For seven years after LaFon gave my ex-wife custody of my daughter, relegating me to an every other weekend visitor in Maggie’s life, I made the roundtrip drive from Memphis, Tennessee to Huntingdon, Tennessee without fail.
On May 27, 2000, I remarried; her name is Glenda. Before I asked Glenda to marry me, I talked to Maggie (then 5) and asked her if it would be okay, and Maggie shouted “yes!”. I asked Glenda to marry me at 12:00:15 am on January 1, 2000; earlier that evening I got Maggie a “Happy New Year” balloon. When Glenda said “yes”, of course, I gave her an engagement ring, and I gave Maggie her balloon. Later, when Maggie would tell people that Glenda and I were getting married, she would say, “Glenda got a ring, but I got a BALLOON!” Of course, that balloon was more important than any old ring.
At our wedding, Maggie was the flower girl. But more importantly, Maggie was a part of the ceremony. Before Glenda and I said our vows, Maggie came up and I knelt down to her and said, “Maggie, I love you more than any daddy could love his daughter, and I love Glenda more than any husband could love his wife. Nothing will ever change that.” I then picked Maggie up and held her close to Glenda, who told Maggie that she loved her and that she is not a replacement for Maggie’s mother; she then thanked Maggie for letting her be a part of her family. During the reception, in addition to the wedding cake and the groom's cake, Maggie had a "Barney" cake (Maggie used to love Barney).
My second daughter, Cayla, was born in June, 2001. Prior to her birth, we made sure that Maggie was involved as much as possible. There was a sibling class at Baptist Women’s Hospital that we took her to so she could learn how to help with the baby. During one of my two weeks of summer visitation, we took Maggie with us to a prenatal doctor’s visit, and Maggie got to see an ultrasound of her baby sister and listen to the amplified heartbeat. We also got Maggie a “I’m the BIG SISTER” t-shirt. Cayla was born the day after I had to take Maggie back to her mother’s house in Huntingdon. On the following Tuesday evening (I was “privileged” to have the court order my ex-wife to allow me to call Maggie every Tuesday and Thursday at 7:00 pm for 10 minutes), when I called Maggie, I gave the phone to Glenda, and Cayla sort of gurgled. Maggie started giggling and asked if that were Cayla, and Glenda said yes. Maggie was excited to hear her baby sister.
The next weekend that I had Maggie, we had a “Welcome Home” party for Cayla, and Maggie made a big sign which we put on the door. In July, when I had my second week in the summer, I took Maggie for a three day trip for some father-daughter time because I did not want her to feel neglected because of the new addition to our family.
In 2006, I ran for the office of Juvenile Court Judge for Memphis and Shelby County (I did not win, but that is another story). During the summer campaign, Maggie (then 11) wanted to help, which I let her do. She even designed a flyer which I printed and handed out. She also went to some of the campaign events to help.
I am telling these events for one reason - to show that Maggie was never made to feel less important than any other member of the family. Maggie was, rather is, loved by Glenda, Cayla, her extended family (and there are a lot of them), and ME.
Thanksgiving of 2006 was the last time I saw Maggie. As I alluded to in my last post, in September 2006, everything went crazy. The reason is PAS - Parental Alienation Syndrome. I will detail the events in my next couple of posts, but the players are:
Judge - Madison County Circuit Court Judge Don Allen
Psychologist - Robert W. Kennon, of Jackson, Tennessee
GAL - Angela Snider, of Jackson, Tennessee
ex-wife’s attorney - Steve West, of McKenzie, Tennessee
In order to understand the psychodynamics of PAS, here is a link to the Social Work Today journal, with an article entitled: Parental Alienation Syndrome — The Parent/Child Disconnect, by Amy J. L. Baker, PhD. The signs and symptoms described by Dr. Baker are the classic signs, and were ever present in my own case.
http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/102708p26.shtml
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 4 (revised)
This posting was previously posted under the heading, Psychologists that go Psycho - Part 2 of 2. Since these examples are directly from my own case, I am now incorporating it into My Story: For the Love of a Child.
On February 13, 2011, I posted a link to the American Psychological Association’s website which has the APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations. http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody.pdf . Guideline #12 is critical in child custody evaluations because its content means that psychologists should not give psychological opinions about people they have not evaluated, and the psychologists should not make custody recommendations when they have not evaluated both parents and the child or children. The Guidelines also address conflicts of interests, and all of these issues came up in Anna Mae He and Malmquist (refer back in the blogstream to Psychologists that go Psycho - Part 1 of 2).
In my own case, years apart, two psychologists crossed over the line.
First, in 1994, Dr. Elias King Bond of Jackson, Tennessee, was ordered to evaluate my ex-wife only; not our daughter nor me. Dr. Bond stated that my ex-wife had “a personality disorder, probably best characterized as a mixed diagnostic picture, with histrionic and passive/aggressive and dependent features.” He then went on to recommend that my ex-wife be given custody of our daughter and that I have reasonable visitation. Can you say UNETHICAL? He did not conduct an evaluation of me, nor was he supposed to make a custody evaluation or recommendation.
