Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Detouring around Family Law Courts
How those going to family court expecting the government to react any differently than parents expecting church officials to protect their kids, instead, set themselves up for the State to control their daily lives for the next few decades, putting kids at risk, while draining bank accounts . . . and why it will continue until the public learns the Business of Government, is business; is also true in family court.
The answer to the muck of family law is in public education, to bypass the courts if at all possible. Collaborative law, which has closed all family courts in one Canadian province and is gaining ground in this country.
Regarding the latest, child shooting . . .
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/4467647.htm
The California mother who fled family court and straight into the arms of the con artist,
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/4472785.htm is not .
Unlike those utilizing the courts and conned by con artists, working in the court system. I have depositions of, state employees, for the Family Court Services, in San Diego, employed as mediators, with custody decisions made, based on their reports. (In deposition they admited faking their credentials, out of ego), Consider the seventeen year old sniper was brainwashed by the man who lost custody of his kids, the cash cows of the family law industry, The industry is not only, completely unregulated, but a billion dollar business generated entirely by judges.
March - Cover Story of San Diego Magazine
http://www.sandiegomag.com/issues/march02/featurea0302.shtml
The short take on family law is family law is that it's an industry of which kids are the cash cows. Consider the Contra Costa mother with Alameda and San Joaquin County's vendetta against Debra Schmidt, who lost custody to convicted child molester, and spent a year in jail until the appellate court stepped in.
http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2002-06-19/bayview.html/1/index.html
Judges are calling the tune, in a completely unregulated, unreported industry, and the name of the tune is the, Money Tree Shake. Some Florida and Arizona family judges are requiring parents post a hundred percent bond before the courts will let them see their children. Full bonds, not 10%. These bonds are based on "hunches" parents *might* take a child, no crimes committed, a "hunch." One bond was for a small amount, but the other was seventy thousand. (I know the bail agency which wrote both.) Family law, because it is not reported on the business pages, generally escapes the attention of the media . . . who likewise are unaware how two, separate branches of government, law enforcement, and administration, blended.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/domestic.html and http://www.familylawcourts.com/badcop.html
Marin County - Cronyism, no law practiced here
http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2000-10-18/feature.html/print.html
The May 2001, report from the California Judicial Council, confirmed what litigants have known for decades. Quotes from it begin with the most striking:
Page 152
“Court-appointed attorneys and psychologists were seen by all participants as exacerbating conflicts between the parties rather than helping minimize it.”
Eleven court appearances, but Judge refuses to enforce orders he made.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/vista.html
Letter printed in Union-Tribune In other words, the judges are the problem.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/domestic.html
“Almost without exception participants believed there was bias in the system, and cited examples."
For custodial parents, there was an incentive to limit the time of the non-custodial parent to one or two days a week.
Sacramento, more of the same:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-03-21/cover.asp
Eight years of supervised visitation - who benefits from that?
http://www.notverynice.com
It's been going on so long, kids are turning eighteen, and suing their Guardian Ad Litems.
http://www.nationalcoalition.net/News/MarinChildSpeaks.htm
Trevor Nolan, who died within 12 days of a judicial ruling,
http://www.msbp.com/dale.htm
was the inspiration behind
http://www.familylawcourts.com.
The natural expectation after Trevor's death, would be the judge expressed remorse and returned the woman's healthy son to her. He did not. Absent any evidence, the judge reasoned, mother might have neglected her healthy son while tending to her terminally ill son. Although, applying that line of reasoning, the mother would no longer neglect her healthy son as her sick son was now dead. The judge refused to return her surviving child to her. It took a lawsuit and another thirty months, before The State of California was forced to restore the surviving son to his mother. The judge remains on the bench. He was not held accountable by the Commission on Judicial Performance, as in their forty year history, they have removed a grand total of 18 judges, and none from the family court.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/budget.html
Not only are more and more family law cases are winding up in criminal courts...women who report abuse are getting arrested And losing custody of their kids; as the below study from the National Resource Center on Violence, demonstrates.
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet/custody.doc
There are a number of sources, attorneys, victims, kids, willing to speak out,
http://www.familylawcourts.com/kidsspeak.html
but frankly, the business of government is business; and until the people simply don't go, having found another way to untagle their lives . . . curbing the money flow, reducing the income source, won't happen. However, once people chose not to to court first, everything will change. The court option should be the very last option taken.
How quickly does it go bad? - A sampling:
Losing all parental rights in forty-eight hours.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/03/ctv.nanny/index.html
Losing children from a landlord–tenant dispute.
http://www.thewpbfchannel.com/wpb/news/stories/news-162295820020820-110847.html
It gets worse. The number of children brainwashed by one parent against the other, and eliminated from the life of the child; is staggering. The ABA distributes a gem of a book, "Children Held Hostage" which not only describes how and why an embittered parent turns their child against the targeted parent, but is very clear in another area: judges don't want to deal with it, and aren't equipped to.
Collaborative Law is the solution. Divorce for thousands less, and protect everyone's emotional health. Details are available, but because the folks practicing aren't the best in bad public relations, few are aware where to obtain information.
Regarding the latest, child shooting . . .
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/4467647.htm
The California mother who fled family court and straight into the arms of the con artist,
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/4472785.htm is not .
Unlike those utilizing the courts and conned by con artists, working in the court system. I have depositions of, state employees, for the Family Court Services, in San Diego, employed as mediators, with custody decisions made, based on their reports. (In deposition they admited faking their credentials, out of ego), Consider the seventeen year old sniper was brainwashed by the man who lost custody of his kids, the cash cows of the family law industry, The industry is not only, completely unregulated, but a billion dollar business generated entirely by judges.
March - Cover Story of San Diego Magazine
http://www.sandiegomag.com/issues/march02/featurea0302.shtml
The short take on family law is family law is that it's an industry of which kids are the cash cows. Consider the Contra Costa mother with Alameda and San Joaquin County's vendetta against Debra Schmidt, who lost custody to convicted child molester, and spent a year in jail until the appellate court stepped in.
http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2002-06-19/bayview.html/1/index.html
Judges are calling the tune, in a completely unregulated, unreported industry, and the name of the tune is the, Money Tree Shake. Some Florida and Arizona family judges are requiring parents post a hundred percent bond before the courts will let them see their children. Full bonds, not 10%. These bonds are based on "hunches" parents *might* take a child, no crimes committed, a "hunch." One bond was for a small amount, but the other was seventy thousand. (I know the bail agency which wrote both.) Family law, because it is not reported on the business pages, generally escapes the attention of the media . . . who likewise are unaware how two, separate branches of government, law enforcement, and administration, blended.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/domestic.html and http://www.familylawcourts.com/badcop.html
Marin County - Cronyism, no law practiced here
http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2000-10-18/feature.html/print.html
The May 2001, report from the California Judicial Council, confirmed what litigants have known for decades. Quotes from it begin with the most striking:
Page 152
“Court-appointed attorneys and psychologists were seen by all participants as exacerbating conflicts between the parties rather than helping minimize it.”
Eleven court appearances, but Judge refuses to enforce orders he made.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/vista.html
Letter printed in Union-Tribune In other words, the judges are the problem.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/domestic.html
“Almost without exception participants believed there was bias in the system, and cited examples."
For custodial parents, there was an incentive to limit the time of the non-custodial parent to one or two days a week.
Sacramento, more of the same:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-03-21/cover.asp
Eight years of supervised visitation - who benefits from that?
http://www.notverynice.com
It's been going on so long, kids are turning eighteen, and suing their Guardian Ad Litems.
http://www.nationalcoalition.net/News/MarinChildSpeaks.htm
Trevor Nolan, who died within 12 days of a judicial ruling,
http://www.msbp.com/dale.htm
was the inspiration behind
http://www.familylawcourts.com.
The natural expectation after Trevor's death, would be the judge expressed remorse and returned the woman's healthy son to her. He did not. Absent any evidence, the judge reasoned, mother might have neglected her healthy son while tending to her terminally ill son. Although, applying that line of reasoning, the mother would no longer neglect her healthy son as her sick son was now dead. The judge refused to return her surviving child to her. It took a lawsuit and another thirty months, before The State of California was forced to restore the surviving son to his mother. The judge remains on the bench. He was not held accountable by the Commission on Judicial Performance, as in their forty year history, they have removed a grand total of 18 judges, and none from the family court.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/budget.html
Not only are more and more family law cases are winding up in criminal courts...women who report abuse are getting arrested And losing custody of their kids; as the below study from the National Resource Center on Violence, demonstrates.
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet/custody.doc
There are a number of sources, attorneys, victims, kids, willing to speak out,
http://www.familylawcourts.com/kidsspeak.html
but frankly, the business of government is business; and until the people simply don't go, having found another way to untagle their lives . . . curbing the money flow, reducing the income source, won't happen. However, once people chose not to to court first, everything will change. The court option should be the very last option taken.
How quickly does it go bad? - A sampling:
Losing all parental rights in forty-eight hours.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/03/ctv.nanny/index.html
Losing children from a landlord–tenant dispute.
http://www.thewpbfchannel.com/wpb/news/stories/news-162295820020820-110847.html
It gets worse. The number of children brainwashed by one parent against the other, and eliminated from the life of the child; is staggering. The ABA distributes a gem of a book, "Children Held Hostage" which not only describes how and why an embittered parent turns their child against the targeted parent, but is very clear in another area: judges don't want to deal with it, and aren't equipped to.
Collaborative Law is the solution. Divorce for thousands less, and protect everyone's emotional health. Details are available, but because the folks practicing aren't the best in bad public relations, few are aware where to obtain information.
For more information:
http://www.familylawcourts.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Newspapers generally protect the names of the judges, but attorney Bill Baber, of San Diego is the attorney who filed the suit. He would know.
LA Judge Evina Bobb, is the LA judge who refused to speak to the ten year old girl, who wrote and asked her not to make her go with her father. Bobb blew the girl away first, her father blew her away, and himself, later.
The court spokesperson said it wasn't customary for judges to speak to children.
He actually thought that was a proper response.
Alameda Judge Donald Squires was the judge who didn't allow the jury in the Debra Schmidt case to know the father had pled guilty to child molesting...before a woman San Joacquin commissioner awarded him custody.
Largely the people of the State of California, not involved in family court don't care.
LA Judge Evina Bobb, is the LA judge who refused to speak to the ten year old girl, who wrote and asked her not to make her go with her father. Bobb blew the girl away first, her father blew her away, and himself, later.
The court spokesperson said it wasn't customary for judges to speak to children.
He actually thought that was a proper response.
Alameda Judge Donald Squires was the judge who didn't allow the jury in the Debra Schmidt case to know the father had pled guilty to child molesting...before a woman San Joacquin commissioner awarded him custody.
Largely the people of the State of California, not involved in family court don't care.
Would someone please put the "family" back in Family Law?
It is a system gone badly awry. May I kindly ask you to consider this for an Op-Ed submission?
What do Microsoft and the practice of Family Law have in common?
Both are in industries that make a lot of money for attorneys feeding from their offal.
Last year, over $8 billion was paid to attorneys who practice Family Law.
Jilted spouses and abandoned plaintiffs will readily concede that they were worth every dime. Who can argue when the battle is joined in the interests of providing for the reasonable needs of the marital children?
The conflict is often a titanic struggle. To the victor goes the spoils.
Lawyers skilled in the fine art of discovery lay open the financial affairs of private individuals and arrange them on a platter with all the flair of a master chef. Opposing attorneys agree to argue, for an advance retainer, the benefits of orthodontics, the requirement of psychological counseling, the long-term effects of fecal-retention syndrome, and the doubtful merits of Missy’s horseback riding lessons.
Before you know it, you’ve run up a hefty six figure legal bill and a visitation schedule that is more complex than the 1991 battle plans for “Operation Desert Storm”.
I should know. My ex-spouse’s divorce tagged me for nearly $120,000 in legal and professional fees. It destroyed two professional practices and cost me my job at a third. The action followed me for six years from North Carolina to California then back to Pennsylvania. It froze my bank accounts, my investment accounts, my pension accounts, and resulted in the cancellation of $1.2 million in life insurance trusts for the benefit of my children.
