A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 05, 12:15 AM
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files

Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files
John Caher
New York Law Journal
11-03-2005

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130953711246

An upstate New York judge has found himself in the middle of a high-profile,
emotional custody battle, with women's groups blasting the jurist for
shifting custody from a mother to a father.

The attack on Rensselaer County Surrogate Christian F. Hummel Tuesday
prompted the Office of Court Administration to take the unusual step of
releasing documents in the case, which is the only way the judge can be
defended. Those documents, made available with Judge Hummel's approval,
serve to counter the allegations of critics who claimed in a demonstration
Tuesday that there was no basis for the judge's decision.

Chase v. Chase, observers say, is illustrative of an increasingly common
tactic by advocacy groups to gain attention for their cause by attacking a
judge who, because of the rules of judicial conduct and the fact that many
records in Family Court are sealed for privacy reasons, usually has no way
of defending himself.

But Tuesday, with the help of the OCA, Hummel indirectly went on the
offensive, providing the media and public with at least some means of
understanding his rationale.

The case is a particularly bitter custody battle involving John and Kristin
Chase.

Court records show that Ms. Chase was initially awarded full custody of
their 5-year-old son and retained that custody even after a two-week trial
in which 41 witnesses testified and Hummel concluded that Ms. Chase's
allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated.

It was only after Ms. Chase skipped a court proceeding to address Mr.
Chase's visitation rights and apparently orchestrated new sex abuse charges
that Hummel signed an ex parte emergency change-of-custody order awarding
custody to Mr. Chase. Ms. Chase then absconded with the boy for about two
weeks, informing the media of her situation and discussing the sex abuse
allegations publicly.

After Appellate Division, 3rd Department, Justice Karen K. Peters refused to
disturb Hummel's emergency custody order, various groups publicly attacked
the judge who, under the rules of judicial conduct, cannot respond.

On Tuesday, Chase's supporters staged a protest in downtown Troy, N.Y., in
which they denounced Hummel's decision and carried signs claiming that the
judge had turned a child over to an abuser.

That tactic, attacking a largely defenseless judge, is increasingly common
in the emotion-laden arena of Family Court litigation, observers say. And it
is one used by activists for both mothers and fathers.

"The idea is to put pressure on the judge," said George Courtney, president
of the Capital District chapter of the Fathers' Rights Association, whose
organization has sponsored similar rallies. "The only thing that hurts the
judge is adverse publicity."

Mo Therese Hannah, a psychologist and chairwoman of the Battered Mothers
Custody Conference, one of the groups protesting Tuesday, said a public
demonstration against an adverse judicial opinion is also a vehicle to raise
awareness of a broad problem that might not otherwise come to light. Chase
v. Chase, she said, is prototypical of a national trend in which judges,
with no basis, are shifting custody from mothers to fathers.

"This problem is becoming so pervasive," Hannah said. "Mothers who allege
child abuse or domestic violence are being accused of fabricating, of making
false allegations, accused of these bogus syndromes like 'parental
alienation syndrome' and 'malicious mother syndrome' that have little or no
scientific evidence to support them."

Hannah acknowledged that she has repeatedly discussed the matter with Ms.
Chase, but never interviewed Mr. Chase "because that would not be my role. I
am serving as an advocate for a protective mother." She also said she has
"intimate knowledge of the court record" and would not "go around
willy-nilly advocating for a woman" without a firm conviction that the
evidence supported her position.

Others at the demonstration seemed to have little if any direct knowledge of
the case.

For instance, Susan Weber, who held a sign declaring that "Judge Hummel
gives children to abusers," said she knew nothing more of the matter than
what she read in a local newspaper.

Marcia Pappas, president of the National Organization for Women -- New York
State, said Hummel was wrong "to take a child from a mother," but said she
has not seen court documents or attempted to get the other side of the
story. Pappas, however, said she has spoken with someone who has seen the
court record, but declined to identify that individual.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chase and his attorneys suggested NOW and other groups are
attempting to exploit the case for their own agenda.

"They don't know anything about this case," said Mr. Chase, an unemployed
financial consultant in Manhattan. "And they really don't care what the
truth is. It is just outrageous, totally outrageous."