This seems to be a recurring problem with Dr. Bond. Further, Dr. Bond has admitted that he is biased towards mothers in custody cases. In 2007 in In re Mikayla Grace Clark; Samuel Kent Clark v. Leah Joy Cerden, the Tennessee Court of Appeals stated:
Mother called Elias King Bond ("Dr. Bond"), a psychiatrist, to testify as an expert on her behalf. Dr. Bond was contacted by Mother's attorney to give an opinion as to whether Mother was sufficiently stable and capable of being Mikayla's primary residential parent. Dr. Bond interviewed Mother in November 2004, and at that time obtained Mother's account of her history. He noted that she had undergone counseling in the past. He also said that, prior to December 2003, Mother had tried two antidepressants; however, she was not on medication at the time of the interview. Dr. Bond saw Mother's ability to recognize her problems, to ask Father to care for the child in her time of need, and to seek help for her depression as positive signs indicative of maturity. From his interview with Mother, Dr. Bond said, he saw no indications of abnormal thought patterns or emotional patterns to suggest that she was unstable. He opined that there was "no psychiatric reason [Mother] should not have custody of her child. I do not consider her having any psychiatric diagnosis at this time and, thus, see no way that I consider her unstable or unfit." Over objection, Dr. Bond stated his opinion that, generally, it is best for a "child's psychological development to be with the mother unless there are overriding reasons to feel that the mother is the more unstable parent." He said that he was unaware that, by statute, parent gender may not be considered in making custody determinations. Dr. Bond acknowledged that his recommendation was made without interviewing Father or evaluating Mother further.
So Dr. Bond believes that a child should be with its mother, and he continues to make recommendations without evaluating fathers. In my own case, he (just like the GAL Christy R. Little) just submitted a written report to the court and did not bother to attend the trial.
Now, again in my own story, in 2006, enter Dr. Robert W. Kennon. As will be detailed in the next installment of My Story: For the Love of a Child, in 2006 my ex-wife and I were back in court regarding my then 11 year old daughter. Judge Don Allen ordered Dr. Robert Kennon (of Jackson, Tennessee) to do a full custody evaluation. Prior to my appointment I mailed Dr. Kennon a CD with photos and videos of my 11 year old with me, my current wife, and our then 5 year old daughter. When I arrived for my appointment, he gave me paperwork to fill out, including a waiver that I would not object to him submitting a written report directly to the judge. WAIT. Isn’t that what I fought against and prevailed in the case of Toms v. Toms (posted January 30, 2011)? The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a GAL’s report was inadmissible hearsay; likewise, so is a psychologist’s report. I told Dr. Kennon that I would not sign the waiver, and he said that there was no reason for him to evaluate me then. I asked him if he had viewed the CD, and he said there was no reason for him to view it. What kind of psychologist is this? Maybe one that is afraid to be cross-examined in court? Maybe one that has already made up his mind?
Before I left, I did mention to Dr. Kennon that my daughter is being subjected to Parental Alienation by her mother, my ex-wife. He said, then, it is probably better that I have no contact with my daughter, then. WHAT! So, based on that, apparently Dr. Kennon believes that you reward an alienating parent by doing just what that parent wants - eliminating contact between the child and the target parent.
Dr. Kennon ended up filing a report favoring my ex-wife and recommending me to have no contact with my oldest daughter. No evaluation of me, and no reviewing pertinent evidence - videos of the interactions between my oldest daughter and me, my current wife, and my oldest daughter’s younger sister. Once again, can you say UNETHICAL?
On February 13, 2011, I posted a link to the American Psychological Association’s website which has the APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations. http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody.pdf . Guideline #12 is critical in child custody evaluations because its content means that psychologists should not give psychological opinions about people they have not evaluated, and the psychologists should not make custody recommendations when they have not evaluated both parents and the child or children. The Guidelines also address conflicts of interests, and all of these issues came up in Anna Mae He and Malmquist (refer back in the blogstream to Psychologists that go Psycho - Part 1 of 2).
In my own case, years apart, two psychologists crossed over the line.
First, in 1994, Dr. Elias King Bond of Jackson, Tennessee, was ordered to evaluate my ex-wife only; not our daughter nor me. Dr. Bond stated that my ex-wife had “a personality disorder, probably best characterized as a mixed diagnostic picture, with histrionic and passive/aggressive and dependent features.” He then went on to recommend that my ex-wife be given custody of our daughter and that I have reasonable visitation. Can you say UNETHICAL? He did not conduct an evaluation of me, nor was he supposed to make a custody evaluation or recommendation.
This seems to be a recurring problem with Dr. Bond. Further, Dr. Bond has admitted that he is biased towards mothers in custody cases. In 2007 in In re Mikayla Grace Clark; Samuel Kent Clark v. Leah Joy Cerden, the Tennessee Court of Appeals stated:
Mother called Elias King Bond ("Dr. Bond"), a psychiatrist, to testify as an expert on her behalf. Dr. Bond was contacted by Mother's attorney to give an opinion as to whether Mother was sufficiently stable and capable of being Mikayla's primary residential parent. Dr. Bond interviewed Mother in November 2004, and at that time obtained Mother's account of her history. He noted that she had undergone counseling in the past. He also said that, prior to December 2003, Mother had tried two antidepressants; however, she was not on medication at the time of the interview. Dr. Bond saw Mother's ability to recognize her problems, to ask Father to care for the child in her time of need, and to seek help for her depression as positive signs indicative of maturity. From his interview with Mother, Dr. Bond said, he saw no indications of abnormal thought patterns or emotional patterns to suggest that she was unstable. He opined that there was "no psychiatric reason [Mother] should not have custody of her child. I do not consider her having any psychiatric diagnosis at this time and, thus, see no way that I consider her unstable or unfit." Over objection, Dr. Bond stated his opinion that, generally, it is best for a "child's psychological development to be with the mother unless there are overriding reasons to feel that the mother is the more unstable parent." He said that he was unaware that, by statute, parent gender may not be considered in making custody determinations. Dr. Bond acknowledged that his recommendation was made without interviewing Father or evaluating Mother further.
So Dr. Bond believes that a child should be with its mother, and he continues to make recommendations without evaluating fathers. In my own case, he (just like the GAL Christy R. Little) just submitted a written report to the court and did not bother to attend the trial.