Much to their misfortune, those events are going to adversely affect the welfare of my children for the rest of their lives.
It is a system gone badly awry.
The tactics long-employed by pugnacious law firms but previously reserved for drug cartels have become so effective in Family Court matters that they were recently adopted by the United States government in order to apprehend high-profile corporate criminals and foreign terrorists.
Somebody ought to put the interests of the family back in Family Law.
That’s hard to do in states where Attorney Generals are stumping for re-election, where the legislators in many states are attorneys, where member firms support the local legal society, where judges who were once attorneys at these member firms establish case law and precedent, and when there’s so darn much money to be made.
It is a regular feeding frenzy. The participants in Family Court actions are not only viewed as cannon fodder but also as a recurring source of legal fees. Are you an attorney looking to buy another vacation home? Just file half-a-dozen motions this afternoon. Are private school tuition payments due for your children? Pull out your “out-of-state dads” file and go for a few default judgments.
The stock boom of the 1990’s did more than increase the size of many marital estates. It also increased the motivation of parties in this now flagging economy to defend a right to their fair share of the spoils. Even if the spoils no longer exist.
Although the stock market Crash of 2000 may likely be remembered for the torrid cash burn rates that preceded the Internet Bubble’s “busted flush”, the practice of Family Law appears to be flourishing. In fact, it has become a veritable billing field.
The children are the innocent casualties.
Parenting, as I knew it before my divorce, was a shared responsibility. It still is. Somewhere along the way, the courts appear to have ruled that only a father had the responsibility to support the children. This seems odd, particularly when college-educated, income-producing women often play an active role in managing the fuse on their biological clocks.
When a mother who has neatly painted herself into the “I am a victim of the other woman” corner goes to court, at what point does she become responsible for financially supporting the children and accountable for carrying out a legal vendetta that results in the total destruction of the family father figure?
Justifiably, some deadbeat dads need to be drawn and quartered. Their children will one day become future citizens, taxpayers, and more likely than not, parents of the same. Somebody needs to discipline these dads about their financial responsibilities. If you can’t support your children, you shouldn’t have them.
The same goes for women.
The recent perp walks by deadbeat dads and their public spanking not only reinforced the notion of the FBI’s mastery in solving domestic crime, but it also made moms everywhere feel good.
The return to “family values” momentarily appeased even those who were disappointed in the efforts of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and combined United States Armed Forces to locate and apprehend Osama bin Laden. Victimized spouses short on shopping funds and long on their credit cards agree that nailing those domestic terrorists masquerading as deadbeat dads was good for the country.
And it taught all a lesson that American soccer moms, comfortably ensconced in their SUV’s and standing firmly behind their bulldog attorneys at local Family Courts, are not to be trifled with or taken lightly.
I had no idea of any of this in 1962 as I fervently recited the “Pledge of Allegiance” in Mrs. Reed’s 4th grade class. Even those “get under the desk, close your eyes, and turn away from the window” drills for that extra margin of safety in a nuclear blast provided no hint of the scorched earth tactics that would be used against me during my divorce thirty-five years later.
These days, a new legal landscape has been carved in the heart out of this once-fine country.
I asked my mom, now age 77 and who single-handedly raised five children after my dad died of a heart attack after nine years of battling kidney failure, how she would have faired if the specter of legal blather from Family Law attorneys were added to her pile. She replied, “Honey, the Family Law industry didn’t exist when your dad and I were married. We never knew anyone who needed the counsel of an attorney in handling a divorce. That’s what friends were for.”
My, how times have changed.
Today I am nearly penniless and barely breathing after the nightmare of the last six years. Even the U.S. government’s legal spat with Microsoft’s ambition of owning the computing world was resolved in less time.
The results of my seventeenth hearing in the North Carolina Family Court system on August 2, 2002, now attorney “pro se” because I can no longer afford to pay for one, left me feeling as though I’d been teleported to a pro-Taliban high counsel in Kandahar wearing an American flag and a “kick me” sign.
These days, a totally different dynamic is in place in most family court systems where any semblance of justice has been tainted by biased judges, greedy attorneys, and intractable ex-spouses. Can anyone explain to me how the tactics of these individuals are different from al Qaida who have pledged Jihad?
Although the scandal within the Family Court system erupted a long time ago, the results currently meted out by some Courts have become more lop-sided than a Duke University v. Radnor High School basketball game and nearly as predictable as Big Ten officiating.
It is no surprise that the stink in some courtroom decisions suggests the process has even become more corrupt and dirtier than politics.
Yet these metaphors do not hold a candle when describing the “home court” advantage afforded Wake County residents in the North Carolina Family Court system. Particularly when the opponent is an out-of-state dad wearing a scarlet letter “A” on his jersey and who lied about it his first appearance in court.
Am I the only individual in the country who was ashamed to admit such an indiscretion and a breach of the “for better or for worse” marital vows?
Right. I thought as much.
Caught in the undertow of an unforgiving stock market, an unmercifully harsh economic climate, and a job market that exists only in the minds of a few, I still paid child support. Only after depleting all of my savings and exhausting all other alternatives, I filed a “Motion to Reduce” child support in September, 2001.
I needed the reduction for several reasons.
Three years is a long time for a brutal bear market.
My misplaced belief in the “independent” advice of Morgan Stanley’s Mary Meeker, Merrill Lynch’s Henry Blodgett, and Gruntal’s Joe Battapaglia caught me flat-footed when the bottom fell out of the market. The doubtful veracity of corporate financial results filed with the SEC and the talking heads on CNBC added fuel to the fire and incinerated in a few short months a net worth that had taken thirty years to build.
My average income for the last three years has been $14,000. I have no house, a negative net worth, and drive a car with 170,000 miles on the odometer. Although the utilities are current, I have not had the money to pay rent for several months.
After retaining an executive counseling firm, applying to over 6,000 jobs, paying nearly $20,000 in job hunting expenses, and taking interviews in eight different states without an offer, I had run out of money.
Newspaper headlines across the country seemed to agree that the economy had also run out of jobs.
It just simply was not possible to pay $2,000 per month in child support for four children and an additional $350 or so for medical expenses on what I was making. Those amounts were more than I earned. How was I to pay for visitation expenses? How was I to live? How was I to render unto Caesar the requisite federal and state income taxes?
Even when the children were with me for the summer, I still had to pay child support to their mother. Does that make sense to anyone?
My ex-spouse was a college graduate, had in excess of $600,000 in assets, a house that was fully paid for, and an income producing job that paid her $21,000 this past year. She also had in me an ex-spouse who drove over 40,000 miles the last three years to visit his four children during the one weekend per month permitted by the court. When times were better, I had paid over $110,000 in previous child support, alimony, and medical reimbursements.
You should have heard her howling in court the moment after the judge dismissed my motion for temporary reprieve. Her invective-laced sobbing accompanied by screams of relief made you wonder about her motives during her victory lap.
The choreography was superb.
It was a public display of a hate so criminal that it should have been jailed. It froze the bailiff in his tracks and stunned the gallery in the court. The judge waved a finger at me and said: “If you say one word, ONE WORD, you are going down.”
How appropriate it occurred in North Carolina, land of lynching repute.
The judge’s ruling was based on the Wolf case that was decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 16, 2002.
In that appellate case, the court refused to modify support determined on the basis of an individual’s earning capacity instead of his actual income.
How that case applied to me was anybody’s guess. I had logged over 2,000 hours looking for additional work in the aftermath of my job termination through sanctioned Family Court action, the Stock Market Crash of 2000, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the longest recession on record since the Great Depression. I provided over 1,500 pages of job listings, emails, rejection letters, and many of the financial documents that supported my efforts to demonstrate that my circumstances had indeed changed.
Surely some form relief was warranted.
Like many American citizens these days, I was involuntarily underemployed, not unemployed. So too were hundreds of thousands of other well-educated individuals in the wakes of the Enron, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, World Com, and Tyco debacles. So were those individuals laid off or who had their hours reduced from nearly every major company in the United States. The sectors included the telecom, airline, investment banking, venture capital, and brokerage industries and nearly every other as companies downsized and attempted to “cut” their way to a profit.
Equally unemployed were many of the good citizens of North Carolina, which, according to the September 2002 Bureau Labor of Statistics had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
But if anybody was wondering about the justice for out-of-state dads in the North Carolina Family Court system, well now, there is no longer any need to wonder.
There is simply no justice for out-of-state dads where the North Carolina Family Courts are concerned. The recent decision in my hearing rendered by the Wake County Family Court judiciary has cast doubt upon the veracity of their entire legal system.
The court once again deviated from their own guidelines for support and ordered me to pay $2,000 per month plus all medical. How is such a decision possible for a dad with no home, no net assets, and no money?
There is, of course, much more to the story.
The Wake County North Carolina Family Court system feeds those who make their living frequenting the court rooms on the 8th and 9th floors and the judge’s chambers. In fact, the system exists to feed itself. Attorneys with their over-sized legal bills always stand at the front of the line.
The system takes money from their dad and gives it to their mom with virtually no accountability. Despite the overly generous amounts I have paid in child support, their mother has been starving them. She testified she spends $350 per month on food for one adult, three teenagers, and an eleven year-old. She has made them buy their own clothes, intercepted my letters to them, withheld their “CARE” packages, and routinely made them unavailable for visitation.
On one occasion, I flew from California to North Carolina for my court-approved visitation only to find the house dark and empty. Her boyfriend had taken my kids and her to a concert.
I will be the first to say that she has been a real pain.
During the last six years, I have appeared in front of three different judges in the North Carolina Courts as an out-of-state dad in what has now become seventeen hearings. I have lost every one: the fourteen I had when I could afford an attorney and the three that I had when I could not.
I have appeared in court by flying six times from San Francisco, a 5,600 mile round trip, and by driving eleven times from Philadelphia, an 850 mile, sixteen hour drive.
That’s 33,600 miles of flying and 9,350 miles of driving to attend Family Court hearings. Three hearings were continued. On one occasion, although the Plaintiff’s attorney appeared, the Plaintiff did not, hoping for the convenience of a default judgment.
It gets better.
I filed the Motion for Change in Circumstance on September 30, 2001. Although the Plaintiff and her attorney appeared in court on November 6, 2001, they requested additional time and the judge granted their motion. One more wasted drive. The plaintiff’s attorney took my telephone number and deftly handed me his business card with the invitation to call so we could coordinate our schedules.
But all I got from his secretary when I called was that he didn’t have his calendar with him. Apparently, ever.
During the next 210 days, the Plaintiff’s attorney refused to answer any of my correspondence or take any of my telephone calls to discuss the case. Seven months later, having failed to obtain my day in court, I filed a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar citing unethical behavior on the part of the attorney. I provided copies of my phone records to the law office where I left nearly a dozen different messages as well as certified mailing receipts. After a pro-forma investigation, the North Carolina State Bar determined there was no basis for my claim.
During the May 6, 2002 hearing which was again continued to a later date, the Plaintiff’s attorney told the Court I had been in Raleigh, North Carolina visiting my children and that I had hardly been inconvenienced by driving 850 miles for the scheduled hearing.
It was a lie, and of course, I told the judge so. I had the toll booth receipts in my car from that morning’s 425 mile drive. The Ft. McHenry tunnel receipt in Baltimore, Maryland and exactly one hundred miles outside of Philadelphia is nearly one-quarter of the way to Raleigh, the capital of the Tar Heel state and home of the infamous Wake County Family Court.
I pointed to the attorney and called him a liar. The judge told me to sit down and shut up or I was going to jail.
Properly chastised, I filed a second complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against the Plaintiff’s attorney citing the lie. I also provided copies of toll booth receipts for the Delaware Turnpike and Ft. McHenry tunnel. After a second pro-forma investigation, the North Carolina State Bar determined there was no basis for my claim.
“No foxes in this henhouse,” said the fox.
On September 6, 2002, over eleven months after I filed my motion, the case was heard. How Pollyannaish was it of me to think that justice might be blind? But then again, perhaps it was merely short-sighted.
The plaintiff’s attorney reveled in my job misfortunes and my failure to produce a greater income. Theoretically, I should be making a much higher wage as an MBA and CPA. It didn’t matter that fifty year old MBA’s were a dime a dozen or that thousands of CPA’s were out of work.