Mr. Chase is represented by Michael R. Varble of Mohegan Lake, Westchester
County, and Pamela J. Joern of Albany. Both said the attack on Hummel is
unjustified.

"I think it serves to diminish the respect that especially this judge is
entitled," Joern said. "If anybody ever thinks doing this sort of thing is
going to impress a judge, they are absolutely wrong. The judicial system has
integrity, and you need to treat it with respect."

David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said
public attacks on Family Court judges have become fairly common, an
"unfortunate by-product" of cases that, by their nature, arouse exceptional
passion.

"A couple months ago, it was the fathers' rights groups," Bookstaver said.
"Now it is the mothers' rights groups. In any of these cases, half of the
litigants think an injustice was perpetrated on them. The judge is the
easiest target, especially when it is somewhat difficult for the public to
gather the facts. That is why what the OCA can do, in some instances, is get
the facts out."

Tuesday, Bookstaver's office disseminated more than 40 pages of documents
and transcripts from an Oct. 13 hearing.

One of the documents is a recommendation of the law guardian, Ann M. Weaver
of Red Hook, who in August recommended that Ms. Chase be awarded sole
custody, based partially on what she termed "substantiated evidence" of
domestic violence perpetrated by Mr. Chase. Another is an order by Hummel in
which he holds Mr. Chase in contempt for failure to pay the mortgage on the
marital residence, as ordered by the court, and for failure to pay about
$3,000 in child support. And the third is a 39-page exhaustive decision in
which Hummel chronicles the shortcomings of both parents and, "with great
hesitation," awards custody to Ms. Chase.

In his opinion, Hummel said the allegations of sexual abuse were "tainted"
by Ms. Chase's "repeated and leading questioning of the child," behavior,
which he said she continued to engage in "even after being specifically told
not to." Hummel also said that Ms. Chase refused to cooperate with a
forensic evaluator and would not provide tape recordings she made with the
child in which the sexual abuse allegations were discussed.

But Mr. Chase's own pattern of ill-advised conduct, which includes excessive
drinking and a threat to kill a sheriff's deputy and his family with
anthrax, led Hummel in September to grant Ms. Chase custody of the child. He
altered that arrangement only after Ms. Chase ignored a court date and
apparently refused to cooperate with the court regarding Mr. Chase's
visitation rights, with the issue to be revisited in yet another hearing on
Friday.

A transcript of the hearing at which Hummel temporarily shifted custody
shows that both the court and the law guardian were concerned with Ms.
Chase's refusal to follow court directives.

Hummel also referred to a psychological report raising "grave concerns
regarding the psychological health and well-being" of Ms. Chase, and he said
she was responsible for a family offense petition "which would generously be
termed disingenuous." The judge said at the hearing that Ms. Chase had no
intention of abiding by a court visitation order and has engaged in "forum
shopping" in an effort to find a judge who will rule her way.

Meanwhile, Hummel was picketed Tuesday outside the Rensselaer County Family
Court, although he was some 65 miles away hearing cases in Ulster County.
Demonstrators displayed signs denouncing the judge and granted media
interviews in which they criticized him and called for court reform.

New York State Bar Association President A. Vincent Buzard of Harris Beach
in Rochester said his organization recognizes that there is a First
Amendment right to comment on a judge's decision. But he also said "it is
counterproductive to the legal system to attack judges personally without
cause and to comment on decisions when they don't have all the facts."

"People need to exercise great care before they comment on a judge's
decision, and they need to do so with some restraint," Buzard said. "Any
comments that degrade a judge or the judiciary or judicial independence is
something we are very concerned about."

The facts of the Chase case notwithstanding, the matter does follow a
familiar pattern, according to sociologist Amy Neustein, author with
attorney Michael Lesher of "From Madness to Mutiny," a book published this
year that portrays a cycle in which protective mothers feel compelled to
violate court orders, often leading to a loss of custody.

Neustein said that there is the equivalent of a judicial backlash against
the relatively few cases in which false allegations of child abuse are
advanced to gain leverage in a custody matter. A review of more than 1,000
cases nationwide suggested that a woman who makes a sexual abuse claim that
cannot be verified -- even if it may be true -- is in serious jeopardy of
losing custody. Faced with a loss of custody, Neustein said, a woman
struggling to protect her child is provoked into violating the law or a
judge's order, which increases the odds that she will indeed lose custody.