Now, again in my own story, in 2006, enter Dr. Robert W. Kennon. As will be detailed in the next installment of My Story: For the Love of a Child, in 2006 my ex-wife and I were back in court regarding my then 11 year old daughter. Judge Don Allen ordered Dr. Robert Kennon (of Jackson, Tennessee) to do a full custody evaluation. Prior to my appointment I mailed Dr. Kennon a CD with photos and videos of my 11 year old with me, my current wife, and our then 5 year old daughter. When I arrived for my appointment, he gave me paperwork to fill out, including a waiver that I would not object to him submitting a written report directly to the judge. WAIT. Isn’t that what I fought against and prevailed in the case of Toms v. Toms (posted January 30, 2011)? The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a GAL’s report was inadmissible hearsay; likewise, so is a psychologist’s report. I told Dr. Kennon that I would not sign the waiver, and he said that there was no reason for him to evaluate me then. I asked him if he had viewed the CD, and he said there was no reason for him to view it. What kind of psychologist is this? Maybe one that is afraid to be cross-examined in court? Maybe one that has already made up his mind?
Before I left, I did mention to Dr. Kennon that my daughter is being subjected to Parental Alienation by her mother, my ex-wife. He said, then, it is probably better that I have no contact with my daughter, then. WHAT! So, based on that, apparently Dr. Kennon believes that you reward an alienating parent by doing just what that parent wants - eliminating contact between the child and the target parent.
Dr. Kennon ended up filing a report favoring my ex-wife and recommending me to have no contact with my oldest daughter. No evaluation of me, and no reviewing pertinent evidence - videos of the interactions between my oldest daughter and me, my current wife, and my oldest daughter’s younger sister. Once again, can you say UNETHICAL?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 3 (revised)
At the end of Part 2, Judge Whit LaFon had awarded my ex-wife sole custody of my daughter, Maggie, with me being granted standard visitation. So I went from having my daughter every other week to only having her every other week-end, two weeks during the summer, and alternating holidays. LaFon’s decision was affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals (judges Holly Kirby Lillard, W. Frank Crawford, and Alan E. Highers), even with the documented actions that the Disciplinary Counsel to the Court of the Judiciary found to be judicial misconduct.
Remember from Part 2, LaFon “retired” from the bench, thus circumventing a trial before the Court of the Judiciary (see the letter from the Court of the Judiciary posted on the “An Attorney’s Tale” Facebook page), the text of the letter is as follows:
As you know, our firm is employed as Disciplinary Counsel to the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. This letter is to advise you that the complaint you filed against Judge Whit LaFon was submitted to an Investigative Panel of the Court of the Judiciary for consideration. During the pendency of the matter before the Investigative Panel, the Court voted at its semi-annual meeting on August 26, 1998, to dismiss all pending complaints against judges who retired from the bench. The reasoning underlying the decision was that the only punishment the Court could impose following a pubiic [sic] trial of an individual who is no longer a sitting judge would be a private admonition. See Tenn. Code Ann. 17-5-301(f), 17-5-309(a). Therefore, your complaint has been dismissed.
Thanking you for your interest in preserving the integrity of the judicial system.
That last line, as a friend commented, is really ironic. Thanks for wanting to preserve the integrity of the judicial system; however, your complaint is being dismissed because the judge retired and we do not want to be bothered with it now. The question arises, how many judges at the time had complaints pending against them and then decided to retire? The answer, I don’t know, maybe one. Don’t forget, LaFon was the uncle of former vice president Al Gore.
Also, during the trial in front of LaFon, LaFon stated several times that unless I could prove my ex-wife unfit, she would get custody. That is NOT the law - comparative fitness is the law. Even though the trial transcript showed LaFon making those statements, the Court of Appeals disregarded those words because the actual court order did not mention them; since the order did not mention them, that is not how LaFon thought when giving my ex-wife custody. All I can say about that is STU-PID! Or rather, corruption.
Since LaFon "retired" from the bench, my case was reassigned to Circuit Court Judge Don Allen.
In 2000, I filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment based on, among other things, LaFon’s judicial misconduct in my case and I attached most of the documentation from the Court of the Judiciary to the motion. Judge Don Allen DENIED the motion. So now we have three appellate judges and another circuit judge given documentation of judicial misconduct (not my words but the words of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Court of the Judiciary), and THEY ALL look away. Judges protecting judges, and punishment (via the child custody decision) to the person who reports the judge to the proper authority.
So far in my own case:
1. The guardian ad litem, now juvenile judge Christy Little, does not show up for the first trial, but instead files a report that contains many false statements.
2. The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, when given documentary evidence of Christy Little’s false statements, dismisses the complaint against her.
3. In a civil lawsuit against Christy Little (represented by the law firm of Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell), the Tennessee Court of Appeals (judges Alan E. Highers, David R. Farmer, and Holly Kirby Lillard) gives Christy Rauchle Little “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” so that she does not have to stand trial for her misconduct while assigned as guardian ad litem in my case.
4. Judge Whit LaFon commits judicial misconduct in my case, and four judges, three appellate and one circuit, look the other way.
5. The Court of the Judiciary dismisses the complaint against Whit LaFon because he “retired” from the bench.
Surely, all of this cannot have happened in our system of justice. Well it did, and still does, on a daily basis. The reason - judicial corruption - favoritism, good ole boys, sexism, racism, money, power trips, vindictiveness.
Woe is he who stands up against a judge that has done wrong.
End of Part 3.
Remember from Part 2, LaFon “retired” from the bench, thus circumventing a trial before the Court of the Judiciary (see the letter from the Court of the Judiciary posted on the “An Attorney’s Tale” Facebook page), the text of the letter is as follows:
As you know, our firm is employed as Disciplinary Counsel to the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. This letter is to advise you that the complaint you filed against Judge Whit LaFon was submitted to an Investigative Panel of the Court of the Judiciary for consideration. During the pendency of the matter before the Investigative Panel, the Court voted at its semi-annual meeting on August 26, 1998, to dismiss all pending complaints against judges who retired from the bench. The reasoning underlying the decision was that the only punishment the Court could impose following a pubiic [sic] trial of an individual who is no longer a sitting judge would be a private admonition. See Tenn. Code Ann. 17-5-301(f), 17-5-309(a). Therefore, your complaint has been dismissed.
