts were ever made to contact my office or myself, by phone, email, or any other form of communication."

• The communication is above.

• You are a lawyer. You and your colleagues are a law firm. How often do you "miss" communications? Do you regularly miss emails and other communications from judges and the courts? That would be bad for business, I would assume.

• I'm not going to ask for an apology. That's not my style. But one would be nice.

"I request that you remove this article and any others you have published relating to my client."

• Your client would ask for me and my outlet to engage in "revisionist newsgathering" and unpublish a TRUE article because it make her feel "uncomfortable." NEWSFLASH: Your client's right to feel comfortable and "un-offended" does not trump civil society's right to the TRUTH.

• No Court in America would Order any genuine newsgathering and reporting outlet to "remove" an article. Nor could they, under a rather well-known provision of law:

  • "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

• The First Amendment is applicable to the states via the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. So there is no dark corner of America where your client can "remove" or "revise" the press' newsgathering and publication activity by valid order of a court. That conduct was and is successful elsewhere. But in America, we do not take kindly to the "playbook" of Lenin, Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Chairman Xi, Hitler or Goebbels. Is Teresa Hanik an authoritarian?

• The veiled threat in your client's communication is that your client may take legal action to "remove" legitimate newsgathering. Please be warned that those activities would constitute Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). This outlet and I would avail ourselves of the full protections of the anti-SLAPP laws in any jurisdiction where your client may choose to institute legal action.

• And don't worry. This ain't my first rodeo. If your client sues me, I'll cowboy-up, put on my boots, and stroll down to whatever courthouse where your client has her legal lynch-mob assembled. I'll do it pro se, armed only with my pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution. And I will win.

"I am unsure what the extent of your involvement has been in this matter, so I'll ask for you to disclose that as well."

• I am a reporter and a journalist. I am a bona fide, card-carrying member of the National Writers Union. Your client asks for disclosure related to my reporting and newsgathering activities. She wants me to "give up" my sources. This she cannot do.

• Washington State’s reporter shield statute was signed into law on April 27, 2007, and is codified at RCW 5.68.010. The statute provides the "news media" (as defined therein) with absolute protection for confidential sources and qualified protection for other journalistic materials and information.

• Additionally, I will make it crystal clear. There is no amount of time that any court in this country can imprison me that would compel me to reveal any of my sources. This is America. The Bill of Rights lives, even if only in the hearts of free press warriors and in cold jail cells.

Finally, I would ask for you and your law firm comment on ALL ASPECTS of the attached and the above. Based on your and your law firm's previous statements, we feel compelled to write a follow up to highlight how lawyers and law firms practicing in Family Court feel they can act so brazenly, in manners that smack of an offensive disregard for the fundamental principles enshrined in America's founding legal documents. I find it disgraceful. However, maybe this is a misunderstanding, so we will afford you and your law firm the opportunity to respond before we publish.

By the way, if you choose to respond before press time, please disclose what relationship both your client and you/your law firm have with Linda Gottlieb. Do you and your law firm represent/defend the so-called "Queen of Broken Hearts"? If so, we'd love to talk to her. She's been dodging our requests for months now.

Regards,

Richard Luthmann

Writer, Journalist, and Commentator

After the email, Attorney Manseh's tune changed drastically. Maybe she talked with the senior partners about the reunification therapy lawsuit, the First Amendment, and anti-SLAPP laws.

------- Forwarded Message -------
From: Roxana Manesh <roxana@vernmccraylaw.com>
Date: On Tuesday, August 20th, 2024 at 6:24 PM
Subject: RE: Teresa Hanik
To: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
CC: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, RALafontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, RickLaRiviere@proton.me <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, modernthomasnast@proton.me <modernthomasnast@proton.me>, mccraylaw vernmccraylaw.com <mccraylaw@vernmccraylaw.com>, Liya Basarab <liya@vernmccraylaw.com>

Good afternoon Mr. Luthmann,

Thank you for your response.

It is not our policy to “comment” on open cases.

Attorney Manesh could have said that from the start. Instead, she acted like a "Keyboard Thug" who had never read the Constitution, let alone slept through law school.

But that’s how some Family Court lawyers roll. The unsuspecting public or press member might have thought, “This person is a lawyer. Maybe I should comply.”

It’s a lesson: Never give a lawyer what they want unless you know what you are doing.

Notice that Manesh still didn't admit what she and her law firm's relationship with Linda Gottlieb is in the reunification therapy lawsuit. But there is something larger at play.

A deep dive is in order to highlight how lawyers and law firms practicing in Family Court operate. Many attorneys feel they can act brazenly and in a way that smacks of an offensive disregard for civility in their profession, in civil society, and for the fundamental principles enshrined in America's founding legal documents. Some are outright rogues.

Westport, CT Attorney Edward Nusbaum

If Family Court "thug" lawyers get a "bad rap," it is because they deserve it. Everyone remembers "Tough-Guy" Westport, CT Attorney Edward Nusbaum, who threatened Frank Parlato, the publisher of Frank Report.

What did Frank Parlato do? He dared to ask why Nusbaum sent out fraudulent bills to his client when compared with the filed and court-accepted bills of the GAL in the case. Nusbaum threatened to put Parlato's "head into the pavement." When Parlato challenged Nusbaum to a boxing match, old Eddie from the mean streets of Orange, New Jersey, ran away faster than a rat up a drainpipe.

Edward Nusbaum - MK10art

The publication and memorialization of Ms. Manseh's outlandish Family Court attorney communications further prove that certain Family Court Bar members in America seemingly operate at an outlandish level of despicability—until they are caught. Then, they treat others the way they can get away with - the Golden Rule of Family Court.

Stay tuned. We'll have more on the Family Court Rogues and, hopefully, a Linda Gottlieb interview.

---