"It is a vicious cycle. I would say in this case -- as a sociologist, not as
an advocate pleading the mother's case -- that what happened is you had a
mutinous reaction on the mother's behalf, which provoked a reaction on the
part of the judge by penalizing her with loss of custody because she didn't
show," Neustein said. "Why penalize the child for the rebellious, untoward
actions of the mother?"

Hummel, in his decision, said that he was acting in the best interests of
the child, as is required, and not taking vindictive action against Ms.
Chase.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.


  #2  
Old November 4th 05, 12:45 AM
JayR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files

Dusty wrote:
Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files
John Caher
New York Law Journal
11-03-2005

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130953711246

An upstate New York judge has found himself in the middle of a high-profile,
emotional custody battle, with women's groups blasting the jurist for
shifting custody from a mother to a father.

The attack on Rensselaer County Surrogate Christian F. Hummel Tuesday
prompted the Office of Court Administration to take the unusual step of
releasing documents in the case, which is the only way the judge can be
defended. Those documents, made available with Judge Hummel's approval,
serve to counter the allegations of critics who claimed in a demonstration
Tuesday that there was no basis for the judge's decision.

Chase v. Chase, observers say, is illustrative of an increasingly common
tactic by advocacy groups to gain attention for their cause by attacking a
judge who, because of the rules of judicial conduct and the fact that many
records in Family Court are sealed for privacy reasons, usually has no way
of defending himself.

But Tuesday, with the help of the OCA, Hummel indirectly went on the
offensive, providing the media and public with at least some means of
understanding his rationale.

The case is a particularly bitter custody battle involving John and Kristin
Chase.

Court records show that Ms. Chase was initially awarded full custody of
their 5-year-old son and retained that custody even after a two-week trial
in which 41 witnesses testified and Hummel concluded that Ms. Chase's
allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated.

It was only after Ms. Chase skipped a court proceeding to address Mr.
Chase's visitation rights and apparently orchestrated new sex abuse charges
that Hummel signed an ex parte emergency change-of-custody order awarding
custody to Mr. Chase. Ms. Chase then absconded with the boy for about two
weeks, informing the media of her situation and discussing the sex abuse
allegations publicly.

After Appellate Division, 3rd Department, Justice Karen K. Peters refused to
disturb Hummel's emergency custody order, various groups publicly attacked
the judge who, under the rules of judicial conduct, cannot respond.

On Tuesday, Chase's supporters staged a protest in downtown Troy, N.Y., in
which they denounced Hummel's decision and carried signs claiming that the
judge had turned a child over to an abuser.

That tactic, attacking a largely defenseless judge, is increasingly common
in the emotion-laden arena of Family Court litigation, observers say. And it
is one used by activists for both mothers and fathers.

"The idea is to put pressure on the judge," said George Courtney, president
of the Capital District chapter of the Fathers' Rights Association, whose
organization has sponsored similar rallies. "The only thing that hurts the
judge is adverse publicity."

Mo Therese Hannah, a psychologist and chairwoman of the Battered Mothers
Custody Conference, one of the groups protesting Tuesday, said a public
demonstration against an adverse judicial opinion is also a vehicle to raise
awareness of a broad problem that might not otherwise come to light. Chase
v. Chase, she said, is prototypical of a national trend in which judges,
with no basis, are shifting custody from mothers to fathers.

"This problem is becoming so pervasive," Hannah said. "Mothers who allege
child abuse or domestic violence are being accused of fabricating, of making
false allegations, accused of these bogus syndromes like 'parental
alienation syndrome' and 'malicious mother syndrome' that have little or no
scientific evidence to support them."

Hannah acknowledged that she has repeatedly discussed the matter with Ms.
Chase, but never interviewed Mr. Chase "because that would not be my role. I
am serving as an advocate for a protective mother." She also said she has
"intimate knowledge of the court record" and would not "go around
willy-nilly advocating for a woman" without a firm conviction that the
evidence supported her position.

Others at the demonstration seemed to have little if any direct knowledge of
the case.