Thanking you for your interest in preserving the integrity of the judicial system.
That last line, as a friend commented, is really ironic. Thanks for wanting to preserve the integrity of the judicial system; however, your complaint is being dismissed because the judge retired and we do not want to be bothered with it now. The question arises, how many judges at the time had complaints pending against them and then decided to retire? The answer, I don’t know, maybe one. Don’t forget, LaFon was the uncle of former vice president Al Gore.
Also, during the trial in front of LaFon, LaFon stated several times that unless I could prove my ex-wife unfit, she would get custody. That is NOT the law - comparative fitness is the law. Even though the trial transcript showed LaFon making those statements, the Court of Appeals disregarded those words because the actual court order did not mention them; since the order did not mention them, that is not how LaFon thought when giving my ex-wife custody. All I can say about that is STU-PID! Or rather, corruption.
Since LaFon "retired" from the bench, my case was reassigned to Circuit Court Judge Don Allen.
In 2000, I filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment based on, among other things, LaFon’s judicial misconduct in my case and I attached most of the documentation from the Court of the Judiciary to the motion. Judge Don Allen DENIED the motion. So now we have three appellate judges and another circuit judge given documentation of judicial misconduct (not my words but the words of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Court of the Judiciary), and THEY ALL look away. Judges protecting judges, and punishment (via the child custody decision) to the person who reports the judge to the proper authority.
So far in my own case:
1. The guardian ad litem, now juvenile judge Christy Little, does not show up for the first trial, but instead files a report that contains many false statements.
2. The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, when given documentary evidence of Christy Little’s false statements, dismisses the complaint against her.
3. In a civil lawsuit against Christy Little (represented by the law firm of Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell), the Tennessee Court of Appeals (judges Alan E. Highers, David R. Farmer, and Holly Kirby Lillard) gives Christy Rauchle Little “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” so that she does not have to stand trial for her misconduct while assigned as guardian ad litem in my case.
4. Judge Whit LaFon commits judicial misconduct in my case, and four judges, three appellate and one circuit, look the other way.
5. The Court of the Judiciary dismisses the complaint against Whit LaFon because he “retired” from the bench.
Surely, all of this cannot have happened in our system of justice. Well it did, and still does, on a daily basis. The reason - judicial corruption - favoritism, good ole boys, sexism, racism, money, power trips, vindictiveness.
Woe is he who stands up against a judge that has done wrong.
End of Part 3.
My Story: For the Love of a Child - the case of Toms v. Toms (revised)
In order to shed some insight on the next installments of My Story: For the Love of a Child, I am going to discuss the following case. Remember, in my first child custody trial, the GAL (Christy R. Little) filed a report to the court and did not even attend the trial. In an upcoming installment, another report will be filed in my case over my objections and without a hearing which ended any contact between Maggie and me and any of my family.
As I mentioned before, I argued my first case before the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003). The case is posted on An Attorney’s Tale Facebook page. The case made its way to the state’s highest court via what is known as an Extraordinary Appeal, an appeal where the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review.” R.10 Tenn.R.App.Proc. I filed the appeal on behalf of my client, the mother of two young children whom were taken from her and given to the paternal grandparents by the court based solely on the report of a guardian ad litem ("GAL").
I was retained by the mother after she was summonsed to defend an action by the paternal grandparents in a divorce. The grandparents filed a motion to intervene because they were aware that given the actions of the father, that he would not get custody. The circuit court judge to whom the case was assigned was Robert “Butch” Childers; however, the grandparents filed their “emergency” motion while he was out of town, so the case ended up before Judge James Russell. The grandparents’ attorney was William Monroe, the father’s attorney was Wendy Dabbous, and the GAL was Susan Hinsley.
At the “so-called” hearing, the judge only took in the GAL’s written report, over my vehement objections of hearsay and lack of veracity (truthfulness) of the report. The judge called the attorneys to the bench and looked at me and said, “You need to crack open the books and learn how we do things in Shelby County.” I thought, “well the law books say I am right; what other books do I need to look at?” The judge ordered the immediate change of custody from the mother to the grandparents, and deputies were dispatched to ensure that it occurred.
I filed an application to the Tennessee Court of Appeals for an Extraordinary Appeal; however, they denied the application. I then filed the application with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which granted the application. Both sides had to simultaneously file an expedited brief, and oral arguments were set soon thereafter.
During the time period in which the briefs were being prepared, the grandparents’ attorney, William Monroe, filed a complaint against me with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“TBPR“), the “policing arm” of the Tennessee Supreme Court; this was clearly his response to the granting of the appeal. He complained that I allowed my client to secretly record Hinsley’s visit to the mother’s home to inspect the home and interview my client. Prior to the visit by Hinsley, my client did inform me that she was going to secretly videotape the visit for her own protection against any mistruths made by Hinsley; I did not advise her to do it, nor did I have any position on it. The TBPR issued a Public Censure against me for NOT advising my client to NOT do something that she had every legal right to do. Under federal law and Tennessee law, a person that is involved in a conversation or meeting may secretly record it as long as that person stays in the conversation or meeting. My client did nothing illegal; however, I was censured for NOT telling her to not do it. This shows the political nature of the TBPR; the law does not matter, only the politics of the people who have the connections matter. Of course, after having filed complaints against Madison County attorney Christy Little and Madison County Circuit Court Judge Whit LaFon, the TBPR had zeroed in on me as a person who will “buck the system”, which is not “politically correct.” The trial judge ordered my client to turn over the original and all copies of the tape to Hinsley. Of course, my client’s fears were correct since Hinsley made many “erroneous” statements in her report.
