UPDATE: Dombrowski Case: Trial set January 8th, 2010 (The Murder of Motherhood)

 

December 18, 2009 -- Quick Publish to just update, will delve further as I can, Thank you my dear friends and family,

(To the Perpetrator and his many many attorneys and the dea Judge who is monitoring the ww for any activity relating to this case!)I will not shut up, give up and I WILL NOT GO AWAY!

Sin Denied Telling All; Reminding Others of Morals

UPDATE: Dombrowski Case:

SN. CO. Case No. 96-D-217

December 16, 2009

“ We walked into Court and Jason P Hoffman  one’ of Attorney’s for the Perpetrator  came with a two inch stack of ‘contempt’ papers (to clean up the internet)  I still do not have copy of the recent contempt’s not allowed to have  (as with GAL and FOC’s private reports) as I turn them all over to be published.

The current ‘claim’ remains – is I STILL  have ‘ alleged images’ of my daughter (now why would I want images of my child and my dead mom?) But are actually ‘court documents’ and several  media appearances’ most recently on Domestic Violence.

Not to mention that Kansas is at an all time record high in DV Fatalities in TWO DECADES with State Warnings and the Media and Senate Hearings Testimonies on the Kansas Joint Committee on Children’s Issues.”

KansasWatchDog: Video

and Audio Testimonies:

Claudine Dombrowski: An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

The bottom line is this:

1. I am NOT a threat to my daughter nor have I ever been alleged to be a threat to my daughter unlike that of the well documented HX of violence of the perpetrator.

2. Under K.S.A 60-1616:  Unless AFTER hearing- showing that I am a threat or harm to my daughter- The Courts can not deny our parenting time- (as they have this past ten years)  DV by Proxy and other Court Whores that Profit.

Like my daughters Guardian ad Litem GAL  M. Jill Dykes, Topeka Kansas Bottom dweller and blood profiteer of children. and we shant forget the ‘good judge himself’ Judge ‘death’ David Debenham Who one year ago denied my daughter the right to go to her Grandmothers funeral.

So………..

We kill off Granny, now a year later, time to finish off mom? I think not!!

The  ‘Best interest of the Perpetrators’ remains quite clear. Domestic Violence by Proxy

Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy: Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers

In the below is a recent appellate court opinion where this statute was upheld and remanded back down to the lower courts, for error in denying parenting time and or ‘conditioned’ parenting time.

So, on Jan 8, 2010 ‘charge us or release us’- Habeas Corpus, find me a threat to my daughter or sever my (alleged) rights under the law. (the only piece of paper they have NOT done)

Media and testimonies to the Kansas Senate does NOT make me a Threat or danger to my child.

“ I am tired this is draining to do- so I will publish now- and update as possible.” I Love you my Mother and my daughter- “ Don’t Give up”

K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2005/20050916/93450.htm

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 93,450

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Matter of the Marriage of

JANET BOULEY, f/k/a KIMBRELL,

Appellee,

and

WILLIAM DAVID KIMBRELL,

Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.

2. The fundamental rule of statutory construction to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed rather than determine what the law should or should not be.

3. Orders which condition parenting time and visitation upon a minor child’s desires to see a parent give a minor child the authority to determine parenting time and can have the effect of denying parenting time altogether.

4. Among the factors that must be considered when determining the issue of child custody, residency, and parenting time under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1610(a)(3)(B) and K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), the trial court must look at the desires of a minor child as to the child’s custody or residency. The child’s wishes as to custody, residency, and parenting time and visitation cannot be the exclusive factor relied upon by the trial court in determining parenting time.

Appeal from Douglas District Court; JEAN F. SHEPHERD, judge. Opinion filed September 16, 2005. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Brant M. Laue and Chadler E. Colgan, of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant.

Sherri E. Loveland, of Stevens & Brand, L.L.P., of Lawrence, for appellee.

Before MALONE, P.J., GREEN and BUSER, JJ.

