Woman Admits Lying About Domestic Violence To Jail Husband

Dr. Phil Show: Woman Reluctantly Admits Lying About Domestic Violence To Jail Husband For 10 Months

Dr. Phil gets this women to come clean and admit she lied about DV which led to her husband being throw in jail for 10mths over DV he never committed.

DVI- The Inside Story from Tom Lemons on Vimeo.
Finally I am releasing my documentary DVI The Inside Story for public viewing. I hope all of you enjoy the film. I will begin production of my next film (untitled) in September, which will contain shocking footage from inside a County Clerk's Office and Batterer's Intervention Programs. I'll keep you posted.

False Allegations Cost Man 20-years in Prison

Charles Ray Spencer, once a police officer in Vancouver, British Columbia, was incarcerated for 20-years after a conviction for molesting his two children.  Now, his son and daughter have announced that the molestation never happened and it was a product of police coercion and parental alienation on the part of their mother.

On July 10th, 2009, Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz testified in Clark County Superior Court in an effort to clear their father’s name after all of these years.

It appears from their testimony that a combination police coercion, prosecutorial misconduct, and their mother’s parental alienation forced them to make these allegations when they were 9- and 6-years old, respectively.  They even recalled details such as the detective on the case, Sharon Krause plying them with ice cream and questioning them incessantly.  This prompted Matthew to make his allegation just to get her to stop.  Kathryn recalled the ice cream but not what she told the detective.

It took until 2004 for Spencer’s sentence to be commuted after problems come to light regarding the conviction, including prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of any abuse whatsoever despite claims that the sexual abuse was violent and repeated.

Shockingly, Charles Ray Spencer still carries the horrendous label of “convicted sex offender”  and will retain the label unless his convictions are overturned.  Worse still, prosecutors are still saying that they don’t believe he was wrongfully convicted and, if the convictions are overturned, they will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Both children said that while growing up in California they were told by their mother, who divorced Spencer before he was charged, that they were blocking out the memory of the abuse.

Several things come to mind as I read this story.

• The lengths that police, detectives, and prosecutors will go to secure a conviction are boundless.  Withholding evidence that would demonstrate that the accusations were baseless, aside from being criminal, supports what many already believe – a conviction has now become more important than the truth.
• That despite all you read that challenges the contention that parental alienation doesn’t exist, anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence must know that people can be trained to do just about anything.  Children are especially vulnerable.  Anyone who would contend that parental alienation doesn’t exist would do well to read this story and explain why they don’t believe that a malicious parent is incapable of teaching children to hate.
• Finally, given what has been revealed in this story as it exists so far, any official who would dare challenge the overturning of Charles Ray Spencer’s convictions should be fired, criminally charged, and given a sentence of 20-years (minimum).  Those who were responsible for the wrongs committed against this man should immediately be arrested, convicted, and given the same sentence.  So should the mother.

Click here for the full story.

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Related articles

• The Role of Domestic Violence in Parental Alienation
• Outright abomination against rudimentary civil rights and principles of law.
• The Alienating Parents’ Tool Of Choice
• The Law, as written, empowers Judges to protect children from Parental Alienation.
• Forced Parental Alienation
• So few in the Media will Expose the Judicial Corruption of Judges
• NFL partners with National Domestic Violence Hotline
• UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: Domestic violence by proxy?
• An Example of an Anti-Father’s Rights, Liberal Moron!
• Is Anybody Judging the Judges? The California Legislature Wants Answers

How to Sue a Family Court Judge

ABA Section of Litigation: Children’s Rights Litigation

Children are the innocent victims of such litigation and the grief that it inflicts. They should not be awarded to the "winner" as if they were a prize, whether that winner is an adoptive parent or a biological parent. Children are blameless. 

Depriving a child of his/her established, psychological family ties without consideration of the harm he/she will suffer infringes upon his/her procedural due process rights. 