During oral arguments before the high court, William Monroe stated to the court that it is rare for attorneys to be arguing constitutional issues in a family law matter. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself, “why“? Does the Constitution not apply to family law cases? My answer to myself was, “of course not”. I have first hand experience of the utter disregard of supposedly protected constitutional parental rights in child custody matters. I have also seen the same disregard day in and day out in the Shelby County courts, the disregard being hidden in the legal fiction of deciding cases “in the best interests of the child.” The Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in my client’s favor; however, getting her children back was still an issue.
After the high court’s decision, the case was sent back to the original trial judge, Judge Childers, the judge who was REVERSED by the Tennessee Supreme Court in the Anna Mae He case (an international termination of parental rights / adoption case that spanned 8 years; this story is posted on this blogsite at February 1, 2011). Judge Childers was not at all happy about the Extraordinary Appeal nor at the fact that my client, the mother, won the case. The Tennessee Supreme Court ordered the grandparents to pay my fees, which totaled around $12,000; however, Childers knocked that amount down to two to three thousand. Childers also dismissed the divorce case, and when I stated that we needed an order to transfer custody of the children back to the mother, he just smugly raised his shoulders and said the case is over. These actions were clearly vindictive, and the refusal to issue a transfer order was a slap in the face of the Tennessee Supreme Court and created a “race” to the Juvenile Court.
Prior to a hearing on the matter in Juvenile Court, the grandparents finally relinquished custody to my client.
As I mentioned before, I argued my first case before the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003). The case is posted on An Attorney’s Tale Facebook page. The case made its way to the state’s highest court via what is known as an Extraordinary Appeal, an appeal where the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review.” R.10 Tenn.R.App.Proc. I filed the appeal on behalf of my client, the mother of two young children whom were taken from her and given to the paternal grandparents by the court based solely on the report of a guardian ad litem ("GAL").
I was retained by the mother after she was summonsed to defend an action by the paternal grandparents in a divorce. The grandparents filed a motion to intervene because they were aware that given the actions of the father, that he would not get custody. The circuit court judge to whom the case was assigned was Robert “Butch” Childers; however, the grandparents filed their “emergency” motion while he was out of town, so the case ended up before Judge James Russell. The grandparents’ attorney was William Monroe, the father’s attorney was Wendy Dabbous, and the GAL was Susan Hinsley.
At the “so-called” hearing, the judge only took in the GAL’s written report, over my vehement objections of hearsay and lack of veracity (truthfulness) of the report. The judge called the attorneys to the bench and looked at me and said, “You need to crack open the books and learn how we do things in Shelby County.” I thought, “well the law books say I am right; what other books do I need to look at?” The judge ordered the immediate change of custody from the mother to the grandparents, and deputies were dispatched to ensure that it occurred.
I filed an application to the Tennessee Court of Appeals for an Extraordinary Appeal; however, they denied the application. I then filed the application with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which granted the application. Both sides had to simultaneously file an expedited brief, and oral arguments were set soon thereafter.
During the time period in which the briefs were being prepared, the grandparents’ attorney, William Monroe, filed a complaint against me with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“TBPR“), the “policing arm” of the Tennessee Supreme Court; this was clearly his response to the granting of the appeal. He complained that I allowed my client to secretly record Hinsley’s visit to the mother’s home to inspect the home and interview my client. Prior to the visit by Hinsley, my client did inform me that she was going to secretly videotape the visit for her own protection against any mistruths made by Hinsley; I did not advise her to do it, nor did I have any position on it. The TBPR issued a Public Censure against me for NOT advising my client to NOT do something that she had every legal right to do. Under federal law and Tennessee law, a person that is involved in a conversation or meeting may secretly record it as long as that person stays in the conversation or meeting. My client did nothing illegal; however, I was censured for NOT telling her to not do it. This shows the political nature of the TBPR; the law does not matter, only the politics of the people who have the connections matter. Of course, after having filed complaints against Madison County attorney Christy Little and Madison County Circuit Court Judge Whit LaFon, the TBPR had zeroed in on me as a person who will “buck the system”, which is not “politically correct.” The trial judge ordered my client to turn over the original and all copies of the tape to Hinsley. Of course, my client’s fears were correct since Hinsley made many “erroneous” statements in her report.
During oral arguments before the high court, William Monroe stated to the court that it is rare for attorneys to be arguing constitutional issues in a family law matter. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself, “why“? Does the Constitution not apply to family law cases? My answer to myself was, “of course not”. I have first hand experience of the utter disregard of supposedly protected constitutional parental rights in child custody matters. I have also seen the same disregard day in and day out in the Shelby County courts, the disregard being hidden in the legal fiction of deciding cases “in the best interests of the child.” The Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in my client’s favor; however, getting her children back was still an issue.
After the high court’s decision, the case was sent back to the original trial judge, Judge Childers, the judge who was REVERSED by the Tennessee Supreme Court in the Anna Mae He case (an international termination of parental rights / adoption case that spanned 8 years; this story is posted on this blogsite at February 1, 2011). Judge Childers was not at all happy about the Extraordinary Appeal nor at the fact that my client, the mother, won the case. The Tennessee Supreme Court ordered the grandparents to pay my fees, which totaled around $12,000; however, Childers knocked that amount down to two to three thousand. Childers also dismissed the divorce case, and when I stated that we needed an order to transfer custody of the children back to the mother, he just smugly raised his shoulders and said the case is over. These actions were clearly vindictive, and the refusal to issue a transfer order was a slap in the face of the Tennessee Supreme Court and created a “race” to the Juvenile Court.
Prior to a hearing on the matter in Juvenile Court, the grandparents finally relinquished custody to my client.
