III) BETH MALONEY’S
REPLY TO SUSAN BIXBY
By our reading, the
Maloney reply to Bixby’s response is a lot easier for a non-lawyer to follow
and to understand. It is a coherent narrative. It tells a very sad story
clearly. It is about how a mother has been strategically demonized by her
opponents, and how the impact of this demonization has influenced the judge's
custody decision. It presents Ms Dalton as the victim of a “railroad job” with
several of the court players appearing far from “impartial”. The brief offers
examples of flaws in the information gathering process and of the Guardian ad
litem (GAL) in this case operating outside of the boundaries of “Rules for
GALs”. Maloney is knocking on the door
of the court for equal parent time, which is a position that we, as family
court reformers, endorse for every child custody case in a divorce, unless
there is proven child abuse. They key word is “proven”. There is no proof that we can see in this
family court case - for good reason. It
would (or should) remove the case to criminal court.
We ask, “So why ever
is a family court dealing with alleged child abuse? Isn’t it outside of their mandate, their
skills?” Child abuse is a crime. A claim of child abuse should have a criminal
investigation and be tried in a criminal court with a jury, if there is
evidence. “Strategic” claims of abuse should be tossed out of family courts;
particularly, if the criminal investigation of such claims has already yielded
a big, fat “zero”! Without hard facts
soft allegations of abuse constitute a cruel “witch hunt”. We also feel that
various forms of court prescribed therapy and parental training, which are
mostly without scientific grounding, ought to be tossed out too, as more
beneficial to the service provider’s pocketbook that to the recipient of
service’s psyche.
In Ms Dalton’s case,
it is unclear whether anyone has actually diagnosed a problem for which -
despite no diagnosis - she is
nonetheless being treated? Nor does
there seem to be a clear aim or endpoint which would say she has passed the
test and can now be a “card-carrying” parent,
So the court and the opposing lawyer
keep the treatment for unspecified problems just rolling along - perhaps
forever? Treatment for the “bad” parent,
parent counseling for the “bad” parent, supervised visits for the “bad” parent
are part of the family court and family lawyer’s strategic games that keep the process going on forever with
no goals. All done in the name of “the
child’s best interest”, until the money runs out! It is a cruel travesty that should stop.
Even Maloney in her
response to Bixby bows to this hideous “game” when she says that Ms Dalton is
“showing progress” with these junk therapy efforts. “Progress” in what, compared to what, to what
end? As non-lawyers, who don’t have to
play the courtroom game, we’d prefer to hit head-on this bogus therapy for an unspecified condition, with no visible end point. Ms Dalton doesn’t need any of it to rein in
her imaginary alleged intense child abuse impulses. It is a disconnected prescription for therapy
for no named condition “discovered” as an opportunity by an opposing divorce lawyer. And it is a stereotyped strategy used all
over America. A lawyer spots a lucrative
opportunity to get a client on a treadmill from which there is no exit. No end until the money runs out!
Reply brief of
Appellant can be found here: Dalton v Dalton Final
If you have had
problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.
The first two briefs
may be found here:
2014-05-06 Maine -
An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the LawyersDebate
No comments:
Post a Comment