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.
Barbara Kay:
Don’t sell fathers short! They are as crucial to a child’s well being as a mother.
Excerpts:
Babies certainly need their mothers more than their fathers. And mothers may spend more time with their children, as my at-home generation of moms did, or may be more intimately bound up with them emotionally, as I was, in their early years. But over time, as unconditional love becomes but one of many factors in successful maturation, parental influence evens out, and the father’s role can, in the crucially important teen years, be the deciding factor between a youth’s inner fortitude and crippling insecurity.
Motherlessness is an incalculable sorrow in a child’s life. But the absence of a living father is the single greatest predictor for a child’s social and economic failure in adult life (children of loved, prematurely deceased fathers, like Trudeau père, often over-achieve in homage). Conversely, responsible fatherhood is the single greatest predictor for a child’s success.
It is true that fathers abandon or are exiled by family court from their children “all the time,” as Jon notes. But the fact that fatherlessness is common — moreover widely accepted as normal by certain ideologues and, by trickle-down effect, in certain cultural enclaves — makes it no less tragic a loss for every father-deprived child. About a third of American children live apart from their fathers, and in general, they are not doing well.
Girls without fathers are more likely to suffer low self-esteem, become pregnant or embrace promiscuity, while boys without fathers are at risk for a multiplicity of poor outcomes, notably school dropout, gang membership and imprisonment. In black communities, where the epidemic is most acute, fatherlessness is a far more serious obstacle to upward mobility than racism.
Barbara Kay | October 6, 2015 | Last Updated: Oct 7 11:55 AM ETMore from Barbara Kay | @BarbaraRKay
I'm a Daddy and I Know IT! http://bit.ly/1Oqns2S
Posted by David Inguanzo on Friday, October 9, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The loss and suffering caused to families and children by dishonest, biased and punitive family court professionals has...
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Source
I'm a Daddy and I Know IT! http://bit.ly/1Oqns2S
Posted by David Inguanzo on Friday, October 9, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The loss and suffering caused to families and children by dishonest, biased and punitive family court professionals has...
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Review this guide to defending against false allegations. October is "Domestic Violence" month. The goal of this declaration is to raise awareness about the high ...
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, October 13, 2015
A party in a Medical Malpractice case has to get a certificate of merit from a doctor on their claim to proceed. Why not a police certificate for abuse?
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
DeleteAs 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
The Violence Against Women Act Ignores Half the Problem ~ By Anna Rittgers
DeleteThe 2011 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) provides funding for programs to address domestic violence and will expand the act’s provisions to include services for gays and lesbians. Theoretically, male victims of violence are eligible for help, too. But did you know that? I thought not.
The problem with reauthorizing VAWA is that doing so would perpetuate the notion that domestic violence is something that happens only to women. While it is true that VAWA has evolved over time and now ensures that male victims of partner violence can avail themselves of VAWA benefits and services, the very name of the act implies otherwise. It is quite likely that a male victim would not know he can seek help, given the name of the act.
The image of the abuser is almost always a guy. But this simply isn’t the case. One of the pioneers of the study of family violence was sociologist Richard J. Gelles. Gelles wrote a seminal 1999 article for the old Women’s Quarterly, then a publication of the Independent Women’s Forum, on the “hidden victims” of violence.[i] Gelles admitted that 25 years earlier he had overlooked something important when, in the course of doing research, he meet a couple he called Faith and Alan. Faith had been beaten by boyfriends, her ex-husband, and her husband. Faith’s troubles became the focus of Gelles’s article. Gelles barely noted Faith’s violence towards men, which included breaking Alan’s bones and stabbing a man while he read the newspaper. Faith’s violence merited a mere footnote.
We know more about intimate violence directed at men than we did when Gelles wrote his article. But for cultural reasons, it is very difficult for male victims of domestic violence to seek help. Men are seen to be physically stronger than women, and so he should be able to just “take it.” Furthermore, domestic violence awareness campaigns are horribly one-sided, and almost always portray males as the aggressor and females as victim. Police are often hardwired to view men as the perpetrator. If a man calls 911 for help when he’s being attacked by his spouse or partner, he is often subject to arrest, even if he is the only one with physical injuries.
For seventeen years, there has been unequal treatment before the law. Female aggressors are keenly aware of this unequal justice, and a 2010 study on men who sustain abuse at the hands of their female partners discovered that 67.2% reported their female aggressors made false allegations of spousal abuse. [ii] Of those with children, 48.9% of the men reported that their partners made false allegations of child abuse.[iii] In other words, VAWA’s myopic view of who perpetrates domestic violence gives female abusers an additional avenue to torment their spouses.
The name of the Act itself makes it clear that the law’s focus is to address violence against women in particular, not the general problem of domestic violence. The specialized training that judges and law enforcement officers receive ignores the reality that women are as likely as men to be perpetrators of violence. This creates a justice system that treats male aggressors more harshly than female aggressors of the same crime.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."