Monday, June 20, 2011
My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 2
The Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s award of joint custody and ordered a new trial. While the appeal was pending, due to the lawsuit against Christy Little, the GAL, Chancellor Morris recused himself. The case was transferred to Circuit Court Judge Whit LaFon; Lafon was the uncle of former vice-president Al Gore. To make a long story short, Lafon was a shining example of why state judges should have to undergo the same scrutiny and appointment processes as federal judges. Many in the area referred to him as “Twit LaFon”. A google search of Whit Lafon reveals articles that LaFon was the subject of federal and state drug trafficking investigations; I do not know the veracity of those articles, but they make for some interesting reading. I was observing LaFon in court one time while he was berating a defendant for several minutes because of the defendant’s alleged actions overnight since the previous days hearing, and LaFon was about to put him in jail. The court clerk continually tried to get LaFon’s attention during this time when the clerk finally stated very loudly, “Your honor, this is not the same person from yesterday.”
While the appeal was pending, I became actively involved with the DAD organization, and wrote many Letters to the Editor advocating reform in child custody laws that were published in area newspapers. At the first pre-trial hearing in front of LaFon, LaFon strongly advised me to stop writing Letters to the Editor. It was clear at that time that LaFon had already made his decision in my case. I filed a complaint with the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary against LaFon. LaFon was aware of the complaint at the new custody trial and actually questioned me for several minutes from the bench about the complaint. This was clearly improper and unethical. Lafon denied to the Court of the Judiciary that he had questioned me about the complaint, see Lafon’s response to the complaint attached on the Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.131082636956778.26988.100001651287428; however, the trial transcript proves otherwise, with the pertinent section starting with:
THE COURT: All right. Have you reported any judge to the disciplinary board?
MR. WINCHESTER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Who was that?
MR. WINCHESTER: Your Honor.
The Court of the Judiciary was actually prepared to hold a hearing against LaFon in 1998; however, LaFon decided not to run for re-election (1998 was a judicial election year; this occurs in Tennessee every 8 years). Since LaFon was “retiring from the bench”, the Court of the Judiciary dismissed the complaint because the only thing that they could do to a retired judge would be a private reprimand, and the time and costs involved would not be worth it. See letter from Disciplinary Counsel on Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.134319363299772.28758.100001651287428#!/photo.php?fbid=134319366633105&set=a.134319363299772.28758.100001651287428&type=1&theater.
Once again, the truth was legally suppressed.
Not surprisingly, LaFon awarded my ex-wife sole custody of my daughter, with me being granted standard visitation. So I went from having my daughter every other week to only having her every other week-end, two weeks during the summer, and alternating holidays. The day that decision was made was the worst day of my life at that point in time.
End of Part 2.
While the appeal was pending, I became actively involved with the DAD organization, and wrote many Letters to the Editor advocating reform in child custody laws that were published in area newspapers. At the first pre-trial hearing in front of LaFon, LaFon strongly advised me to stop writing Letters to the Editor. It was clear at that time that LaFon had already made his decision in my case. I filed a complaint with the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary against LaFon. LaFon was aware of the complaint at the new custody trial and actually questioned me for several minutes from the bench about the complaint. This was clearly improper and unethical. Lafon denied to the Court of the Judiciary that he had questioned me about the complaint, see Lafon’s response to the complaint attached on the Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.131082636956778.26988.100001651287428; however, the trial transcript proves otherwise, with the pertinent section starting with:
THE COURT: All right. Have you reported any judge to the disciplinary board?
MR. WINCHESTER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Who was that?
MR. WINCHESTER: Your Honor.
The Court of the Judiciary was actually prepared to hold a hearing against LaFon in 1998; however, LaFon decided not to run for re-election (1998 was a judicial election year; this occurs in Tennessee every 8 years). Since LaFon was “retiring from the bench”, the Court of the Judiciary dismissed the complaint because the only thing that they could do to a retired judge would be a private reprimand, and the time and costs involved would not be worth it. See letter from Disciplinary Counsel on Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.134319363299772.28758.100001651287428#!/photo.php?fbid=134319366633105&set=a.134319363299772.28758.100001651287428&type=1&theater.
Once again, the truth was legally suppressed.
Not surprisingly, LaFon awarded my ex-wife sole custody of my daughter, with me being granted standard visitation. So I went from having my daughter every other week to only having her every other week-end, two weeks during the summer, and alternating holidays. The day that decision was made was the worst day of my life at that point in time.
End of Part 2.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 1 (revised)
My name is William Winchester. I decided to go into the practice of law to “change the system” after being crushed by a system of corruption during my own divorce and child custody case in Henderson, Tennessee (15 miles south of Jackson, Tennessee, and all in the 26th Judicial District of Tennessee). Nine years later, after losing my first daughter for the second time in a corrupt system, and then suffering a heart attack, I stopped practicing law; however, it will not leave me alone.
I argued my first case before the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003). The case made its way to the state’s highest court via what is know as an Extraordinary Appeal, an appeal where the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review.” R.10 Tenn.R.App.Proc. I filed the appeal on behalf of my client, the mother of two young children whom were taken from her and given to the paternal grandparents by the court based solely on the report of a guardian ad litem. During oral arguments before the high court, the grandparents’ attorney, William Monroe, stated to the court that it is rare for attorneys to be arguing constitutional issues in a family law matter. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself, “why“? Does the Constitution not apply to family law cases? My answer to myself was, “of course not”. I have first hand experience of the utter disregard of supposedly protected constitutional parental rights in child custody matters. I have also seen the same disregard day in and day out in Tennessee courts, the disregard being hidden in the legal fiction of deciding cases “in the best interests of the child.” The Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in my client’s favor and she did get her children back. The Constitution actually prevailed in that case; unfortunately, that was the exception and it was not what normally occurs in child custody cases. Toms v. Toms will be discussed in depth in a future posting.