Reasonable people would agree that hypothetical earnings should not count for much unless child support can also be paid with hypothetical dollars. They have learned that lesson from World Com’s smorgasbord of income manipulation that hid over $9 billion in real operating losses with theoretical accounting adjustments.
The attorney on the other side of the aisle objected to substantially all of the evidence I attempted to enter into the court record. The judge largely agreed. He didn’t want to slog through the more than 1,500 pages of discovery I had been asked to provide. Besides, he was on his way to lunch with another judge, and clearly had no time, patience, or sympathy for an underemployed, out-of-state dad.
He instructed me to pick one of the documents and he would allow that document into evidence.
After his lunch, in no uncertain terms, he denied my claim for relief. He also denied the Plaintiff’s claim for legal fees. The judge also instructed the Plaintiff’s attorney to draft a proposed order and mail it to the applicable parties for review.
Five days after I received the proposed order, I provided an alternative proposed order. I faxed it to the judge and mailed it via first class mail to the Plaintiff’s attorney.
A week later, with neither order entered by the court, imagine my dismay to find a new “Motion to Show Cause” in my mailbox. A nice transmittal letter was attached. It stated there would be other follow-on motions filed by the Plaintiff’s attorney. Although readily admitting the recent order had not been entered in court, they also demanded their legal fees. My estimate of their fees for this action was something on the order of $8-12,000.
I could spend 100% of my time just answering their motions and driving back and forth to court. How does that benefit my children?
Unfortunately for the attorney involved, he also should also have requested a peer review by the North Carolina State Bar since many of the dates in the new motion citing previous orders were wrong. They even cited references to 1992 court orders pertaining to my case. I was still married in 1992 and at least five years away from the receipt of their first legal letter.
It is absolutely amazing the kind of legal drivel you can churn out with a good secretary and word processor. The regularity of these harrassive motions, unlike the regularity of a good bowel movement, is enough to torture my honest soul. But if this is what Alan Greenspan had in mind the day he begrudgingly acknowledged an increase in productivity, then will somebody please take me back to the Stone Age?
I filed my third complaint to the North Carolina State Bar as a result of this new motion which appeared to be crafted from some prior, unknown, but “it’s stored-on-the-computer-so-let’s-use-it” filing.
The toxic forum provided for out-of-state dads by the Wake County North Carolina Family Court System has all but strangled the life out of me. While it has been a regular ATM machine for the attorneys and law firms involved, it has taken its toll on all of us. What remains of “the family”, the children included, is weary of the process.
A sympathetic police chief and friend of long stature tracked me down, wondering why those whose company we once enjoyed had not heard from me. For years.
I provided him with the 10,000 foot “fly-by” version of my story. With good intentions, he offered a remarkably simple solution. “One of my deputies is going through a divorce. I suggested the 20-50 plan: pay $20K for a Harley and $50 for a sleeping bag. You need to serve me? Then find me.”
That, of course, works for awhile. As long as you don’t have kids that you’re just madly in love with that are held hostage by some Family Court order. I had ruled that option out years ago. Besides, these days, I couldn’t afford to pay for even a used Vespa.
“But child support is based on income. They can’t take more than you make.”
In North Carolina, oh yes they can.
This past summer, my oldest daughter filled a backpack with her precious things, called a cab from her mother’s home, and took the train out of Raleigh to live with her dad. She attends public school in Philadelphia. It marked a turning point in her life where the detritus of her mother’s unfettered enmity towards her father finally drove her away. In a few short years, her siblings may follow.
I don’t know that I would have had the courage at age 17 to make such a decision.
She is doing very well, thank you, without the benefit of the faulty vision of the North Carolina Family Court judiciary system. The recent motions filed by her mother conspicuously omit the fact that the oldest daughter has been living with her dad for the last five months.
This year I have worked four jobs: as a web site writer, as an accountant, a handyman, and a painter. I celebrated my 50th birthday on September 17, 2002 at the top of a twenty-eight foot ladder painting the trim on a warehouse in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
I have been reduced to selling personal items on eBay in order to pay for some of the past due child support. Holiday and birthday gifts may have to wait a few years. Be sure you bookmark my auctions. I would greatly appreciate it.
I am still battling with the Internal Revenue Service over the exemption for the children. My ex-spouse mistakenly believes she is entitled to take them as dependency exemptions on her income tax return and has done so since 1998. She earned no money and received the appropriate amount of child support. Although I have been a practicing CPA the last 24 years, I simply am incapable of understanding the IRS’s reasoning.
It is a darn shame that I am still required by North Carolina to pay an ex-spouse child support for a child who is no longer living with her. Especially since my daughter has SAT’s and college application fees coming up.
Don’t even start with me about how I plan to pay for her college.
The punishment to my daughter does not fit the crime. In fact, she committed no crime. She simply loves her dad. And I need her. She has been a delight in my life. One day, all my kids will somehow grow up and make their own decisions. Yours will too.
Wherever I live, the “Welcome” mat for my children is always out.
But what do you do about “Hairbow” hate crimes still hiding behind the skirts of Family Court systems? It is indeed unfortunate for the civilized members of society that the judges and bottom-feeders at the Family Court trough have yet to realize that they have exacerbated the problem.
I am now “on the record” with my opinion that North Carolina is a state in which backwater court decisions are passed off as justice to those who feed within the system. If you are ever an out-of-state dad, you will find no justice waiting there for you.
You ought to give that matter some serious thought before you consider moving to North Carolina. It can be a nice place to visit. But would you really want to live there?
It is a system gone badly awry. May I kindly ask you to consider this for an Op-Ed submission?
What do Microsoft and the practice of Family Law have in common?
Both are in industries that make a lot of money for attorneys feeding from their offal.
Last year, over $8 billion was paid to attorneys who practice Family Law.
Jilted spouses and abandoned plaintiffs will readily concede that they were worth every dime. Who can argue when the battle is joined in the interests of providing for the reasonable needs of the marital children?
The conflict is often a titanic struggle. To the victor goes the spoils.
Lawyers skilled in the fine art of discovery lay open the financial affairs of private individuals and arrange them on a platter with all the flair of a master chef. Opposing attorneys agree to argue, for an advance retainer, the benefits of orthodontics, the requirement of psychological counseling, the long-term effects of fecal-retention syndrome, and the doubtful merits of Missy’s horseback riding lessons.
Before you know it, you’ve run up a hefty six figure legal bill and a visitation schedule that is more complex than the 1991 battle plans for “Operation Desert Storm”.
I should know. My ex-spouse’s divorce tagged me for nearly $120,000 in legal and professional fees. It destroyed two professional practices and cost me my job at a third. The action followed me for six years from North Carolina to California then back to Pennsylvania. It froze my bank accounts, my investment accounts, my pension accounts, and resulted in the cancellation of $1.2 million in life insurance trusts for the benefit of my children.
Much to their misfortune, those events are going to adversely affect the welfare of my children for the rest of their lives.
It is a system gone badly awry.
The tactics long-employed by pugnacious law firms but previously reserved for drug cartels have become so effective in Family Court matters that they were recently adopted by the United States government in order to apprehend high-profile corporate criminals and foreign terrorists.
Somebody ought to put the interests of the family back in Family Law.
That’s hard to do in states where Attorney Generals are stumping for re-election, where the legislators in many states are attorneys, where member firms support the local legal society, where judges who were once attorneys at these member firms establish case law and precedent, and when there’s so darn much money to be made.
It is a regular feeding frenzy. The participants in Family Court actions are not only viewed as cannon fodder but also as a recurring source of legal fees. Are you an attorney looking to buy another vacation home? Just file half-a-dozen motions this afternoon. Are private school tuition payments due for your children? Pull out your “out-of-state dads” file and go for a few default judgments.
The stock boom of the 1990’s did more than increase the size of many marital estates. It also increased the motivation of parties in this now flagging economy to defend a right to their fair share of the spoils. Even if the spoils no longer exist.
Although the stock market Crash of 2000 may likely be remembered for the torrid cash burn rates that preceded the Internet Bubble’s “busted flush”, the practice of Family Law appears to be flourishing. In fact, it has become a veritable billing field.
The children are the innocent casualties.
Parenting, as I knew it before my divorce, was a shared responsibility. It still is. Somewhere along the way, the courts appear to have ruled that only a father had the responsibility to support the children. This seems odd, particularly when college-educated, income-producing women often play an active role in managing the fuse on their biological clocks.
When a mother who has neatly painted herself into the “I am a victim of the other woman” corner goes to court, at what point does she become responsible for financially supporting the children and accountable for carrying out a legal vendetta that results in the total destruction of the family father figure?
Justifiably, some deadbeat dads need to be drawn and quartered. Their children will one day become future citizens, taxpayers, and more likely than not, parents of the same. Somebody needs to discipline these dads about their financial responsibilities. If you can’t support your children, you shouldn’t have them.
The same goes for women.
The recent perp walks by deadbeat dads and their public spanking not only reinforced the notion of the FBI’s mastery in solving domestic crime, but it also made moms everywhere feel good.
The return to “family values” momentarily appeased even those who were disappointed in the efforts of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and combined United States Armed Forces to locate and apprehend Osama bin Laden. Victimized spouses short on shopping funds and long on their credit cards agree that nailing those domestic terrorists masquerading as deadbeat dads was good for the country.
And it taught all a lesson that American soccer moms, comfortably ensconced in their SUV’s and standing firmly behind their bulldog attorneys at local Family Courts, are not to be trifled with or taken lightly.
I had no idea of any of this in 1962 as I fervently recited the “Pledge of Allegiance” in Mrs. Reed’s 4th grade class. Even those “get under the desk, close your eyes, and turn away from the window” drills for that extra margin of safety in a nuclear blast provided no hint of the scorched earth tactics that would be used against me during my divorce thirty-five years later.
These days, a new legal landscape has been carved in the heart out of this once-fine country.
I asked my mom, now age 77 and who single-handedly raised five children after my dad died of a heart attack after nine years of battling kidney failure, how she would have faired if the specter of legal blather from Family Law attorneys were added to her pile. She replied, “Honey, the Family Law industry didn’t exist when your dad and I were married. We never knew anyone who needed the counsel of an attorney in handling a divorce. That’s what friends were for.”
My, how times have changed.
Today I am nearly penniless and barely breathing after the nightmare of the last six years. Even the U.S. government’s legal spat with Microsoft’s ambition of owning the computing world was resolved in less time.
The results of my seventeenth hearing in the North Carolina Family Court system on August 2, 2002, now attorney “pro se” because I can no longer afford to pay for one, left me feeling as though I’d been teleported to a pro-Taliban high counsel in Kandahar wearing an American flag and a “kick me” sign.
These days, a totally different dynamic is in place in most family court systems where any semblance of justice has been tainted by biased judges, greedy attorneys, and intractable ex-spouses. Can anyone explain to me how the tactics of these individuals are different from al Qaida who have pledged Jihad?
Although the scandal within the Family Court system erupted a long time ago, the results currently meted out by some Courts have become more lop-sided than a Duke University v. Radnor High School basketball game and nearly as predictable as Big Ten officiating.
It is no surprise that the stink in some courtroom decisions suggests the process has even become more corrupt and dirtier than politics.
Yet these metaphors do not hold a candle when describing the “home court” advantage afforded Wake County residents in the North Carolina Family Court system. Particularly when the opponent is an out-of-state dad wearing a scarlet letter “A” on his jersey and who lied about it his first appearance in court.
Am I the only individual in the country who was ashamed to admit such an indiscretion and a breach of the “for better or for worse” marital vows?
Right. I thought as much.
Caught in the undertow of an unforgiving stock market, an unmercifully harsh economic climate, and a job market that exists only in the minds of a few, I still paid child support. Only after depleting all of my savings and exhausting all other alternatives, I filed a “Motion to Reduce” child support in September, 2001.
I needed the reduction for several reasons.
Three years is a long time for a brutal bear market.
My misplaced belief in the “independent” advice of Morgan Stanley’s Mary Meeker, Merrill Lynch’s Henry Blodgett, and Gruntal’s Joe Battapaglia caught me flat-footed when the bottom fell out of the market. The doubtful veracity of corporate financial results filed with the SEC and the talking heads on CNBC added fuel to the fire and incinerated in a few short months a net worth that had taken thirty years to build.