For instance, Susan Weber, who held a sign declaring that "Judge Hummel
gives children to abusers," said she knew nothing more of the matter than
what she read in a local newspaper.

Marcia Pappas, president of the National Organization for Women -- New York
State, said Hummel was wrong "to take a child from a mother," but said she
has not seen court documents or attempted to get the other side of the
story. Pappas, however, said she has spoken with someone who has seen the
court record, but declined to identify that individual.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chase and his attorneys suggested NOW and other groups are
attempting to exploit the case for their own agenda.

"They don't know anything about this case," said Mr. Chase, an unemployed
financial consultant in Manhattan. "And they really don't care what the
truth is. It is just outrageous, totally outrageous."

Mr. Chase is represented by Michael R. Varble of Mohegan Lake, Westchester
County, and Pamela J. Joern of Albany. Both said the attack on Hummel is
unjustified.

"I think it serves to diminish the respect that especially this judge is
entitled," Joern said. "If anybody ever thinks doing this sort of thing is
going to impress a judge, they are absolutely wrong. The judicial system has
integrity, and you need to treat it with respect."

David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said
public attacks on Family Court judges have become fairly common, an
"unfortunate by-product" of cases that, by their nature, arouse exceptional
passion.

"A couple months ago, it was the fathers' rights groups," Bookstaver said.
"Now it is the mothers' rights groups. In any of these cases, half of the
litigants think an injustice was perpetrated on them. The judge is the
easiest target, especially when it is somewhat difficult for the public to
gather the facts. That is why what the OCA can do, in some instances, is get
the facts out."

Tuesday, Bookstaver's office disseminated more than 40 pages of documents
and transcripts from an Oct. 13 hearing.

One of the documents is a recommendation of the law guardian, Ann M. Weaver
of Red Hook, who in August recommended that Ms. Chase be awarded sole
custody, based partially on what she termed "substantiated evidence" of
domestic violence perpetrated by Mr. Chase. Another is an order by Hummel in
which he holds Mr. Chase in contempt for failure to pay the mortgage on the
marital residence, as ordered by the court, and for failure to pay about
$3,000 in child support. And the third is a 39-page exhaustive decision in
which Hummel chronicles the shortcomings of both parents and, "with great
hesitation," awards custody to Ms. Chase.

In his opinion, Hummel said the allegations of sexual abuse were "tainted"
by Ms. Chase's "repeated and leading questioning of the child," behavior,
which he said she continued to engage in "even after being specifically told
not to." Hummel also said that Ms. Chase refused to cooperate with a
forensic evaluator and would not provide tape recordings she made with the
child in which the sexual abuse allegations were discussed.

But Mr. Chase's own pattern of ill-advised conduct, which includes excessive
drinking and a threat to kill a sheriff's deputy and his family with
anthrax, led Hummel in September to grant Ms. Chase custody of the child. He
altered that arrangement only after Ms. Chase ignored a court date and
apparently refused to cooperate with the court regarding Mr. Chase's
visitation rights, with the issue to be revisited in yet another hearing on
Friday.

A transcript of the hearing at which Hummel temporarily shifted custody
shows that both the court and the law guardian were concerned with Ms.
Chase's refusal to follow court directives.

Hummel also referred to a psychological report raising "grave concerns
regarding the psychological health and well-being" of Ms. Chase, and he said
she was responsible for a family offense petition "which would generously be
termed disingenuous." The judge said at the hearing that Ms. Chase had no
intention of abiding by a court visitation order and has engaged in "forum
shopping" in an effort to find a judge who will rule her way.

Meanwhile, Hummel was picketed Tuesday outside the Rensselaer County Family
Court, although he was some 65 miles away hearing cases in Ulster County.
Demonstrators displayed signs denouncing the judge and granted media
interviews in which they criticized him and called for court reform.

New York State Bar Association President A. Vincent Buzard of Harris Beach
in Rochester said his organization recognizes that there is a First
Amendment right to comment on a judge's decision. But he also said "it is
counterproductive to the legal system to attack judges personally without
cause and to comment on decisions when they don't have all the facts."

"People need to exercise great care before they comment on a judge's
decision, and they need to do so with some restraint," Buzard said. "Any
comments that degrade a judge or the judiciary or judicial independence is
something we are very concerned about."