GREEN, J.: William David Kimbrell (David) appeals the trial court’s decision regarding parenting time with his 16-year-old son Evan Kimbrell. The issue in this case is whether the trial court can condition a noncustodial parent’s right to parenting time with his or her minor child upon the desires of the child.

We determine that this cannot be done.

K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) makes it clear that a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time with his or her minor child "unless the court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health." Conditioning parenting time on the wishes of a minor child improperly gives the child the authority to determine a noncustodial parent’s rights to parenting time and visitation and can have the effect of completely denying the noncustodial parent’s rights to parenting time.

UPDATE: Dombrowski Case: Trial set January 8th, 2010 (The Murder of Motherhood) « A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice

Abuse: Maternal Deprivation

 

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

Victims of domestic violence suffer physical and emotional trauma at the hands of their abusers. Some don’t escape these relationships alive. But even for those who are fortunate enough to get out with their lives, their ordeal isn’t necessarily over. In many cases their tormentors still pose a threat to them and their children. And as they try to protect themselves and their loved ones they are often victimized again; this time by the very legal system they thought would provide them with justice and a safety net.

There are way too many horror stories out there about how these vulnerable women are subjected to even more abuse as they go through the system. And one of the most troublesome scenarios is when the courts issue a ruling that removes their children from them, sometimes awarding custody to the abuser.

On the Juror Thirteen show on August 26 we’ll talk about this problem with three women who can speak from personal experience. Advocate and author Susan Murphy-Milano, and Janice Levinson and Claudine Dombrowski of the Protective Mothers Alliance will discuss what mothers can do to bring about change in the treatment of protective mothers and their children in family court proceedings. All three have lost children to maternal deprivation abuse.

You can hear the show beginning at 9 pm Eastern at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dennisngriffin. Your questions or comments can be called in by phone or made through the show’s chat room.

Distressed Father’s...I think not

 

Not too Responsible Fatherhood: Blaming, Shaming, and Gaming

This is in direct response to When Divorce Kills: How Gender Bias Pushes Some Men Over the Edge. You must [find it and] read it first.

In the past two weeks…? Why limit the time period. There have been more than a dozen murders since the new year began.

Ending in the deaths of “innocent children”?…There goes that catch phrase that I spoke about yesterday. Also, see how framing the “innocent children” conveniently leaves out any other victims who are adults…and also dead. I wonder how their families feel about that.

A father in distress? Many Americans are in distress right now, and always and are not killing; but notice how the author frames it as “losing all that he held dear.”..as if loss=the right to murder.

There is nothing “high profile” about these cases. There is an epidemic of men committing familicides and only SOME happened to make it to the main news section. Some. Within days, all is forgotten and the next murder occurs with the same sensationalism and shock. It has become a perfunctory reaction.

This doesn’t stereotype fathers. What it does it make us cautious of divorcing men, men who cannot take control of their emotions so they seek control by violent means. A “malicious stereotype” would be one that specifically intends to do harm. These men are intending to do harm. These murders are premeditated. Stop playing the stereotype card and call it what it is, reality.

Good fathers are good fathers. We can recognize them. Or, hell, maybe we can’t…because it seems like every time a White man commits a murder, the community wants to talk about what an upstanding, church-going, philanthropist, volunteer-coach, music-instructor, role-model he was.

We are not talking about “most fathers” when these stories hit the media. We are talking about men who use violence as a solutions to their problems and a society that is content with accept it as is. But we must point out the common denominator in these murders: the men are killing women and children who were often times family members or [former] lovers.

Domestic violence doesn’t have to be “gender specific” in order for us to notice that FACT that men are committing these types of murders. Don’t try to rule out gender when it is convenient. No one doubts that women commit violence however forcing it as an issue is an attempt to neutralize the problem. Shifting the focus.

Divorce is stressful for men because they lose the control that they “held dear.” The gender bias affects women because of the patriarchal structure of our society that puts women at the bottom of the totem pole with structures in place that benefit men.