Children's Rights are constitutionally founded and are at the core of all liberties, for if children cannot count on the inalienable right to life and liberty in the family context, then what does our society offer them? 

These constitutional interests are both procedural and substantive. Therefore they should not be disturbed absent a compelling, established competing interest which is entitled to constitutional protection. Even then, if the constitutionally protected interests are in conflict and evenly balanced, the conflict should be resolved in favor of the child.

A Century of Legal Ethics: Trial Lawyers and the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics

The ABA Canons of Ethics was adopted in 1908 and created ethical standards for lawyers.

How to Sue a JudgeBy David C. Grossack
Constitutional Attorney Common Law 

Leon Koziol Judicial Conduct Commission Report Dated April 23, 2013 by LeonKoziolJD

False allegations of abuse are grounds for losing timesharing.

Court says: Grandparents' false allegations of abuse grounds for losing visitation

CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has ruled a family court judge erred in not terminating an Elkview couple's visitation rights with their grandson after they falsely accused his adoptive father of abusing him.

The Court on April 14 overruled a decision by Kanawha Family Law Judge Mike Kelly denying a petition filed by Warren Lee and Melissa Arnold to terminate visitation by Melissa's former in-laws, Robin and Janet Lyons, with her son, Jon. In an unanimous memorandum opinion, the Court said the Lyons' attempt to not only halt Warren's adoption of Jon, but also coaching Jon to say Warren abused him was more than sufficient grounds for Kelly to grant the Arnold's petition.

"While a best interests analysis will necessarily include an assessment of the bond and the relationship developed between the child and the grandparents," the Court said, "we disagree with the lower court's determination that the relationship between Jon and his grandparents is of a beneficial nature to Jon under the circumstances present here."

"The particular facts of this case, including the vicious nature of the grandparents' actions to forestall Jon's adoption proceedings, as well as their baseless pursuit of abuse allegations against Jon's adoptive father, illustrate a relationship in constant conflict with that of Jon's parents."

Rocky relationship

According to court records, Melissa was married to the Lyons' son, Jonathon, until 2000. Shortly after their divorce, Jonathon died in a car wreck.

Following her marriage to Warren in 2003, she moved with Jon to Spencer. Two years later, Warren, despite the Lyons' objections, successfully petitioned to adopt Jon.

Prior to Melissa's marriage to Warren, records show she agreed to allow Jon to visit the Lyons. The visitation included at least one overnight stay a month, four hours on Thanksgiving Day and nine hours on Christmas Eve and Dec. 26.

Warren's adoption of Jon became a source of friction between the Arnolds and the Lyons to the point where the Lyons accused him of severely bruising Jon with a belt buckle. Records show Warren was arrested on Dec. 20, 2007, and charged by State Police with felony child abuse.

Three days later, Robin Lyons filed a domestic violence protective order on Jon's behalf against Warren. Records show Kelly granted the order on Jan. 2, 2008, which barred Warren from having any contact with Jon for 90 days.

The same day Kanawha Family Law Judge Jane Charnock Smallridge granted a writ of habeas corpus Melissa filed for Jon's return from the Lyons' custody. Due to the protective order, Warren had to live elsewhere until April 2008.

A month later the child abuse charge was dropped at the request of Roane County Prosecutor Mark Sergent. In his motion for dismissal, Sergent said, "Further investigation and disclosures revealed the charge is likely baseless."

Following his return to Melissa's custody, records show Jon was interviewed by Dr. Timothy Saar, a Charleston psychologist. In the report he issued in July 2008, Saar found that not only did Jon's bruise come from vigorously playing air hockey at a friend's house, but the Lyons also "forced him to lie to the police and report that his father had hit him."

"Jon was coached by his grandparents into accusing his father of abusing him," Saar concluded in his report. "The manipulation of this cognitively impaired child by his grandparents should be considered emotional abuse and should call into question the [grandparents'] ability to care for this child."