The facts of the Chase case notwithstanding, the matter does follow a
familiar pattern, according to sociologist Amy Neustein, author with
attorney Michael Lesher of "From Madness to Mutiny," a book published this
year that portrays a cycle in which protective mothers feel compelled to
violate court orders, often leading to a loss of custody.

Neustein said that there is the equivalent of a judicial backlash against
the relatively few cases in which false allegations of child abuse are
advanced to gain leverage in a custody matter. A review of more than 1,000
cases nationwide suggested that a woman who makes a sexual abuse claim that
cannot be verified -- even if it may be true -- is in serious jeopardy of
losing custody. Faced with a loss of custody, Neustein said, a woman
struggling to protect her child is provoked into violating the law or a
judge's order, which increases the odds that she will indeed lose custody.

"It is a vicious cycle. I would say in this case -- as a sociologist, not as
an advocate pleading the mother's case -- that what happened is you had a
mutinous reaction on the mother's behalf, which provoked a reaction on the
part of the judge by penalizing her with loss of custody because she didn't
show," Neustein said. "Why penalize the child for the rebellious, untoward
actions of the mother?"

Hummel, in his decision, said that he was acting in the best interests of
the child, as is required, and not taking vindictive action against Ms.
Chase.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.



So in the past two days we've got the PBS pseudo-documentary case, where
the nationally-aired show claimed the mother was a hero and the father
was an abuser, and it all turns out to be false--the mother was the
abuser and the father falsely accused. Today we've got N.O.W. up in
arms because they are convinced a judge has given custody to an
abuser--their belief based entirely on the mother's allegation that the
father was abusive. Now we find out that this too has been disproven by
41 court witnesses.

Has PBS or N.O.W. issued an apology to these fathers? Or a retraction
in the press?

How much more egg-on-the-face do these groups need before they check the
facts about the fathers in question before blindly believing the
accusations of the mother to the point that they produce documentaries
and stage rallies? Crying wolf all the time only to find out later that
the person they are defending IS the wolf -- shouldn't this undermine
their credibility in the eyes of the public?
  #3  
Old November 4th 05, 01:42 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files


Dusty wrote:
Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files
John Caher
New York Law Journal
11-03-2005

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130953711246

An upstate New York judge has found himself in the middle of a high-profile,
emotional custody battle, with women's groups blasting the jurist for
shifting custody from a mother to a father.

The attack on Rensselaer County Surrogate Christian F. Hummel Tuesday
prompted the Office of Court Administration to take the unusual step of
releasing documents in the case, which is the only way the judge can be
defended. Those documents, made available with Judge Hummel's approval,
serve to counter the allegations of critics who claimed in a demonstration
Tuesday that there was no basis for the judge's decision.


Good for him.

Chase v. Chase, observers say, is illustrative of an increasingly common
tactic by advocacy groups to gain attention for their cause by attacking a
judge who, because of the rules of judicial conduct and the fact that many
records in Family Court are sealed for privacy reasons, usually has no way
of defending himself.

But Tuesday, with the help of the OCA, Hummel indirectly went on the
offensive, providing the media and public with at least some means of
understanding his rationale.

The case is a particularly bitter custody battle involving John and Kristin
Chase.

Court records show that Ms. Chase was initially awarded full custody of
their 5-year-old son and retained that custody even after a two-week trial
in which 41 witnesses testified and Hummel concluded that Ms. Chase's
allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated.


This is the real travesty in this case.

It was only after Ms. Chase skipped a court proceeding to address Mr.
Chase's visitation rights and apparently orchestrated new sex abuse charges
that Hummel signed an ex parte emergency change-of-custody order awarding
custody to Mr. Chase. Ms. Chase then absconded with the boy for about two
weeks, informing the media of her situation and discussing the sex abuse
allegations publicly.


Blatant disrespect for the law.

After Appellate Division, 3rd Department, Justice Karen K. Peters refused to
disturb Hummel's emergency custody order, various groups publicly attacked
the judge who, under the rules of judicial conduct, cannot respond.


Feminists alway enjoy attacking someone who can't fight back.

On Tuesday, Chase's supporters staged a protest in downtown Troy, N.Y., in
which they denounced Hummel's decision and carried signs claiming that the
judge had turned a child over to an abuser.