My average income for the last three years has been $14,000. I have no house, a negative net worth, and drive a car with 170,000 miles on the odometer. Although the utilities are current, I have not had the money to pay rent for several months.
After retaining an executive counseling firm, applying to over 6,000 jobs, paying nearly $20,000 in job hunting expenses, and taking interviews in eight different states without an offer, I had run out of money.
Newspaper headlines across the country seemed to agree that the economy had also run out of jobs.
It just simply was not possible to pay $2,000 per month in child support for four children and an additional $350 or so for medical expenses on what I was making. Those amounts were more than I earned. How was I to pay for visitation expenses? How was I to live? How was I to render unto Caesar the requisite federal and state income taxes?
Even when the children were with me for the summer, I still had to pay child support to their mother. Does that make sense to anyone?
My ex-spouse was a college graduate, had in excess of $600,000 in assets, a house that was fully paid for, and an income producing job that paid her $21,000 this past year. She also had in me an ex-spouse who drove over 40,000 miles the last three years to visit his four children during the one weekend per month permitted by the court. When times were better, I had paid over $110,000 in previous child support, alimony, and medical reimbursements.
You should have heard her howling in court the moment after the judge dismissed my motion for temporary reprieve. Her invective-laced sobbing accompanied by screams of relief made you wonder about her motives during her victory lap.
The choreography was superb.
It was a public display of a hate so criminal that it should have been jailed. It froze the bailiff in his tracks and stunned the gallery in the court. The judge waved a finger at me and said: “If you say one word, ONE WORD, you are going down.”
How appropriate it occurred in North Carolina, land of lynching repute.
The judge’s ruling was based on the Wolf case that was decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 16, 2002.
In that appellate case, the court refused to modify support determined on the basis of an individual’s earning capacity instead of his actual income.
How that case applied to me was anybody’s guess. I had logged over 2,000 hours looking for additional work in the aftermath of my job termination through sanctioned Family Court action, the Stock Market Crash of 2000, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the longest recession on record since the Great Depression. I provided over 1,500 pages of job listings, emails, rejection letters, and many of the financial documents that supported my efforts to demonstrate that my circumstances had indeed changed.
Surely some form relief was warranted.
Like many American citizens these days, I was involuntarily underemployed, not unemployed. So too were hundreds of thousands of other well-educated individuals in the wakes of the Enron, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, World Com, and Tyco debacles. So were those individuals laid off or who had their hours reduced from nearly every major company in the United States. The sectors included the telecom, airline, investment banking, venture capital, and brokerage industries and nearly every other as companies downsized and attempted to “cut” their way to a profit.
Equally unemployed were many of the good citizens of North Carolina, which, according to the September 2002 Bureau Labor of Statistics had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
But if anybody was wondering about the justice for out-of-state dads in the North Carolina Family Court system, well now, there is no longer any need to wonder.
There is simply no justice for out-of-state dads where the North Carolina Family Courts are concerned. The recent decision in my hearing rendered by the Wake County Family Court judiciary has cast doubt upon the veracity of their entire legal system.
The court once again deviated from their own guidelines for support and ordered me to pay $2,000 per month plus all medical. How is such a decision possible for a dad with no home, no net assets, and no money?
There is, of course, much more to the story.
The Wake County North Carolina Family Court system feeds those who make their living frequenting the court rooms on the 8th and 9th floors and the judge’s chambers. In fact, the system exists to feed itself. Attorneys with their over-sized legal bills always stand at the front of the line.
The system takes money from their dad and gives it to their mom with virtually no accountability. Despite the overly generous amounts I have paid in child support, their mother has been starving them. She testified she spends $350 per month on food for one adult, three teenagers, and an eleven year-old. She has made them buy their own clothes, intercepted my letters to them, withheld their “CARE” packages, and routinely made them unavailable for visitation.
On one occasion, I flew from California to North Carolina for my court-approved visitation only to find the house dark and empty. Her boyfriend had taken my kids and her to a concert.
I will be the first to say that she has been a real pain.
During the last six years, I have appeared in front of three different judges in the North Carolina Courts as an out-of-state dad in what has now become seventeen hearings. I have lost every one: the fourteen I had when I could afford an attorney and the three that I had when I could not.
I have appeared in court by flying six times from San Francisco, a 5,600 mile round trip, and by driving eleven times from Philadelphia, an 850 mile, sixteen hour drive.
That’s 33,600 miles of flying and 9,350 miles of driving to attend Family Court hearings. Three hearings were continued. On one occasion, although the Plaintiff’s attorney appeared, the Plaintiff did not, hoping for the convenience of a default judgment.
It gets better.
I filed the Motion for Change in Circumstance on September 30, 2001. Although the Plaintiff and her attorney appeared in court on November 6, 2001, they requested additional time and the judge granted their motion. One more wasted drive. The plaintiff’s attorney took my telephone number and deftly handed me his business card with the invitation to call so we could coordinate our schedules.
But all I got from his secretary when I called was that he didn’t have his calendar with him. Apparently, ever.
During the next 210 days, the Plaintiff’s attorney refused to answer any of my correspondence or take any of my telephone calls to discuss the case. Seven months later, having failed to obtain my day in court, I filed a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar citing unethical behavior on the part of the attorney. I provided copies of my phone records to the law office where I left nearly a dozen different messages as well as certified mailing receipts. After a pro-forma investigation, the North Carolina State Bar determined there was no basis for my claim.
During the May 6, 2002 hearing which was again continued to a later date, the Plaintiff’s attorney told the Court I had been in Raleigh, North Carolina visiting my children and that I had hardly been inconvenienced by driving 850 miles for the scheduled hearing.
It was a lie, and of course, I told the judge so. I had the toll booth receipts in my car from that morning’s 425 mile drive. The Ft. McHenry tunnel receipt in Baltimore, Maryland and exactly one hundred miles outside of Philadelphia is nearly one-quarter of the way to Raleigh, the capital of the Tar Heel state and home of the infamous Wake County Family Court.
I pointed to the attorney and called him a liar. The judge told me to sit down and shut up or I was going to jail.
Properly chastised, I filed a second complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against the Plaintiff’s attorney citing the lie. I also provided copies of toll booth receipts for the Delaware Turnpike and Ft. McHenry tunnel. After a second pro-forma investigation, the North Carolina State Bar determined there was no basis for my claim.
“No foxes in this henhouse,” said the fox.
On September 6, 2002, over eleven months after I filed my motion, the case was heard. How Pollyannaish was it of me to think that justice might be blind? But then again, perhaps it was merely short-sighted.
The plaintiff’s attorney reveled in my job misfortunes and my failure to produce a greater income. Theoretically, I should be making a much higher wage as an MBA and CPA. It didn’t matter that fifty year old MBA’s were a dime a dozen or that thousands of CPA’s were out of work.
Reasonable people would agree that hypothetical earnings should not count for much unless child support can also be paid with hypothetical dollars. They have learned that lesson from World Com’s smorgasbord of income manipulation that hid over $9 billion in real operating losses with theoretical accounting adjustments.
The attorney on the other side of the aisle objected to substantially all of the evidence I attempted to enter into the court record. The judge largely agreed. He didn’t want to slog through the more than 1,500 pages of discovery I had been asked to provide. Besides, he was on his way to lunch with another judge, and clearly had no time, patience, or sympathy for an underemployed, out-of-state dad.
He instructed me to pick one of the documents and he would allow that document into evidence.
After his lunch, in no uncertain terms, he denied my claim for relief. He also denied the Plaintiff’s claim for legal fees. The judge also instructed the Plaintiff’s attorney to draft a proposed order and mail it to the applicable parties for review.
Five days after I received the proposed order, I provided an alternative proposed order. I faxed it to the judge and mailed it via first class mail to the Plaintiff’s attorney.
A week later, with neither order entered by the court, imagine my dismay to find a new “Motion to Show Cause” in my mailbox. A nice transmittal letter was attached. It stated there would be other follow-on motions filed by the Plaintiff’s attorney. Although readily admitting the recent order had not been entered in court, they also demanded their legal fees. My estimate of their fees for this action was something on the order of $8-12,000.
I could spend 100% of my time just answering their motions and driving back and forth to court. How does that benefit my children?
Unfortunately for the attorney involved, he also should also have requested a peer review by the North Carolina State Bar since many of the dates in the new motion citing previous orders were wrong. They even cited references to 1992 court orders pertaining to my case. I was still married in 1992 and at least five years away from the receipt of their first legal letter.
It is absolutely amazing the kind of legal drivel you can churn out with a good secretary and word processor. The regularity of these harrassive motions, unlike the regularity of a good bowel movement, is enough to torture my honest soul. But if this is what Alan Greenspan had in mind the day he begrudgingly acknowledged an increase in productivity, then will somebody please take me back to the Stone Age?
I filed my third complaint to the North Carolina State Bar as a result of this new motion which appeared to be crafted from some prior, unknown, but “it’s stored-on-the-computer-so-let’s-use-it” filing.
The toxic forum provided for out-of-state dads by the Wake County North Carolina Family Court System has all but strangled the life out of me. While it has been a regular ATM machine for the attorneys and law firms involved, it has taken its toll on all of us. What remains of “the family”, the children included, is weary of the process.
A sympathetic police chief and friend of long stature tracked me down, wondering why those whose company we once enjoyed had not heard from me. For years.
I provided him with the 10,000 foot “fly-by” version of my story. With good intentions, he offered a remarkably simple solution. “One of my deputies is going through a divorce. I suggested the 20-50 plan: pay $20K for a Harley and $50 for a sleeping bag. You need to serve me? Then find me.”
That, of course, works for awhile. As long as you don’t have kids that you’re just madly in love with that are held hostage by some Family Court order. I had ruled that option out years ago. Besides, these days, I couldn’t afford to pay for even a used Vespa.
“But child support is based on income. They can’t take more than you make.”
In North Carolina, oh yes they can.
This past summer, my oldest daughter filled a backpack with her precious things, called a cab from her mother’s home, and took the train out of Raleigh to live with her dad. She attends public school in Philadelphia. It marked a turning point in her life where the detritus of her mother’s unfettered enmity towards her father finally drove her away. In a few short years, her siblings may follow.
I don’t know that I would have had the courage at age 17 to make such a decision.
She is doing very well, thank you, without the benefit of the faulty vision of the North Carolina Family Court judiciary system. The recent motions filed by her mother conspicuously omit the fact that the oldest daughter has been living with her dad for the last five months.
This year I have worked four jobs: as a web site writer, as an accountant, a handyman, and a painter. I celebrated my 50th birthday on September 17, 2002 at the top of a twenty-eight foot ladder painting the trim on a warehouse in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
I have been reduced to selling personal items on eBay in order to pay for some of the past due child support. Holiday and birthday gifts may have to wait a few years. Be sure you bookmark my auctions. I would greatly appreciate it.
I am still battling with the Internal Revenue Service over the exemption for the children. My ex-spouse mistakenly believes she is entitled to take them as dependency exemptions on her income tax return and has done so since 1998. She earned no money and received the appropriate amount of child support. Although I have been a practicing CPA the last 24 years, I simply am incapable of understanding the IRS’s reasoning.
It is a darn shame that I am still required by North Carolina to pay an ex-spouse child support for a child who is no longer living with her. Especially since my daughter has SAT’s and college application fees coming up.
Don’t even start with me about how I plan to pay for her college.
The punishment to my daughter does not fit the crime. In fact, she committed no crime. She simply loves her dad. And I need her. She has been a delight in my life. One day, all my kids will somehow grow up and make their own decisions. Yours will too.
Wherever I live, the “Welcome” mat for my children is always out.
But what do you do about “Hairbow” hate crimes still hiding behind the skirts of Family Court systems? It is indeed unfortunate for the civilized members of society that the judges and bottom-feeders at the Family Court trough have yet to realize that they have exacerbated the problem.
I am now “on the record” with my opinion that North Carolina is a state in which backwater court decisions are passed off as justice to those who feed within the system. If you are ever an out-of-state dad, you will find no justice waiting there for you.