Reversal

Armed with this information, the Arnolds on Dec. 5, 2008, petitioned Kelly to terminate the Lyons' visitation rights. In the course of two hearings, he took testimony from Ashley Hunt, one of Saar's interns, and Charleston attorney Jeff Woods, who was appointed as Jon's guardian ad litem, that based on their interviews with Jon it would not be a good idea for him to stop visiting the Lyons.

Despite also hearing from Saar during one of the hearings, who stood by his assessment that the Lyons' attempt to alienate Jon from Warren was psychologically damaging, Kelly concurred with Hunt's and Woods' recommendation "it would not be in Jon's best interest to terminate his time with his paternal grandparents" and denied the Arnold's petition on Nov. 13, 2009. Records show an appeal they filed of Kelly's decision to Kanawha Circuit Court was upheld by Judge Tod J. Kaufman on Dec. 16, 2009.

In reversing Kelly's decision, the Court said "while it is undisputed that Jon loves his grandparents and that he enjoys his time with them," their interference with the Arnold's parental decisions has created a toxic relationship between them. Because of that, the Court determined Jon's interests are best served by the Lyons forfeiting future visitation with him.

"The family court found," the Court said, "and the circuit court affirmed, 'as fact that it would not be in Jon's best interest to terminate his time with his paternal grandparents.' We find this assertion to be clearly wrong in light of the testimony of Dr. Saar, and in light of the visitation's interference with the parent-child relationship."

"It is clear that Dr. Saar testified that it was in the best interests of Jon to terminate his visitation with his grandparents and that nothing had happened to change his initial conclusions," the Court added. "We agree with Dr. Saar that such an environment is psychologically damaging to Jon and, therefore, it is in Jon's best interests to terminate grandparent visitation."

In the appeal, the Arnolds were represented by Charleston attorney Dennis R. Bailey, and the Lyons by Charles L. "Dusty" Phalen Jr., also of Charleston, and a former family lawmaster.

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 35679

Fathers are as crucial to a child’s well being as a mother

False Allegations Can Terminate Rights

For reasons I’ve never understood, courts have always been loath to punish these exercises in blatant perjury. Well, now they don’t have to. Simple recognition that false allegations that tend to separate a child from a loving and fit parent themselves constitute a form of child abuse will go a long way toward better custody decisions and in the end fewer false allegations of abuse.

Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015

The False Allegations Of Domestic Violence Epidemic ~ #DomesticViolence

The False Allegations Of Domestic Violence Epidemic

It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.

As a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.

Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.

The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.

I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.

Thank you,

Tom Lemons

Founder, www.falsedvireports.com

Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Friday, August 28, 2015

False Allegations The Gordon Smith Story 

Gordon Smith, False Allegation Victim | False Allegations Summit 

THE REAL STORY: THE INEQUITIES OF THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM. 

Where's the Justice? The Miami Herald Reports False Allegations Of Domestic Violence

Parental rights include any legal obligations that go with being a parent...

...such as the right to custody or visitation, the right and obligation to provide financial support, and the obligation to provide the child with proper care and supervision.

Erasing Dad we need your help
Erasing Dad part 2 will be an international documentary exposing the corruption of the family court system the world over and the dangers of parental alienation (when a child is prevented from loving or seeing his or her mom or dad after a divorce). We need volunteers who can help with fundraising, social media, research, translations, setting up projections of the film and press. Please contact us at info@erasingdad.org
Posted by Borrando a Papá on Wednesday, August 26, 2015

New law declares parental rights ‘fundamental’ - RVANews

Quote

Reforming Virginia’s child custody law could significantly help alleviate child-support issues for the majority of divorced and separated families – from both financial and emotional perspectives.

Posted: Saturday, August 29, 2015 10:30 pm

Christian Paasch
As the month of August, which was declared Child Support Enforcement Month by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, winds down, I encourage the citizens of Virginia to honor Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s recent proclamation well beyond the close of this month by supporting initiatives that work in children’s best interests after divorce or separation. 