I guess the definition of "unsubstantiated" is lost here?

That tactic, attacking a largely defenseless judge, is increasingly common
in the emotion-laden arena of Family Court litigation, observers say. And it
is one used by activists for both mothers and fathers.


All cases should be open unless there is a compelling reason for the
case not to me open to the public. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

"The idea is to put pressure on the judge," said George Courtney, president
of the Capital District chapter of the Fathers' Rights Association, whose
organization has sponsored similar rallies. "The only thing that hurts the
judge is adverse publicity."


True, but there should be documents to back up the claims.

Mo Therese Hannah, a psychologist and chairwoman of the Battered Mothers
Custody Conference, one of the groups protesting Tuesday, said a public
demonstration against an adverse judicial opinion is also a vehicle to raise
awareness of a broad problem that might not otherwise come to light. Chase
v. Chase, she said, is prototypical of a national trend in which judges,
with no basis, are shifting custody from mothers to fathers.


Maybe she should go help real battered mothers and abused children. So
there was "no basis" is this case, huh? Bull****.

"This problem is becoming so pervasive," Hannah said. "Mothers who allege
child abuse or domestic violence are being accused of fabricating, of making
false allegations, accused of these bogus syndromes like 'parental
alienation syndrome' and 'malicious mother syndrome' that have little or no
scientific evidence to support them."


The weight of the evidence shows she did fabricate the abuse. As for
PAS being a "bogus syndrome" anyone with a lick of sense knows that
divorcing parents use children against one another. To deny that
mothers might do this is stupid, at best. As for the lack of scientific
evidence, maybe Hannah needs to do a little reading...

Hannah acknowledged that she has repeatedly discussed the matter with Ms.
Chase, but never interviewed Mr. Chase "because that would not be my role. I
am serving as an advocate for a protective mother." She also said she has
"intimate knowledge of the court record" and would not "go around
willy-nilly advocating for a woman" without a firm conviction that the
evidence supported her position.


41 witness and you still have a firm conviction that the evidence
supports your position. That is laughable. It appears that she is just
advocating for any woman, willy-nilly, because that is what
father-hating bigots do.

Others at the demonstration seemed to have little if any direct knowledge of
the case.


Of course.

For instance, Susan Weber, who held a sign declaring that "Judge Hummel
gives children to abusers," said she knew nothing more of the matter than
what she read in a local newspaper.


What an idiot!

Marcia Pappas, president of the National Organization for Women -- New York
State, said Hummel was wrong "to take a child from a mother," but said she
has not seen court documents or attempted to get the other side of the
story. Pappas, however, said she has spoken with someone who has seen the
court record, but declined to identify that individual.


Well I guess Ms. Pappas will have to get over the fact that there was a
shift from the "tender years doctrine" a long time ago. It is wrong to
take a child from a mother who beats the child? What about a mother
that allows a step-father to molest her son or daughter? People who
make absolute statements of moral judgment based on gender are very
stupid people indeed.

Meanwhile, Mr. Chase and his attorneys suggested NOW and other groups are
attempting to exploit the case for their own agenda.


This case is a part of their agenda!

"They don't know anything about this case," said Mr. Chase, an unemployed
financial consultant in Manhattan. "And they really don't care what the
truth is. It is just outrageous, totally outrageous."


Of course it is.

Mr. Chase is represented by Michael R. Varble of Mohegan Lake, Westchester
County, and Pamela J. Joern of Albany. Both said the attack on Hummel is
unjustified.


Noone expects it to be justified, these are feminists we are talking
about here.

"I think it serves to diminish the respect that especially this judge is
entitled," Joern said. "If anybody ever thinks doing this sort of thing is
going to impress a judge, they are absolutely wrong. The judicial system has
integrity, and you need to treat it with respect."

David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, said
public attacks on Family Court judges have become fairly common, an
"unfortunate by-product" of cases that, by their nature, arouse exceptional
passion.

"A couple months ago, it was the fathers' rights groups," Bookstaver said.
"Now it is the mothers' rights groups. In any of these cases, half of the
litigants think an injustice was perpetrated on them. The judge is the
easiest target, especially when it is somewhat difficult for the public to
gather the facts. That is why what the OCA can do, in some instances, is get
the facts out."