You ought to give that matter some serious thought before you consider moving to North Carolina. It can be a nice place to visit. But would you really want to live there?
Sandra Acevedo was my daughter's attorney, also. Someone must have retired and a new employee didn't know, because the IJ's editorial policy for the past two decades has been steadfast in ignoring judicial approval of chronic child abuse.
*****
From the Marin Independent Journal.
Prominent attorney accused of abuse in lawsuit filed by his daughter
By Con Garretson
A former Marin resident has filed a $135 million federal lawsuit that claims she suffered years of childhood abuse at the hands of her father, and that her interests were ignored by her psychotherapist and court-appointed attorney as a result of their collusion.
Marshall Krause, a former president of the Marin County Bar Association, denies any wrongdoing against his daughter, Alanna Krause, who is now 18 and a student at Northwestern University in Illinois.
The contentious child custody battle involving Alanna Krause often has been cited by critics of Marin Superior Court's family law system as being representative of injustices they say still continue.
In addition to Marshall Krause, the other named defendants are psychotherapist Lana Clark, attorney Sandra Acevedo and her former employer, the Corte Madera law firm of Diamond, Bennington and Simborg.
The lawsuit contains an assortment of allegations, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy to deny access to the courts, legal malpractice and professional malpractice.
"Minors absolutely need a voice in family court proceedings, because the unfortunate reality is that the system as it stands now is so flawed that many children are suffering at the hands of abusers and have no way out, and it must end," Alanna Krause wrote in an e-mail to the Independent Journal yesterday in response to an interview request.
Seth Goldstein, a Napa attorney who along with attorney Richard Ducote of New Orleans represents Alanna Krause, said the intent of the legal action is to recover damages for his client's alleged victimization, as well as shed light on what he contends is a flawed family law system.
Marshall Krause, who lives in Marin, said he was unaware of the lawsuit until he was questioned about it by a reporter.
"I'm surprised and disturbed by this," he said. "This is an old situation. I haven't seen or spoken to my daughter in two or three years. ... I'm very sad that this lawsuit has even been filed. These allegations will be proven to be groundless."
Krause, 69, now retired, denies he ever had any intimate relationship with his daughter's pyschotherapist, as is alleged in the lawsuit. Clark, when contacted for comment, said she had not been served with a copy of the lawsuit and declined comment.
Messages left this week for Acevedo and the law firm were not returned.
The lawsuit alleges Alanna Krause suffered "years of ongoing severe physical, psychological and emotional abuse," specifically from 1991 to 1997 by her father and from 1993 to 1997 by Clark and Acevedo.
Marshall Krause said he was given full custody of his daughter in Marin's family court. She later ran away at age 13, was found by the Marin sheriff's department and ultimately was put in her mother's care as a result of a decision in Los Angeles Juvenile Court, he said.
In a commentary published in the San Francisco Daily Journal legal newspaper in 2000, Alanna Krause, then 16, said that nine reports she made to Child Protective Services were ignored until her father allegedly threw her into a wall at her school when she was 11.
She said her father then sought to discredit her by falsely claiming she suffered "alienating parent syndrome." As a result, she said she was sent to "an out-of-state lockdown facility" where older, hardened juvenile offenders verbally and physically abused her and staff members forced her into therapy "where they tried to brainwash me into believing that my mother was insane, that my father's drug use didn't exist and that the abuse my father inflicted on me was all in my head."
In the commentary, Alanna Krause said a family court judge at the time was a friend of her father and had "rubber-stamped" any order requested by her father.
Marshall Krause said he was never given any special treatment.
"It's absurd to think that I or any other attorney has ever had any judge in their pocket," he said. "I was an attorney for 45 years and I never saw anything vaguely close to that."
The lawsuit was filed Nov. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, based in San Francisco.
*****
From the Marin Independent Journal.
Prominent attorney accused of abuse in lawsuit filed by his daughter
By Con Garretson
A former Marin resident has filed a $135 million federal lawsuit that claims she suffered years of childhood abuse at the hands of her father, and that her interests were ignored by her psychotherapist and court-appointed attorney as a result of their collusion.
Marshall Krause, a former president of the Marin County Bar Association, denies any wrongdoing against his daughter, Alanna Krause, who is now 18 and a student at Northwestern University in Illinois.
The contentious child custody battle involving Alanna Krause often has been cited by critics of Marin Superior Court's family law system as being representative of injustices they say still continue.
In addition to Marshall Krause, the other named defendants are psychotherapist Lana Clark, attorney Sandra Acevedo and her former employer, the Corte Madera law firm of Diamond, Bennington and Simborg.
The lawsuit contains an assortment of allegations, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy to deny access to the courts, legal malpractice and professional malpractice.
"Minors absolutely need a voice in family court proceedings, because the unfortunate reality is that the system as it stands now is so flawed that many children are suffering at the hands of abusers and have no way out, and it must end," Alanna Krause wrote in an e-mail to the Independent Journal yesterday in response to an interview request.
Seth Goldstein, a Napa attorney who along with attorney Richard Ducote of New Orleans represents Alanna Krause, said the intent of the legal action is to recover damages for his client's alleged victimization, as well as shed light on what he contends is a flawed family law system.
Marshall Krause, who lives in Marin, said he was unaware of the lawsuit until he was questioned about it by a reporter.
"I'm surprised and disturbed by this," he said. "This is an old situation. I haven't seen or spoken to my daughter in two or three years. ... I'm very sad that this lawsuit has even been filed. These allegations will be proven to be groundless."
Krause, 69, now retired, denies he ever had any intimate relationship with his daughter's pyschotherapist, as is alleged in the lawsuit. Clark, when contacted for comment, said she had not been served with a copy of the lawsuit and declined comment.
Messages left this week for Acevedo and the law firm were not returned.
The lawsuit alleges Alanna Krause suffered "years of ongoing severe physical, psychological and emotional abuse," specifically from 1991 to 1997 by her father and from 1993 to 1997 by Clark and Acevedo.
Marshall Krause said he was given full custody of his daughter in Marin's family court. She later ran away at age 13, was found by the Marin sheriff's department and ultimately was put in her mother's care as a result of a decision in Los Angeles Juvenile Court, he said.
In a commentary published in the San Francisco Daily Journal legal newspaper in 2000, Alanna Krause, then 16, said that nine reports she made to Child Protective Services were ignored until her father allegedly threw her into a wall at her school when she was 11.
She said her father then sought to discredit her by falsely claiming she suffered "alienating parent syndrome." As a result, she said she was sent to "an out-of-state lockdown facility" where older, hardened juvenile offenders verbally and physically abused her and staff members forced her into therapy "where they tried to brainwash me into believing that my mother was insane, that my father's drug use didn't exist and that the abuse my father inflicted on me was all in my head."
In the commentary, Alanna Krause said a family court judge at the time was a friend of her father and had "rubber-stamped" any order requested by her father.
Marshall Krause said he was never given any special treatment.
"It's absurd to think that I or any other attorney has ever had any judge in their pocket," he said. "I was an attorney for 45 years and I never saw anything vaguely close to that."
The lawsuit was filed Nov. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, based in San Francisco.
For more information:
http://www.familylawcourts.com
The American Family Court System in every State of the Union is a POWER out of Balance.
\
The American Family is often left bankrupt after a tour through the Family Court.
Often spending years in the Family Court system as Courts order Special Masters, Evaluators. GAL, Theripists, Programs. At great Expence to the Family.
About 20 percent of Divorce in this country is called Contested or "HIGH CONFLICT". (Courts will say it takes two to make a case high conflict. Reality is only one needs to contest making it a conflict) Of these High Conflict Cases most often abusive behavior has been part of the family history. Yet MOTHERS most often theProtective Parents LOSE custody of their children to the abusive parent about 70 percent of the time.
YES in AMERICA CHILDREN ARE PLACED IN THE CUSTODY , CARE, OR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION OF THE known ABUSER. EVEN IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A CONVICTION.
Unconstitutional orders are entered, And the litigent is left to fight these orders or give up. DUE PROCESS does not exisit. Imagine getting a hearing but your judge tells you you are not allowed DISCOVERY. Litigents are BANKRUPT. Often spending YEARS IN SYSTEM filled with power greed as the UNREGLUATED INDUSTRY goes unchecked.
You can get a divorce from a spouse but spend the rest of your childrens childhood MARRIED TO THE COURT.
America is unaware or IGNORING the Terror within the Family Court system. .
The is the ISSUE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
\
The American Family is often left bankrupt after a tour through the Family Court.
Often spending years in the Family Court system as Courts order Special Masters, Evaluators. GAL, Theripists, Programs. At great Expence to the Family.
About 20 percent of Divorce in this country is called Contested or "HIGH CONFLICT". (Courts will say it takes two to make a case high conflict. Reality is only one needs to contest making it a conflict) Of these High Conflict Cases most often abusive behavior has been part of the family history. Yet MOTHERS most often theProtective Parents LOSE custody of their children to the abusive parent about 70 percent of the time.
YES in AMERICA CHILDREN ARE PLACED IN THE CUSTODY , CARE, OR UNSUPERVISED VISITATION OF THE known ABUSER. EVEN IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A CONVICTION.
Unconstitutional orders are entered, And the litigent is left to fight these orders or give up. DUE PROCESS does not exisit. Imagine getting a hearing but your judge tells you you are not allowed DISCOVERY. Litigents are BANKRUPT. Often spending YEARS IN SYSTEM filled with power greed as the UNREGLUATED INDUSTRY goes unchecked.
You can get a divorce from a spouse but spend the rest of your childrens childhood MARRIED TO THE COURT.
America is unaware or IGNORING the Terror within the Family Court system. .
The is the ISSUE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY.
err... it's the 21st century, fella. The twentieth century is over.
Richard Ducote
Attorney & Counselor at Law
____________________________________________________________________________
_
731 Fern Street . New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 . 504.314.8400 .
504.314.8600 Fax .mailto:Ducotelaw [at] aol.com
Becki L. Truscott
Of the N.C. Bar
Associate Counsel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 3, 2002
LAWSUIT FILED BY ALANNA KRAUSE AGAINST HER FATHER, THERAPIST, AND
COURT -APPOINTED ATTORNEY
Marin County's Marshall Krause, Sandra M. Acevedo, Lana Clark, Ph.D. and
Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C. all named in Federal Lawsuit
Eighteen year old Alanna Krause filed a multi-million dollar
federal court lawsuit [Case No. C-02-5277, Northern District of California]
on November 1 in San Francisco against her father, Marin County attorney
Marshall W. Krause, her psychotherapist Lana Clark, her court-appointed
attorney Sandra Acevedo and the law firm of Diamond, Bennington & Simborg,
alleging that she suffered years of childhood abuse at the hands of her
father. Ms. Krause claims that Acevedo and Clark knew of her abuse, but
failed to protect her. Ms. Krause, now an honors student at Northwestern
University, has been a vocal critic of the Marin County family court system
and the use of court-appointed attorneys for children in custody cases who
ignore substantial evidence of child abuse and fight to keep children with
parents about whom the children complain. Ms. Krause demands a trial by jury
on all issues.
On July 17, 2000, the San Francisco Daily Journal published Ms.
Krause’s editorial comment, “Letting Children Speak for Themselves: Youth in
Court Need Attorneys Who Represent Their Interests Fairly, Strongly.”
http://www.ocof.org/KidsSpeakOut/Alanna’s%20Truth.htm and/or
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Research/PAS/PAS4/pas4.html.
Ms. Krause is represented by a nationally renowned legal team, New
Orleans attorneys Richard Ducote and Becki Truscott, and Napa attorney Seth
Goldstein.
________________________________________________________________
Contact: Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law, 504.314.8400
Seth Goldstein, Attorney at Law, 707.226.6660
Alanna Krause, mailto:alannakrause [at] hotmail.com
Additional resource: Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private
Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition, 3 Loyola Journal of Public
Interest Law 106 (Spring 2002).
_________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL ACTION
C 02 5277
Seth L. Goldstein (Cal. Bar # 176882)
1125 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 226-6660
(707) 226-6661 [Fax]
Local Counsel for Plaintiff Alanna Krause
__________________________________
Richard L. Ducote, of the Louisiana Bar
Counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff Alanna Krause
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
___________________________________
Becki L. Truscott, of the North Carolina Bar
Counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff Alanna Krause
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ALANNA
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION
MARSHALL W.