Gov. McAuliffe’s charge to ensure “that the children of Virginia have the financial security and family support that they need to grow and succeed” supports the work of Virginia’s Child Support Guidelines Review Panel, and I am honored to be have been appointed to this panel.As our state rethinks these guidelines, we should seriously consider an important first step that honors both McAuliffe’s recent charge and President Reagan’s original declaration, which reads that we “must work even harder to ensure that all American children are provided the financial support they deserve.”This simple, first step is to embrace shared parenting — where children spend as much time as possible with each parent — following divorce or separation. Making this change in Virginia’s child custody law could significantly help alleviate child-support issues for the majority of divorced and separated families — from both financial and emotional perspectives.

*** 

Starting July 1st, parents in Virginia will have "a fundamental right" to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care” of their children.

Gov. Bob McDonnell signed two identical bills on the issue: House Bill 1642, sponsored by Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-Williamsburg); and Senate Bill 908, sponsored by Sen. Bryce Reeve (R-Fredericksburg). The bills formally declare parental rights as fundamental, meaning they will have the highest level of legal protection.

“The bill is pre-emptive and will not change any laws in Virginia,” Pogge said in an email. “It will, however, prevent parental rights from being eroded through potential court actions. I am very happy that it was passed and signed. It was important to a lot of people.”

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent Virginia courts from ruling parental rights as “ordinary” rights.

“Fundamental” means these rights cannot be taken away unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. When rights are “ordinary,” the state has more leeway in overriding parents’ decisions.

Using a child as a control mechanism is a domestic violence behavior

Ripped Apart

Divorced dads, domestic violence, and the systemic bias against men in King County family court.

By Nina Shapiro

Jim's first indication that his life was about to be turned upside down came the night he got home from work and was approached by an off-duty sheriff's deputy.

"Are you Jim?" the deputy asked.
"I am," he replied.
The deputy then informed him that not only was he no longer welcome inside his own house, he wasn't allowed even to collect his things. The officer handed him a suitcase his wife had packed and a $3,000 check—also from his wife, who earned far more than he did.
"What are the grounds?" Jim asked.
"It's all in there," the deputy said, thrusting a sheaf of papers into his hand.

The papers informed him his wife was filing for divorce. Worse, she had requested, and been granted, a temporary protection order based on allegations of domestic violence. The order—issued at a hearing that took place without Jim—took effect immediately. It required him to vacate his house and refrain from "any contact whatsoever" with either his wife or his 3-year-old son.

In it, his wife wrote that she felt like she had to "walk on eggshells" around Jim due to his unpredictable temper. He would scream to such an extent that "veins in his neck were bulging" and "spittle from his lips was hitting me in the face." She also described him yelling at their dogs, roughly handling their cat, and driving aggressively and recklessly.

But there's one thing she never claimed—that Jim had ever hit her or their son. Nor did she accuse Jim of threatening either of them.
Jim, an insurance agent periodically unemployed, had at times performed more child-care duties than his wife, according to a court-assigned social worker hired to assess each spouse's parenting skills. 

Observing interactions between Jim and his son, and talking to friends, relatives, and neighbors, she called the bond between them "relatively strong, happy, interactive, comfortable, playful, and full of physical play and affection." Yet it would still take 15 months for Jim to be allowed to have normal visits with his son.

Had he been charged with domestic violence in criminal court, where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the standards of due process are high, this might not have happened. But Jim's fate was decided in a very different venue: family court.

It's a court like no other—a hugely busy and rancorous place where the most personal aspects of people's lives are not only on display, but judged and reshaped in proceedings that often last no longer than 20 minutes. Appointed commissioners, rather than elected judges, make many of the most crucial decisions. And the standard of evidence (known as "preponderance of the evidence") is the lowest allowed by law.