Most men do not lose of their children, they give it up freely to the one who has been doing the primary caretaking–mom. A loss of custody would mean that custody was taken from someone who originally had it. A father that was a primary caretaker, that had his child “taken” away from him, would be a father who lost custody. Therefore 85% of mothers do not “win” custody, they get it. Stop framing this as a game.

Myth — Family courts are biased against fathers in custody disputes.

Fact: “Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases.”

Schafran, Lynn Hecht, “Gender Bias in Family Courts,” American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26

Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation.

Fact: “The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody — by any means — than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that ‘only the strongest cases are taken to trial,’ and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers’ work.”

liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.

Also see: AZ Battered Mothers Testimony Project Report

And why add the piece about “divorced and separated men are 2 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide than married men”? Oh, because the part that would typically follow a statement like that is, “So let’s support the natural/biological family,” or “You see, the court system is killing fathers.”

Yeah, whatever. How about this one?

Men with a [perceived] loss of control are 2 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide, murder-suicide, and familicide than men who feel that they are in control.

There is no “notion” that divorced/estranged fathers don’t want/need continuing contact with their children. The notion is that if you renege on your familial responsibilities (to be with your friends, or new girlfriend, leaving your children behind) you have shown that your children are not a priority. This is not meant to imply that in order to have a relationship with your children, you must be exclusive with the mother. What it means is that you establish your priorities by your actions.

A father is “estranged” because of his own behavior. A father decides when being a father is important to him and he decides this on his own time. Mothers are generally [considered] mothers 24/7. If the loss of the children is so painful, it is the father’s responsibility to compensate for this–killing the children does not do so. (Also, asking the mother to patch your relationship with your children by speaking well of you, or telling lies in your favor, is not you taking responsibility.)

Good book plug.

If all these fathers need is “someone who understand,” why don’t father’s groups promote counseling for them? Why force litigation? Who wins?

What many a father’s groups provide for these men, is a pep rally to talk about what a bitch his ex was and how unfair the family court system is (often time, before he even gets into the court to know for himself). Perhaps they actually rev these men up…

And now let’s get to the heavy political controversy that is being swept under the rug:

Illinois, like the rest of the states, receives grants from the U.S. government, via the Administration of Children and Families (ACF), under the name of Responsible Fatherhood. This money is supposed to be used to help low-income fathers break economic barriers so that they can make financial contributions to their children’s upbringing via a relationship with the child. The grant money is also used for incarcerated fathers for re-entry into the workforce for the same reasons.

Myth — Increasing fathers’ visitation time and custody rights makes them more amenable to paying child support.

Fact: “As researchers began to stop collecting their data mainly from fathers and began to explore the relationship between visiting and paying child support in longitudinal studies, the theory that increased visitation would result in increased child support compliance began to wane. In 1993, the Office of Economic Research, U.S. Bureau of Labor undertook a study based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). The NLSY is a survey of more than 12,000 men and women who are interviewed annually since 1979. The authors of this study found contrary to previous studies, increases in visitation have no effect on changes in child support.”

THE LINK BETWEEN VISITATION AND SUPPORT COMPLIANCE, Laura Wish Morgan with Chuck Shively of the Department of Social & Health Services, Washington State. http://childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200012.html

In reality, some of this Responsible Fatherhood money is being used to target fathers for a custody changing scheme under the guise of access and visitation. Attorneys are provided to fathers so that they can seek custody of their children. The division of Child Support states that MORE money has been collected under this system when in fact child support arrears are being waived, and child support awards are being reduced, or eliminated.

You don’t have to do a lot of digging, as the article I am calling into question, gives enough information for you to get started. Remember Blagoveich. Think about the President’s agenda:

Strengthen Fatherhood and Families: Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. President Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.

Yeah right.

Illinois.

Is the answer to hold women hostage in marriage out of fear that their husbands may kill them and their children? Is the answer to give mentally unstable men custody of their children and access to their former spouses.

Maybe the answer is NOT restraining orders and GPS. Maybe we should create a Father’s Act, to determine the psychological stability of men at the time of conception, and at divorce, as society seems exclusively and disproportionately fixated on mother-pathologies.