The facts of the Toms case solidified my disgust with the court system in child custody cases, especially when an extra attorney is involved - the guardian ad litem, “GAL”. In my own child custody case, Winchester v. Winchester, a GAL (then attorney and now Madison County Juvenile Court Judge Christy Rauchle Little) filed her “report” to the court with many false statements. My attorney at that time, Nancy Nelson, told me that Little favored mothers in child custody cases. Little did not show up for the trial, but just filed her “report” with the court, which recommended that my ex-wife (Rachelle Coleman Collier Winchester Winbush Coleman) be awarded custody of my daughter, Maggie. The trial judge, Chancellor Joe Morris, awarded joint custody, and Rachelle and I both appealed.
Interestingly, the only live witnesses at the trial were there to testify on my behalf (except for Rachelle). A psychologist who did an evaluation of me testified for me, and also explained the meaning of the written report of the psychologist who evaluated Rachelle. Particularly, that psychologist (that evaluated Rachelle) stated that Rachelle had “a personality disorder, probably best characterized as a mixed diagnostic picture, with histrionic and passive/aggressive and dependent features.”
A private investigator also testified regarding Rachelle’s violation of a court order prohibiting her from having her “boyfriend” overnight while my daughter was present. This occurred on multiple occasions. A nurse from the hospital in Huntingdon, Tennessee testified about an event that occurred in the Emergency Room. Rachelle took another daughter (Katie, from her previous marriage), then 3, to the ER for asthma the same year that Maggie was born. The nurse gave Rachelle a sealed bottle of asthma medication to hold while the nurse went to get a piece of equipment. When the nurse returned, the bottle was open and Katie had swallowed the liquid medicine from the bottle. The nurse asked Rachelle why she gave Katie the medicine, and Rachelle stated that Katie wanted it, so she gave it to her. Katie had to be treated for poisoning with activated charcoal, cardiac monitoring, etc.
Rachelle’s previous husband also testified about how she prevented him from seeing his daughter (Katie). One of my aunt’s testified about my relationship with my extended family, and especially my relationship with Maggie. She also testified that she had never been contacted by the GAL (Christy R. Little); Little wrote in her report that I had no extended family support, even though I gave her a list of family members available throughout west Tennessee (she never called a single one).
Nonetheless, Chancellor Morris awarded joint custody, which would be fine while Maggie was still not school age, but clearly would not work once Maggie became school age because my ex-wife and I lived in different towns. With the overwhelming evidence in my favor, my attorney and I decided that we should appeal; Rachelle also appealed.
While the appeal was pending, I met a Memphis attorney, Tim Edwards, through a group called DAD, which stands for Dads Against Discrimination. We discussed my case and he said I should file a complaint against Christy Little with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, “BPR”, the attorney policing arm of the Tennessee Supreme Court (in future postings, an in-depth look at the workings of the BPR, and the politics involved, will be made). Shortly after I filed the complaint against Little, my attorney called me and told me that Little had called her and that Little was upset about the complaint. My attorney told me that Little was her friend, and my attorney told me that I needed to find another attorney to finish my appeal. Edwards completed the appeal, but having to change attorneys in the middle of an appeal just does not look good to the court. Edwards and I also discussed the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Little, but when I was ready to do so, he decided not to do it, so I did it myself (at this time I was not an attorney, but I was in law school). By the way, the BPR, despite being furnished with documentary proof that Little had made false statements in her “report”, dismissed my complaint against her.
I filed a civil lawsuit, Winchester v. Little, 996 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998), against Little in the Madison County Circuit Court for violation of federal constitutional and civil rights, as well as state claims. The attorneys that represented Little were Thomas H. Rainey, John D. Burleson, and Dale Conder, Jr., all with the law firm Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell. (You will hear a lot more about that law firm, as well as Christy Little, in future postings.) The trial judge, Julian P. Guinn, dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of immunity. In other words, it did not matter what Little did or did not do; since she was appointed by the court as a GAL, she was immune from liability - she could not be sued.
I appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a GAL is not a “state actor” for purposes of the federal claims, but then holding that a GAL is entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” for purposes of the state claims because a GAL is an integral part of the judicial process. WHAT? If a GAL is part of the judicial process, does that not necessarily mean that the GAL is performing a state function, and, therefore, is a state actor? So, on the one hand, a GAL IS NOT a state actor if the GAL is being sued under federal law, but, on the other hand, that same GAL IS a state actor if being sued under state law, all in the same lawsuit.
Since the courts decided that Christy R. Little was immune from liability, and therefore could not be sued, the actual facts stated in the lawsuit were never addressed by the courts, and the truth was legally suppressed.
End of Part 1.
I argued my first case before the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003). The case made its way to the state’s highest court via what is know as an Extraordinary Appeal, an appeal where the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review.” R.10 Tenn.R.App.Proc. I filed the appeal on behalf of my client, the mother of two young children whom were taken from her and given to the paternal grandparents by the court based solely on the report of a guardian ad litem. During oral arguments before the high court, the grandparents’ attorney, William Monroe, stated to the court that it is rare for attorneys to be arguing constitutional issues in a family law matter. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself, “why“? Does the Constitution not apply to family law cases? My answer to myself was, “of course not”. I have first hand experience of the utter disregard of supposedly protected constitutional parental rights in child custody matters. I have also seen the same disregard day in and day out in Tennessee courts, the disregard being hidden in the legal fiction of deciding cases “in the best interests of the child.” The Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in my client’s favor and she did get her children back. The Constitution actually prevailed in that case; unfortunately, that was the exception and it was not what normally occurs in child custody cases. Toms v. Toms will be discussed in depth in a future posting.