)
SANDRA
) NO. C-02-5277
DIAMOND, BENNINGTON
)
SIMBORG,
)
and LANA CLARK,
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
The Complaint of Alanna Krause, through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully shows as follows:
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
1. This is an action to recover compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of Plaintiff Alanna Krause, who, because of the tortious conduct of
all of these Defendants from approximately 1993 through 1997, and the
tortious conduct of Defendant Marshall W. Krause from approximately
1991-1997, as set forth herein, suffered, inter alia, years of ongoing
severe physical, psychological and emotional abuse.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Alanna Krause is an eighteen (18) year old female citizen of
the State of Illinois. She is the biological daughter of Defendant Marshall
W. Krause.
3. Defendant Marshall W. Krause is a citizen of the State of California
domiciled within this District. He is an attorney and the biological father
of Plaintiff Alanna Krause. Furthermore, at all times relevant herein he was
the romantic/sexual partner of Defendant Lana Clark.
4. Defendant Sandra Acevedo is a citizen of the State of California
domiciled within this District. She is an attorney, and at all times
relevant herein the attorney appointed to represent the interests of the
Plaintiff Alanna Krause in the Marin County Superior Court, Case No. FL4889,
In re: Marriage of Marshall W. Krause and Lauren Krause.
5. Defendant Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C. is a professional law
corporation chartered under California law and domiciled in this District.
At all times relevant, it was the employer of Defendant Acevedo and, thus,
vicariously liable for her tortious conduct as set forth herein.
6. Defendant Lana Clark, Ph.D. is a citizen of the State of California
domiciled within this District. At all times relevant herein, she was a
licensed California mental health professional serving as a
"psychotherapist" for Plaintiff Alanna Krause, while at the same time
engaging in a romantic/sexual relationship with Defendant Marshall W.
Krause.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§
1332, as there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and
the damages exceed $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest.
8. This Court is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391 (a), as a Defendant resides within this District and a substantial part
of the tortious conduct complained of herein occurred within this District.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT MARSHALL W. KRAUSE
(ASSAULT & BATTERY, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP)
9. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-8 in extenso.
10. Assault and Battery: During the course of Plaintiff's minority in
California and elsewhere, Defendant Marshall W. Krause repeatedly,
intentionally, violently, and cruelly assaulted and battered Plaintiff
causing her severe physical, psychological, and emotional pain and
suffering, the effects of which Plaintiff will suffer for the rest of her
life.
11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: During the course of
Plaintiff's minority, Defendant Marshall W. Krause continuously, repeatedly,
intentionally, and cruelly inflicted severe emotional distress on Plaintiff
Alanna Krause by threatening her, intimidating her, berating her,
manipulating her, and improperly admitting her to a locked treatment
facility for the purpose of squelching her reports of his abuse and
severing her contact with the outside world. Such conduct was intentional,
outrageous, and designed to inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff.
12. Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts: During the
course of the pendency of child custody and visitation proceedings in the
Marin County Superior Court, Defendant Marshall W. Krause conspired with
Defendants Lana Clark and Sandra Acevedo to deprive Plaintiff of her right
to access to and protection of the court by intentionally and maliciously
discrediting Plaintiff and her mother's accurate reports of Defendant
Krause's abuse, by preventing Plaintiff from presenting evidence to the
court concerning her father's abuse, by maliciously attempting to deny
Plaintiff the benefit of juvenile court child protection proceedings and by
denying Plaintiff the benefit of counsel who truly would advocate for the
child rather than advocating for the interests of Defendant Krause and his
lover Lana Clark.
13. Tortious Interference with Mother-Child Relationship: From
approximately 1993-1999, Defendant Marshall W. Krause intentionally,
maliciously, and tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's relationship with
her mother by denying her contact with her mother, battering her as
punishment for having contact with her mother, isolating her from her
mother, harassing and intimidating her mother in the course of the custody
litigation for the purpose of financially and emotionally ruining her mother
to ensure that her mother could no longer continue to fight to protect
Plaintiff, and blocking access to Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's mother's
financial resources to deny them the means to litigate Plaintiff's
protection. All of this conduct by Marshall W. Krause, who viciously abused
Plaintiff's mother during the course of their marriage, was designed to
punish Plaintiff's mother for leaving him and was motivated by his misogyny.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT MARSHALL W. KRAUSE
14. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-13 in extenso.
15. As a result of the tortious conduct set forth above, Plaintiff
suffered severe physical pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, depression,
loss of civil rights and remedies, severe and permanent emotional and
psychological pain and suffering, despair, physical restraint and
confinement, loss of a relationship with her mother, and other compensable
damages.
16. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant Marshall W.
Krause as follows:
A. Assault and Battery: $10,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $10,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $10,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$10,000,000.
17. The tortious conduct of Defendant Marshall Krause was intentional,
malicious, willful, wanton, outrageous and in total disregard for the rights
and interests of Plaintiff Alanna Krause, and, thus, Defendant Marshall W.
Krause is liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages to deter him and others
like him from engaging in this same sort of abuse.
18. Plaintiff accordingly demands punitive damages: $15,000,000.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT SANDRA ACEVEDO
(LEGAL MALPRACTICE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP)
19. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-18 in extenso.
20. On January 3, 1994, Defendant Sandra Acevedo was appointed "minor's
counsel" under California Family Code §§ 3150-313 by the Marin County
Superior Court in Case No.4889 to properly represent the interests and
welfare of Plaintiff Alanna Krause. As a result of that appointment,
Defendant Sandra Acevedo had a high duty to investigate the law and facts
surrounding Plaintiff's situation, and to advocate positions in court which
furthered Plaintiff's interests and welfare. She remained Plaintiff's
attorney through October 1994, but her negative impact continued through
1997.
21. At all times relevant, Defendant Acevedo was fully aware of the
tortious acts being committed against Plaintiff by Defendant Marshall
Krause, as Plaintiff, her mother, and others repeatedly told Defendant
Acevedo of the abuses and begged Acevedo to take the necessary steps to
protect her.
22. Legal Malpractice: Contrary to her duty to properly and competently
represent Plaintiff's interests, Defendant Acevedo advocated solely for the
interests of Defendant Marshall W. Krause and his lover Lana Clark,
successfully convincing the court to place Plaintiff in her father's sole
custody and to terminate Plaintiff's contact with her mother. Defendant
instead did everything possible to ensure Plaintiff's continued
vulnerability at the hands of her father, and did absolutely nothing to
protect her young client. Defendant Acevedo was only interested in
furthering her standing with Defendant Marshall W. Krause, a powerful and
prominent attorney, and completely undermined any potential for Plaintiff's
protection in the court.
23. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendant Acevedo's
affirmative steps to place Plaintiff in the custody of her abusive father,
and to completely impair Plaintiff's ability to find protection in the legal
system, when Defendant Acevedo knew that Plaintiff was being abused were
sufficiently willful, wanton, and outrageous to constitute intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
24. Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts: During the
course of her representation of Plaintiff, Defendant repeatedly conspired
with Defendant Marshall W. Krause and Defendant Lana Clark to deprive
Plaintiff of her right to access by the court by intentionally preventing
the court from hearing evidence of Defendant Marshall Krause's abuse of
Alanna and her mother, by engaging in ex parte communications with the court
in violation of Plaintiff's due process rights, by coercing and financially
harassing Plaintiff's mother into abandoning her legal efforts to protect
Alanna through the courts, by knowingly allowing the introduction of false
testimony, by allowing into evidence and/or the court's consideration the
bogus, disreputable, and pro child-abuser "Parental Alienation Syndrome"
theory concocted by the discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, by failing
to disclose to the court the unethical and prejudicial relationship between
Defendant Marshall Krause and Defendant Lana Clark, by prohibiting Alanna
Krause from testifying on her own behalf in order to obtain protection from
the abuse, by sabotaging child protective services investigations into
Plaintiff's abuse, and other acts.
25. Tortious Interference with Mother-Child Relationship: During the
course of her "representation" of Plaintiff, Defendant vigorously and
continuously tortiously used her position as Plaintiff's "advocate" to
wrongfully interfere with the relationship between Plaintiff and her mother,
resulting in her mother's inability to protect Plaintiff and in further harm
to Plaintiff.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT SANDRA ACEVEDO
26. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-25 in extenso.
27. As a result of the tortious conduct set forth above, Plaintiff
suffered severe physical pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, depression, loss
of civil rights and remedies, severe and permanent emotional and
psychological pain and suffering, despair, physical restraint and
confinement, loss of a relationship with her mother, and other compensable
damages.
28. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant Sandra Acevedo
as follows:
A. Legal Malpractice: $5,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $5,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $5,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$5,000,000.
29. The tortious conduct of Defendant Sandra Acevedo was reckless,
malicious, wanton, outrageous and in total disregard for the rights and
interests of Plaintiff Alanna Krause, and, thus, Defendant Sandra Acevedo is
liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages to deter her and others like her
from engaging in this same sort of misconduct.
30. Plaintiff accordingly demands punitive damages: $10,000,000.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT DIAMOND, BENNINGTON & SIMBORG, P.C.
(NEGLIGENCE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY)
31. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-30 in extenso.
32. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Sandra Acevedo was an employee
of the law firm Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C., and was acting in the
course and scope of her employment. Defendant Diamond, Bennington &
Simborg, P.C. (hereinafter called "D, B&S") financially benefitted from
Defendant Acevedo's actions as set forth herein, as the fees she recovered
were paid to the law firm.
32. Negligence : At all times relevant herein, D, B&S had a duty to
properly supervise its employee Defendant Acevedo to ensure that she was
properly representing her clients, who were the firm's clients, but D, B, &
S breached that duty and allowed Defendant Acevedo to conduct her tortious
activity unfettered. D, B & S was more concerned in furthering its status
with Defendant Marshall W. Krause, a prominent and powerful local attorney,
than it was in ensuring that his victim, Plaintiff Alanna Krause, was
adequately represented.
33. Vicarious Liability: D, B, & S is vicariously liable for the torts of
Defendant Sandra Acevedo as set forth herein under the doctrine of
respondeat superior, and is thus solidarily liable for all damages suffered
by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Acevedo's acts and omissions set forth
herein.
34. As a direct and proximate result of D, B, and S's negligence,
Plaintiff suffered all of the damages set forth herein, supra.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT DIAMOND, BENNINGTON & SIMBORG, P.C.
35. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant D, B & S as
follows:
A. Legal Malpractice: $5,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $5,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $5,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$5,000,000.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT LANA CLARK, PH.D.
(MALPRACTICE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, CONSPIRACY TO
DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP, FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE TO CHILD PROTECTION
AGENCIES)
36. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-35 in extenso.
37. At all times relevant, Defendant Lana Clark, Ph.D., was a clinical
social worker licensed by the State of California and was purportedly
serving as a "psychotherapist" and/or "evaluator" for Plaintiff Alanna
Krause, with whom Defendant Lana Clark had a social worker-client
relationship. Defendant Lana Clark held herself out as being sufficiently
qualified and expert to "evaluate" and "treat" Plaintiff.
38. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Lana Clark had a conflict of
interest regarding her client Alanna Krause, as Defendant Clark was engaged
in an ongoing sexual/romantic relationship with Defendant Marshall W.
Krause, her client's abuser.
39. Malpractice: Contrary to her duty to properly and competently evaluate
and treat Plaintiff, Defendant Lana Clark, while knowing that Defendant
Marshall W. Krause was violently abusing and neglecting Plaintiff, acted
solely for the interests of Defendant Marshall W. Krause, successfully
convincing the court to place Plaintiff in her father's sole custody and to
terminate Plaintiff's contact with her mother. Defendant did everything
possible to discredit Plaintiff and to ensure Plaintiff's continued
vulnerability at the hands of her father, and did absolutely nothing to
protect her young client. Defendant Clark was only interested in furthering
her unethical and improper relationship with Defendant Marshall W. Krause,
and completely undermined any potential for Plaintiff's protection in the
court or though child protective services. Furthermore, Defendant Clark
utilized and advanced in Plaintiff's case the bogus, disreputable, and
pro-child abuser "Parental Alienation Syndrome" theory concocted by the
discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, further ensuring Plaintiff's
continued abuse and neglect at the hands of her father. These acts and
omissions were grossly negligent and constituted professional malpractice.
40. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendant Lana Clark's
affirmative steps to place Plaintiff in the custody of her abusive father,
and to completely impair Plaintiff's ability to find protection in the legal
system, when Defendant Clark knew that Plaintiff was being abused were
sufficiently willful, wanton, and outrageous to constitute intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
41. Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts: During the
course of her "treatment" and "evaluation" of Plaintiff, Defendant Clark
repeatedly conspired with Defendant Marshall W. Krause and Defendant Sandra
Acevedo to deprive Plaintiff of her right to access by the court by
intentionally preventing the court from hearing evidence of Defendant
Marshall Krause's abuse of Alanna and her mother, by engaging in ex parte
communications with the court in violation of Plaintiff's due process
rights, by coercing and financially harassing Plaintiff's mother into
abandoning her legal efforts to protect Alanna through the courts, by
knowingly aiding and abetting the introduction of false testimony and
reports, by allowing into evidence and/or the court's consideration the
bogus, disreputable, and pro child- abuser "Parental Alienation Syndrome"
theory concocted by the by the discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, by
failing to disclose to the court the unethical and prejudicial relationship
between Defendant Marshall Krause and herself, by seeking to prohibit
Alanna Krause from testifying on her own behalf in order to obtain
protection from the abuse, by sabotaging child protective services
investigations into Plaintiff's abuse, and other acts.
42. Tortious Interference with Mother-Child Relationship: During the
course of her "evaluation" and "treatment" of Plaintiff, Defendant Clark
vigorously and continuously tortiously used her position as Plaintiff's
"therapist" to wrongfully interfere with the relationship between Plaintiff
and her mother, resulting in her mother's inability to protect Plaintiff and
in further harm to Plaintiff.
43. Failure to Report Child Abuse to Child Protection Agencies: During the
course of Defendant Clark's therapist-client relationship with Plaintiff,
Defendant Clark knew that Plaintiff was being abused and neglected by
Defendant Marshall W. Krause, but, despite being a "mandated reporter" of
child abuse and neglect under California Penal Code §§11165 et seq., and, in
violation of her legal duty, intentionally and in bad faith failed to report
the abuse and neglect to the appropriate authorities. Furthermore,
Defendant Clark, acting in bad faith, deliberately sabotaged any child
protection investigations initiated by Plaintiff and others. Defendant
Clark's acts and omissions in this regard proximately caused Plaintiff to
suffer additional abuse and neglect, and the other damages set forth above.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT LANA CLARK, PH.D.
44. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-43 in extenso.
45. As a result of the tortious conduct set forth above, Plaintiff
suffered severe physical pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, depression,
loss of civil rights and remedies, severe and permanent emotional and
psychological pain and suffering, despair, physical restraint and
confinement, loss of a relationship with her mother, and other compensable
damages.
46. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant Lana Clark as
follows:
A. Professional Malpractice: $5,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $5,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $5,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$5,000,000.
47. The tortious conduct of Defendant Lana Clark was reckless, malicious,
wanton, outrageous and in total disregard for the rights and interests of
Plaintiff Alanna Krause, and, thus, Defendant Lana Clark is liable to
Plaintiff for punitive damages to deter her and others like her from
engaging in this same sort of misconduct.
48. Plaintiff accordingly demands punitive damages: $10,000,000.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
49. As set forth herein, all defendants are joint tortfeasors engaged in a
common plan and scheme, and, thus, all are jointly and severally liable for
all damages suffered by Plaintiff herein.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
50. Plaintiff is entitled to and demands a trial by jury on all issues.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that after all due proceedings, there be
judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Marshall W.
Krause, Sandra Acevedo, Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C., and Lana
Clark, Ph.D. jointly and severally for such damages as are set forth herein,
plus interest from the date of the filing of this Complaint, all costs of
these proceedings, reasonable attorney's fees as allowed by law, and for
such other equitable relief as is appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ALANNA KRAUSE, Plaintiff
By her counsel:
______________________________
Seth L. Goldstein (Cal. Bar # 176882)
1125 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 226-6660
(707) 226-6661 [Fax]
Local Counsel
__________________________________
Richard L. Ducote, of the Louisiana Bar
Counsel pro hac vice
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
___________________________________
Becki L. Truscott, of the North Carolina Bar
Counsel pro hac vice
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
Copy of date stamped filing attached.
Attorney & Counselor at Law
____________________________________________________________________________
_
731 Fern Street . New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 . 504.314.8400 .
504.314.8600 Fax .mailto:Ducotelaw [at] aol.com
Becki L. Truscott
Of the N.C. Bar
Associate Counsel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 3, 2002
LAWSUIT FILED BY ALANNA KRAUSE AGAINST HER FATHER, THERAPIST, AND
COURT -APPOINTED ATTORNEY
Marin County's Marshall Krause, Sandra M. Acevedo, Lana Clark, Ph.D. and
Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C. all named in Federal Lawsuit
Eighteen year old Alanna Krause filed a multi-million dollar
federal court lawsuit [Case No. C-02-5277, Northern District of California]
on November 1 in San Francisco against her father, Marin County attorney
Marshall W. Krause, her psychotherapist Lana Clark, her court-appointed
attorney Sandra Acevedo and the law firm of Diamond, Bennington & Simborg,
alleging that she suffered years of childhood abuse at the hands of her
father. Ms. Krause claims that Acevedo and Clark knew of her abuse, but
failed to protect her. Ms. Krause, now an honors student at Northwestern
University, has been a vocal critic of the Marin County family court system
and the use of court-appointed attorneys for children in custody cases who
ignore substantial evidence of child abuse and fight to keep children with
parents about whom the children complain. Ms. Krause demands a trial by jury
on all issues.
On July 17, 2000, the San Francisco Daily Journal published Ms.
Krause’s editorial comment, “Letting Children Speak for Themselves: Youth in
Court Need Attorneys Who Represent Their Interests Fairly, Strongly.”
http://www.ocof.org/KidsSpeakOut/Alanna’s%20Truth.htm and/or
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Research/PAS/PAS4/pas4.html.
Ms. Krause is represented by a nationally renowned legal team, New
Orleans attorneys Richard Ducote and Becki Truscott, and Napa attorney Seth
Goldstein.
________________________________________________________________
Contact: Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law, 504.314.8400
Seth Goldstein, Attorney at Law, 707.226.6660
Alanna Krause, mailto:alannakrause [at] hotmail.com
Additional resource: Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private
Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition, 3 Loyola Journal of Public
Interest Law 106 (Spring 2002).
_________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL ACTION
C 02 5277
Seth L. Goldstein (Cal. Bar # 176882)
1125 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 226-6660
(707) 226-6661 [Fax]
Local Counsel for Plaintiff Alanna Krause
__________________________________
Richard L. Ducote, of the Louisiana Bar
Counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff Alanna Krause
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
___________________________________
Becki L. Truscott, of the North Carolina Bar
Counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff Alanna Krause
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ALANNA
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION
MARSHALL W.
)
SANDRA
) NO. C-02-5277
DIAMOND, BENNINGTON
)
SIMBORG,
)
and LANA CLARK,
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
The Complaint of Alanna Krause, through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully shows as follows:
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
1. This is an action to recover compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of Plaintiff Alanna Krause, who, because of the tortious conduct of
all of these Defendants from approximately 1993 through 1997, and the
tortious conduct of Defendant Marshall W. Krause from approximately
1991-1997, as set forth herein, suffered, inter alia, years of ongoing
severe physical, psychological and emotional abuse.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Alanna Krause is an eighteen (18) year old female citizen of
the State of Illinois. She is the biological daughter of Defendant Marshall
W. Krause.
3. Defendant Marshall W. Krause is a citizen of the State of California
domiciled within this District. He is an attorney and the biological father
of Plaintiff Alanna Krause. Furthermore, at all times relevant herein he was
the romantic/sexual partner of Defendant Lana Clark.
4. Defendant Sandra Acevedo is a citizen of the State of California
domiciled within this District. She is an attorney, and at all times
relevant herein the attorney appointed to represent the interests of the
Plaintiff Alanna Krause in the Marin County Superior Court, Case No. FL4889,
In re: Marriage of Marshall W. Krause and Lauren Krause.
5. Defendant Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C. is a professional law
corporation chartered under California law and domiciled in this District.
At all times relevant, it was the employer of Defendant Acevedo and, thus,
vicariously liable for her tortious conduct as set forth herein.
6. Defendant Lana Clark, Ph.D. is a citizen of the State of California
domiciled within this District. At all times relevant herein, she was a
licensed California mental health professional serving as a
"psychotherapist" for Plaintiff Alanna Krause, while at the same time
engaging in a romantic/sexual relationship with Defendant Marshall W.
Krause.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§
1332, as there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and
the damages exceed $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest.
8. This Court is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391 (a), as a Defendant resides within this District and a substantial part
of the tortious conduct complained of herein occurred within this District.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT MARSHALL W. KRAUSE
(ASSAULT & BATTERY, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP)
9. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-8 in extenso.
10. Assault and Battery: During the course of Plaintiff's minority in
California and elsewhere, Defendant Marshall W. Krause repeatedly,
intentionally, violently, and cruelly assaulted and battered Plaintiff
causing her severe physical, psychological, and emotional pain and
suffering, the effects of which Plaintiff will suffer for the rest of her
life.
11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: During the course of
Plaintiff's minority, Defendant Marshall W. Krause continuously, repeatedly,
intentionally, and cruelly inflicted severe emotional distress on Plaintiff
Alanna Krause by threatening her, intimidating her, berating her,
manipulating her, and improperly admitting her to a locked treatment
facility for the purpose of squelching her reports of his abuse and
severing her contact with the outside world. Such conduct was intentional,
outrageous, and designed to inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff.
12. Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts: During the
course of the pendency of child custody and visitation proceedings in the
Marin County Superior Court, Defendant Marshall W. Krause conspired with
Defendants Lana Clark and Sandra Acevedo to deprive Plaintiff of her right
to access to and protection of the court by intentionally and maliciously
discrediting Plaintiff and her mother's accurate reports of Defendant
Krause's abuse, by preventing Plaintiff from presenting evidence to the
court concerning her father's abuse, by maliciously attempting to deny
Plaintiff the benefit of juvenile court child protection proceedings and by
denying Plaintiff the benefit of counsel who truly would advocate for the
child rather than advocating for the interests of Defendant Krause and his
lover Lana Clark.
13. Tortious Interference with Mother-Child Relationship: From
approximately 1993-1999, Defendant Marshall W. Krause intentionally,
maliciously, and tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's relationship with
her mother by denying her contact with her mother, battering her as
punishment for having contact with her mother, isolating her from her
mother, harassing and intimidating her mother in the course of the custody
litigation for the purpose of financially and emotionally ruining her mother
to ensure that her mother could no longer continue to fight to protect
Plaintiff, and blocking access to Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's mother's
financial resources to deny them the means to litigate Plaintiff's
protection. All of this conduct by Marshall W. Krause, who viciously abused
Plaintiff's mother during the course of their marriage, was designed to
punish Plaintiff's mother for leaving him and was motivated by his misogyny.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT MARSHALL W. KRAUSE
14. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-13 in extenso.
15. As a result of the tortious conduct set forth above, Plaintiff
suffered severe physical pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, depression,
loss of civil rights and remedies, severe and permanent emotional and
psychological pain and suffering, despair, physical restraint and
confinement, loss of a relationship with her mother, and other compensable
damages.
16. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant Marshall W.
Krause as follows:
A. Assault and Battery: $10,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $10,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $10,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$10,000,000.
17. The tortious conduct of Defendant Marshall Krause was intentional,
malicious, willful, wanton, outrageous and in total disregard for the rights
and interests of Plaintiff Alanna Krause, and, thus, Defendant Marshall W.
Krause is liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages to deter him and others
like him from engaging in this same sort of abuse.