This should be done in most cases, not just when women's groups or
father's groups demand it.

Tuesday, Bookstaver's office disseminated more than 40 pages of documents
and transcripts from an Oct. 13 hearing.


Eat that NOW.

One of the documents is a recommendation of the law guardian, Ann M. Weaver
of Red Hook, who in August recommended that Ms. Chase be awarded sole
custody, based partially on what she termed "substantiated evidence" of
domestic violence perpetrated by Mr. Chase. Another is an order by Hummel in
which he holds Mr. Chase in contempt for failure to pay the mortgage on the
marital residence, as ordered by the court, and for failure to pay about
$3,000 in child support. And the third is a 39-page exhaustive decision in
which Hummel chronicles the shortcomings of both parents and, "with great
hesitation," awards custody to Ms. Chase.


So we are supposed to believe one "expert" over 41 others? He is
unemployed, how is he supposed to pay the mortgage on the house he no
longer lives in and child support?

In his opinion, Hummel said the allegations of sexual abuse were "tainted"
by Ms. Chase's "repeated and leading questioning of the child," behavior,
which he said she continued to engage in "even after being specifically told
not to." Hummel also said that Ms. Chase refused to cooperate with a
forensic evaluator and would not provide tape recordings she made with the
child in which the sexual abuse allegations were discussed.


Fabricated sounds more like it, but I like the judicial restraint. What
was this women so afraid of? That the truth might come out?

But Mr. Chase's own pattern of ill-advised conduct, which includes excessive
drinking and a threat to kill a sheriff's deputy and his family with
anthrax, led Hummel in September to grant Ms. Chase custody of the child. He
altered that arrangement only after Ms. Chase ignored a court date and
apparently refused to cooperate with the court regarding Mr. Chase's
visitation rights, with the issue to be revisited in yet another hearing on
Friday.


It looks like the judge made a difficult but correct decision between a
lying, manipulative idiot and another idiot, poor kid.

A transcript of the hearing at which Hummel temporarily shifted custody
shows that both the court and the law guardian were concerned with Ms.
Chase's refusal to follow court directives.


Finally a court actually cares about following the rules, why was this
woman not jailed for contempt?

Hummel also referred to a psychological report raising "grave concerns
regarding the psychological health and well-being" of Ms. Chase, and he said
she was responsible for a family offense petition "which would generously be
termed disingenuous." The judge said at the hearing that Ms. Chase had no
intention of abiding by a court visitation order and has engaged in "forum
shopping" in an effort to find a judge who will rule her way.


Just say it judge, she is a loon.

Meanwhile, Hummel was picketed Tuesday outside the Rensselaer County Family
Court, although he was some 65 miles away hearing cases in Ulster County.
Demonstrators displayed signs denouncing the judge and granted media
interviews in which they criticized him and called for court reform.


He isn't even there, lol!

New York State Bar Association President A. Vincent Buzard of Harris Beach
in Rochester said his organization recognizes that there is a First
Amendment right to comment on a judge's decision. But he also said "it is
counterproductive to the legal system to attack judges personally without
cause and to comment on decisions when they don't have all the facts."

"People need to exercise great care before they comment on a judge's
decision, and they need to do so with some restraint," Buzard said. "Any
comments that degrade a judge or the judiciary or judicial independence is
something we are very concerned about."

The facts of the Chase case notwithstanding, the matter does follow a
familiar pattern, according to sociologist Amy Neustein, author with
attorney Michael Lesher of "From Madness to Mutiny," a book published this
year that portrays a cycle in which protective mothers feel compelled to
violate court orders, often leading to a loss of custody.


Bull****. Portrays is a good word choice here, because the thesis is
flawed. This is simply an excuse, using a few extreme cases, no doubt,
to lionize women who fail to obey the law when the vast majority of
these women have no reason for doing so.

Neustein said that there is the equivalent of a judicial backlash against
the relatively few cases in which false allegations of child abuse are
advanced to gain leverage in a custody matter. A review of more than 1,000
cases nationwide suggested that a woman who makes a sexual abuse claim that
cannot be verified -- even if it may be true -- is in serious jeopardy of
losing custody. Faced with a loss of custody, Neustein said, a woman
struggling to protect her child is provoked into violating the law or a
judge's order, which increases the odds that she will indeed lose custody.