The facts of the Toms case solidified my disgust with the court system in child custody cases, especially when an extra attorney is involved - the guardian ad litem, “GAL”. In my own child custody case, Winchester v. Winchester, a GAL (then attorney and now Madison County Juvenile Court Judge Christy Rauchle Little) filed her “report” to the court with many false statements. My attorney at that time, Nancy Nelson, told me that Little favored mothers in child custody cases. Little did not show up for the trial, but just filed her “report” with the court, which recommended that my ex-wife (Rachelle Coleman Collier Winchester Winbush Coleman) be awarded custody of my daughter, Maggie. The trial judge, Chancellor Joe Morris, awarded joint custody, and Rachelle and I both appealed.
Interestingly, the only live witnesses at the trial were there to testify on my behalf (except for Rachelle). A psychologist who did an evaluation of me testified for me, and also explained the meaning of the written report of the psychologist who evaluated Rachelle. Particularly, that psychologist (that evaluated Rachelle) stated that Rachelle had “a personality disorder, probably best characterized as a mixed diagnostic picture, with histrionic and passive/aggressive and dependent features.”
A private investigator also testified regarding Rachelle’s violation of a court order prohibiting her from having her “boyfriend” overnight while my daughter was present. This occurred on multiple occasions. A nurse from the hospital in Huntingdon, Tennessee testified about an event that occurred in the Emergency Room. Rachelle took another daughter (Katie, from her previous marriage), then 3, to the ER for asthma the same year that Maggie was born. The nurse gave Rachelle a sealed bottle of asthma medication to hold while the nurse went to get a piece of equipment. When the nurse returned, the bottle was open and Katie had swallowed the liquid medicine from the bottle. The nurse asked Rachelle why she gave Katie the medicine, and Rachelle stated that Katie wanted it, so she gave it to her. Katie had to be treated for poisoning with activated charcoal, cardiac monitoring, etc.
Rachelle’s previous husband also testified about how she prevented him from seeing his daughter (Katie). One of my aunt’s testified about my relationship with my extended family, and especially my relationship with Maggie. She also testified that she had never been contacted by the GAL (Christy R. Little); Little wrote in her report that I had no extended family support, even though I gave her a list of family members available throughout west Tennessee (she never called a single one).
Nonetheless, Chancellor Morris awarded joint custody, which would be fine while Maggie was still not school age, but clearly would not work once Maggie became school age because my ex-wife and I lived in different towns. With the overwhelming evidence in my favor, my attorney and I decided that we should appeal; Rachelle also appealed.
While the appeal was pending, I met a Memphis attorney, Tim Edwards, through a group called DAD, which stands for Dads Against Discrimination. We discussed my case and he said I should file a complaint against Christy Little with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, “BPR”, the attorney policing arm of the Tennessee Supreme Court (in future postings, an in-depth look at the workings of the BPR, and the politics involved, will be made). Shortly after I filed the complaint against Little, my attorney called me and told me that Little had called her and that Little was upset about the complaint. My attorney told me that Little was her friend, and my attorney told me that I needed to find another attorney to finish my appeal. Edwards completed the appeal, but having to change attorneys in the middle of an appeal just does not look good to the court. Edwards and I also discussed the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Little, but when I was ready to do so, he decided not to do it, so I did it myself (at this time I was not an attorney, but I was in law school). By the way, the BPR, despite being furnished with documentary proof that Little had made false statements in her “report”, dismissed my complaint against her.
I filed a civil lawsuit, Winchester v. Little, 996 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998), against Little in the Madison County Circuit Court for violation of federal constitutional and civil rights, as well as state claims. The attorneys that represented Little were Thomas H. Rainey, John D. Burleson, and Dale Conder, Jr., all with the law firm Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell. (You will hear a lot more about that law firm, as well as Christy Little, in future postings.) The trial judge, Julian P. Guinn, dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of immunity. In other words, it did not matter what Little did or did not do; since she was appointed by the court as a GAL, she was immune from liability - she could not be sued.
I appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a GAL is not a “state actor” for purposes of the federal claims, but then holding that a GAL is entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” for purposes of the state claims because a GAL is an integral part of the judicial process. WHAT? If a GAL is part of the judicial process, does that not necessarily mean that the GAL is performing a state function, and, therefore, is a state actor? So, on the one hand, a GAL IS NOT a state actor if the GAL is being sued under federal law, but, on the other hand, that same GAL IS a state actor if being sued under state law, all in the same lawsuit.
Since the courts decided that Christy R. Little was immune from liability, and therefore could not be sued, the actual facts stated in the lawsuit were never addressed by the courts, and the truth was legally suppressed.
End of Part 1.
Facebook Event - Day One
This week I will make at least seven posts to this site. The posts will chronicle the twists and turns in my own divorce and custody case near Jackson, Tennessee, from 1994 to the present day. They will show how judicial corruption and PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) work together to destroy people's lives and brainwash children.
Some of the posts were already posted in January and February, but I am re-posting them for continuity. They will show how judicial politicking and influence spans several courtrooms, from the juvenile court to the circuit court, and how one current juvenile judge and one law firm is the epicenter of it all. This week's posts will complete My Story: For the Love of a Child.
In the Facebook Event Invitation, I stated that there would be seven posts this week; however, over the past several days I have learned some additional information that will be added, so there may be eight or nine posts this week.
In order to post any comments, liking or disliking any posts, you must be registered with this site. Anonymous posts are not allowed. If you have something to say, stand behind it and it will be posted.
Next up is My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 1.
Some of the posts were already posted in January and February, but I am re-posting them for continuity. They will show how judicial politicking and influence spans several courtrooms, from the juvenile court to the circuit court, and how one current juvenile judge and one law firm is the epicenter of it all. This week's posts will complete My Story: For the Love of a Child.
In the Facebook Event Invitation, I stated that there would be seven posts this week; however, over the past several days I have learned some additional information that will be added, so there may be eight or nine posts this week.
In order to post any comments, liking or disliking any posts, you must be registered with this site. Anonymous posts are not allowed. If you have something to say, stand behind it and it will be posted.
Next up is My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)