18. Plaintiff accordingly demands punitive damages: $15,000,000.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT SANDRA ACEVEDO
(LEGAL MALPRACTICE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP)
19. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-18 in extenso.
20. On January 3, 1994, Defendant Sandra Acevedo was appointed "minor's
counsel" under California Family Code §§ 3150-313 by the Marin County
Superior Court in Case No.4889 to properly represent the interests and
welfare of Plaintiff Alanna Krause. As a result of that appointment,
Defendant Sandra Acevedo had a high duty to investigate the law and facts
surrounding Plaintiff's situation, and to advocate positions in court which
furthered Plaintiff's interests and welfare. She remained Plaintiff's
attorney through October 1994, but her negative impact continued through
1997.
21. At all times relevant, Defendant Acevedo was fully aware of the
tortious acts being committed against Plaintiff by Defendant Marshall
Krause, as Plaintiff, her mother, and others repeatedly told Defendant
Acevedo of the abuses and begged Acevedo to take the necessary steps to
protect her.
22. Legal Malpractice: Contrary to her duty to properly and competently
represent Plaintiff's interests, Defendant Acevedo advocated solely for the
interests of Defendant Marshall W. Krause and his lover Lana Clark,
successfully convincing the court to place Plaintiff in her father's sole
custody and to terminate Plaintiff's contact with her mother. Defendant
instead did everything possible to ensure Plaintiff's continued
vulnerability at the hands of her father, and did absolutely nothing to
protect her young client. Defendant Acevedo was only interested in
furthering her standing with Defendant Marshall W. Krause, a powerful and
prominent attorney, and completely undermined any potential for Plaintiff's
protection in the court.
23. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendant Acevedo's
affirmative steps to place Plaintiff in the custody of her abusive father,
and to completely impair Plaintiff's ability to find protection in the legal
system, when Defendant Acevedo knew that Plaintiff was being abused were
sufficiently willful, wanton, and outrageous to constitute intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
24. Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts: During the
course of her representation of Plaintiff, Defendant repeatedly conspired
with Defendant Marshall W. Krause and Defendant Lana Clark to deprive
Plaintiff of her right to access by the court by intentionally preventing
the court from hearing evidence of Defendant Marshall Krause's abuse of
Alanna and her mother, by engaging in ex parte communications with the court
in violation of Plaintiff's due process rights, by coercing and financially
harassing Plaintiff's mother into abandoning her legal efforts to protect
Alanna through the courts, by knowingly allowing the introduction of false
testimony, by allowing into evidence and/or the court's consideration the
bogus, disreputable, and pro child-abuser "Parental Alienation Syndrome"
theory concocted by the discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, by failing
to disclose to the court the unethical and prejudicial relationship between
Defendant Marshall Krause and Defendant Lana Clark, by prohibiting Alanna
Krause from testifying on her own behalf in order to obtain protection from
the abuse, by sabotaging child protective services investigations into
Plaintiff's abuse, and other acts.
25. Tortious Interference with Mother-Child Relationship: During the
course of her "representation" of Plaintiff, Defendant vigorously and
continuously tortiously used her position as Plaintiff's "advocate" to
wrongfully interfere with the relationship between Plaintiff and her mother,
resulting in her mother's inability to protect Plaintiff and in further harm
to Plaintiff.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT SANDRA ACEVEDO
26. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-25 in extenso.
27. As a result of the tortious conduct set forth above, Plaintiff
suffered severe physical pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, depression, loss
of civil rights and remedies, severe and permanent emotional and
psychological pain and suffering, despair, physical restraint and
confinement, loss of a relationship with her mother, and other compensable
damages.
28. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant Sandra Acevedo
as follows:
A. Legal Malpractice: $5,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $5,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $5,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$5,000,000.
29. The tortious conduct of Defendant Sandra Acevedo was reckless,
malicious, wanton, outrageous and in total disregard for the rights and
interests of Plaintiff Alanna Krause, and, thus, Defendant Sandra Acevedo is
liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages to deter her and others like her
from engaging in this same sort of misconduct.
30. Plaintiff accordingly demands punitive damages: $10,000,000.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT DIAMOND, BENNINGTON & SIMBORG, P.C.
(NEGLIGENCE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY)
31. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-30 in extenso.
32. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Sandra Acevedo was an employee
of the law firm Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C., and was acting in the
course and scope of her employment. Defendant Diamond, Bennington &
Simborg, P.C. (hereinafter called "D, B&S") financially benefitted from
Defendant Acevedo's actions as set forth herein, as the fees she recovered
were paid to the law firm.
32. Negligence : At all times relevant herein, D, B&S had a duty to
properly supervise its employee Defendant Acevedo to ensure that she was
properly representing her clients, who were the firm's clients, but D, B, &
S breached that duty and allowed Defendant Acevedo to conduct her tortious
activity unfettered. D, B & S was more concerned in furthering its status
with Defendant Marshall W. Krause, a prominent and powerful local attorney,
than it was in ensuring that his victim, Plaintiff Alanna Krause, was
adequately represented.
33. Vicarious Liability: D, B, & S is vicariously liable for the torts of
Defendant Sandra Acevedo as set forth herein under the doctrine of
respondeat superior, and is thus solidarily liable for all damages suffered
by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Acevedo's acts and omissions set forth
herein.
34. As a direct and proximate result of D, B, and S's negligence,
Plaintiff suffered all of the damages set forth herein, supra.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT DIAMOND, BENNINGTON & SIMBORG, P.C.
35. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant D, B & S as
follows:
A. Legal Malpractice: $5,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $5,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $5,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$5,000,000.
CAUSES OF ACTION: DEFENDANT LANA CLARK, PH.D.
(MALPRACTICE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, CONSPIRACY TO
DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
MOTHER-CHILD RELATIONSHIP, FAILURE TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE TO CHILD PROTECTION
AGENCIES)
36. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-35 in extenso.
37. At all times relevant, Defendant Lana Clark, Ph.D., was a clinical
social worker licensed by the State of California and was purportedly
serving as a "psychotherapist" and/or "evaluator" for Plaintiff Alanna
Krause, with whom Defendant Lana Clark had a social worker-client
relationship. Defendant Lana Clark held herself out as being sufficiently
qualified and expert to "evaluate" and "treat" Plaintiff.
38. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Lana Clark had a conflict of
interest regarding her client Alanna Krause, as Defendant Clark was engaged
in an ongoing sexual/romantic relationship with Defendant Marshall W.
Krause, her client's abuser.
39. Malpractice: Contrary to her duty to properly and competently evaluate
and treat Plaintiff, Defendant Lana Clark, while knowing that Defendant
Marshall W. Krause was violently abusing and neglecting Plaintiff, acted
solely for the interests of Defendant Marshall W. Krause, successfully
convincing the court to place Plaintiff in her father's sole custody and to
terminate Plaintiff's contact with her mother. Defendant did everything
possible to discredit Plaintiff and to ensure Plaintiff's continued
vulnerability at the hands of her father, and did absolutely nothing to
protect her young client. Defendant Clark was only interested in furthering
her unethical and improper relationship with Defendant Marshall W. Krause,
and completely undermined any potential for Plaintiff's protection in the
court or though child protective services. Furthermore, Defendant Clark
utilized and advanced in Plaintiff's case the bogus, disreputable, and
pro-child abuser "Parental Alienation Syndrome" theory concocted by the
discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, further ensuring Plaintiff's
continued abuse and neglect at the hands of her father. These acts and
omissions were grossly negligent and constituted professional malpractice.
40. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendant Lana Clark's
affirmative steps to place Plaintiff in the custody of her abusive father,
and to completely impair Plaintiff's ability to find protection in the legal
system, when Defendant Clark knew that Plaintiff was being abused were
sufficiently willful, wanton, and outrageous to constitute intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
41. Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts: During the
course of her "treatment" and "evaluation" of Plaintiff, Defendant Clark
repeatedly conspired with Defendant Marshall W. Krause and Defendant Sandra
Acevedo to deprive Plaintiff of her right to access by the court by
intentionally preventing the court from hearing evidence of Defendant
Marshall Krause's abuse of Alanna and her mother, by engaging in ex parte
communications with the court in violation of Plaintiff's due process
rights, by coercing and financially harassing Plaintiff's mother into
abandoning her legal efforts to protect Alanna through the courts, by
knowingly aiding and abetting the introduction of false testimony and
reports, by allowing into evidence and/or the court's consideration the
bogus, disreputable, and pro child- abuser "Parental Alienation Syndrome"
theory concocted by the by the discredited misogynist Richard Gardner, by
failing to disclose to the court the unethical and prejudicial relationship
between Defendant Marshall Krause and herself, by seeking to prohibit
Alanna Krause from testifying on her own behalf in order to obtain
protection from the abuse, by sabotaging child protective services
investigations into Plaintiff's abuse, and other acts.
42. Tortious Interference with Mother-Child Relationship: During the
course of her "evaluation" and "treatment" of Plaintiff, Defendant Clark
vigorously and continuously tortiously used her position as Plaintiff's
"therapist" to wrongfully interfere with the relationship between Plaintiff
and her mother, resulting in her mother's inability to protect Plaintiff and
in further harm to Plaintiff.
43. Failure to Report Child Abuse to Child Protection Agencies: During the
course of Defendant Clark's therapist-client relationship with Plaintiff,
Defendant Clark knew that Plaintiff was being abused and neglected by
Defendant Marshall W. Krause, but, despite being a "mandated reporter" of
child abuse and neglect under California Penal Code §§11165 et seq., and, in
violation of her legal duty, intentionally and in bad faith failed to report
the abuse and neglect to the appropriate authorities. Furthermore,
Defendant Clark, acting in bad faith, deliberately sabotaged any child
protection investigations initiated by Plaintiff and others. Defendant
Clark's acts and omissions in this regard proximately caused Plaintiff to
suffer additional abuse and neglect, and the other damages set forth above.
DAMAGES SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT LANA CLARK, PH.D.
44. Plaintiff re-urges Paragraphs 1-43 in extenso.
45. As a result of the tortious conduct set forth above, Plaintiff
suffered severe physical pain and suffering, fear, anxiety, depression,
loss of civil rights and remedies, severe and permanent emotional and
psychological pain and suffering, despair, physical restraint and
confinement, loss of a relationship with her mother, and other compensable
damages.
46. Plaintiff itemizes her damages due her from Defendant Lana Clark as
follows:
A. Professional Malpractice: $5,000,000.
B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: $5,000,000.
C. Conspiracy to Deny Access to the Courts: $5,000,000.
D. Tortious Interference With Mother-Child
Relationship:
$5,000,000.
47. The tortious conduct of Defendant Lana Clark was reckless, malicious,
wanton, outrageous and in total disregard for the rights and interests of
Plaintiff Alanna Krause, and, thus, Defendant Lana Clark is liable to
Plaintiff for punitive damages to deter her and others like her from
engaging in this same sort of misconduct.
48. Plaintiff accordingly demands punitive damages: $10,000,000.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
49. As set forth herein, all defendants are joint tortfeasors engaged in a
common plan and scheme, and, thus, all are jointly and severally liable for
all damages suffered by Plaintiff herein.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
50. Plaintiff is entitled to and demands a trial by jury on all issues.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that after all due proceedings, there be
judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Marshall W.
Krause, Sandra Acevedo, Diamond, Bennington & Simborg, P.C., and Lana
Clark, Ph.D. jointly and severally for such damages as are set forth herein,
plus interest from the date of the filing of this Complaint, all costs of
these proceedings, reasonable attorney's fees as allowed by law, and for
such other equitable relief as is appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ALANNA KRAUSE, Plaintiff
By her counsel:
______________________________
Seth L. Goldstein (Cal. Bar # 176882)
1125 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 226-6660
(707) 226-6661 [Fax]
Local Counsel
__________________________________
Richard L. Ducote, of the Louisiana Bar
Counsel pro hac vice
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
___________________________________
Becki L. Truscott, of the North Carolina Bar
Counsel pro hac vice
Office of Richard Ducote, Attorney at Law
731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-8400
(504) 314-8600 [Fax]
Copy of date stamped filing attached.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$375.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network