I would like to see that "review." Hold on, I have certain powers of
vision into the future, I am picking up something about, study
debunked, selective sampling, statistical flaws, outright fabrications,
lies, etc.

"It is a vicious cycle. I would say in this case -- as a sociologist, not as
an advocate pleading the mother's case -- that what happened is you had a
mutinous reaction on the mother's behalf, which provoked a reaction on the
part of the judge by penalizing her with loss of custody because she didn't
show," Neustein said. "Why penalize the child for the rebellious, untoward
actions of the mother?"


If the judge penalized the child, there is an unwritten assumption that
this decision was not in the heralded "best interests of the child"
standard, so a sociologist is saying she is a better arbitrator of
justice than a judge. Bull****. I just love how "women's groups"
advocate the best interest of the child standard, but only if maternal
custody is in the best interests of the child, which it always is, of
course. Best interests of the child; therefore, equals maternal
custody. Such linear thinkers. Such flawed logic. Such bull****.

Hummel, in his decision, said that he was acting in the best interests of
the child, as is required, and not taking vindictive action against Ms.
Chase.


That is his job, but he stepped out of bounds by actually using the
best interests of the child instead of unquestioningly handing custody
to the mother. Give that man a raise. He did his JOB.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.


Nice footer, BTW.

J

  #4  
Old November 4th 05, 05:40 AM
Mobile
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files


"JayR" wrote in

and stage rallies? Crying wolf all the time only to find out later that
the person they are defending IS the wolf -- shouldn't this undermine
their credibility in the eyes of the public?


The public have better things to do than worry about bitter custody cases.
All these kids growing up in these custody cases will eventually win when
they become adults and lose both of their idiot parents.





  #5  
Old November 4th 05, 05:31 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files


Geez. This sounds like the sole motivation for the protest was
driven by that onesided PBS show that was recently released.

b.
  #6  
Old November 4th 05, 09:10 PM
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files

wrote in message
roups.com...

Geez. This sounds like the sole motivation for the protest was
driven by that onesided PBS show that was recently released.


It's standard practice to attack anyone, in this case a judge, that doesn't
agree with them. It makes their case all the better when the person they
attack cannot defend themselves, because to do so would place them in a
legal quagmire - like the judge.

Whatever you do, when you confront wing-nut rad-fems, confusing them with
the truth always works best and causes them to lash out at anyone and
everyone. It exposes them for what they really are - radical idiots and
raving loons that have no business living in our society.

I believe Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said it best: Remove the impossible, and
whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Most, if not all, Father's Rights groups understand this. Politicians
(think of VAWA and all the other draconian measures against fathers and men
these fools have passed into law), judges, anyone involved in the Divorce
Industry (such as ACES), and radical, anti-family, fringe women's groups
(like NOW) don't get it and never will - that the truth is always the best
offensive and defensive tool in anyone's arsenal.


  #7  
Old November 5th 05, 01:33 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NY: Protest Over Custody Order Prompts Release of Files

The problem is that the truth is hard to find these days... what did
the Nazi propanganda artist say about telling a lie enough and it
becomes the truth, I think that quote applies generally to all these
radical organizations such as NOW and NARAL. If a person wants to see
the truth get distorted watch C-SPAN. No ****. I saw the other day a
group of women from the house of representatives speak at 1 am on
C-SPAN about how Judge Alito ruled that "men should be able to veto a
womens right to choose" even if "she was a battered wife" etc. Read
Planned Parenthood v. Casey and get back to me on that one O Women of
the House. It was really funny, one women who bragged about being the
first Hispanic women to do blah blah could barely speak English, what a
joke!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY - Albany to run anti-father PBS story Thursday night @ 10 Dusty Child Support 2 October 17th 05 02:26 AM
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! S Myers Child Support 115 September 12th 05 12:37 AM
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case Dusty Child Support 1 August 3rd 05 01:07 AM
Statistics for Sheila Bobbi Child Support 11 March 3rd 04 04:35 PM
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways Asherah Single Parents 0 July 25th 03 06:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.