5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
Mesa, AZ 85251
Madam Chairperson and Members,
I respectfully have the following observations to share.
In thirteen years of supporting members of Arizona Father's Rights I have seen numerous documents proving beyond doubt that severe abuses quite outside the bounds of belief are being committed on behalf of the judiciary. You will find in the following commentary that it is not unusual for a parenting coordinator to be promoting family dissension and interfering or blocking parental communication much to the measured detriment of the children.
This is not so much about separating the good providers from the bad providers as it is about weeding out the deliberately harmful and abusive “professionals” from the rest. It is also about the common abuse of rule and statute that exists among family court judges. The statute needs to be worded in forceful terms that might catch a judge's eye. To that end dissemination of family law material and periodic testing of judges is necessary. While the last is not in the main stream of this committee's subject matter, it is germaine to consider given that these rules serve as direction to judges.
I bring your attention to the Rule 74 Proposed Changes: Page 25 of Judge Barton's post, last paragraph:
“In a case where the parenting coordinator is licensed by the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners and a parent has filed a complaint with the court regarding unprofessional conduct, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2081(b), prior to referring a complaint arising out of a court ordered evaluation, treatment or psychoeducation to the board, the court must find that there is a substantial basis to refer the complaint for consideration by the board. “
There is a statute passed by the legislature, and signed by Governor Ducey, to come into effect July 6, 2015 which rescinds the right of the court to pre-qualify any complaint a person might have to file that complaint with the AZ Board of Psychological Examiners.
SB1439 can be found here: http://azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.a...ion_Id=114
This was signed by Gov Ducey April 1 and becomes law July 6.
Rule 74 should require any complaint made to the court involving professional misconduct to be, at a minimum, referred to the licensing body no matter which discipline. This does not preclude the court from taking further action on its own to address the matter. Regardless of whether the court takes further action, the matter should be referred to the licensing body without further ado.
PCs have tremendous political influence conferred by their association with the court that prevents the system from working to defend the public from court appointed wrong doers. Examples will follow later in this document. Even with no direct action by the court, the institutions and portions of government charged with oversight of PC's are prevented from discharging their duties.
I pray the court take action to communicate to those charged with oversight of PCs that it has no intent or desire to interfere with their duties as they apply to anyone in their employ or appointment. And that, given the fact that said persons wield tremendous power over the populace, they should be held to the strictest standards of conduct. It should be said that there is no immunity from committing a crime intended in any respect to those appointed by the court and, regardless of how an immunity is crafted, there is no intent ever that the court shield said person from criminal prosecution. Further it needs to be communicated that the court expects that prosecutorial discression not be used as a vehicle to avoid prosecuting any court appointed person.
That would include communication, at a minimum, with the Attorney General, various levels of prosecutors including the county prosecutors, the State Bar Association, the AZ Board of Psychological Examiners, AZ Medical Board (AZ Board of Psychiatric Examiners), and the AZ Board of Behavioral Health.
Regarding qualified parenting coordinators:
It is contrary to statute for anyone to practice any form of behavioral health without being licensed by either the Az Board of Psychological Examiners, AZ Medical Board (the medical board governing psychiatrists), or the Az Board of Behavioral Health Examiners. There is a purpose and rationale for those statutes. In the provider list parenting coordinators are defined as behavioral health professionals. Attorneys are not trained in any meaningful way to handle or recognize the fine or even mainstream psychological characteristics and family dynamics in an educated or trained way. They cannot be expected to provide the level of care that the medical community provides; they have an entirely different skillset and training, some of it inimical to the best outcome for a PC in the midst of a family crisis.
For example there might be to the outside world great contentiousness in a family that at first glance is exhibited by both parents at odds with one another. That does not mean that both parents are contributing to that contentiousness. One may be an example of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). They are known for their incredible skills of manipulation to such a degree that the DSM-5 warns the practitioner to not pay attention to the words of that person, only to the facts. Four percent of the population is ASPD. The other parent is forced to fight, if they indeed recognize what they are dealing with, for their children's well being. It is their duty as a parent. They have the duty to protect. An attorney is not qualified or trained to address these kinds of issues. Alcoholism
I pray that attorneys be stricken from the list as eligible to function as Parenting Coordinators. The citizens of this state deserve more expertise than attorney training can provide and it is readily available.
Judges are routinely using PC assignments as a means to deny parties access to due process. Judge Warner has done so numerous times with a refusal to give access to the legal system; that is what the PC is assigned for. As well he and other judges have denied access to records of children for “no cause shown.” There are numerous statutes including the parent's bill of rights which deny a judge the right to block access to child's records unless the court has found “a serious danger to the child” exists.
The point of examining these issues is to encourage the court to make changes to Rule 74 which will reinforce a judge's duty to enforce the law. This is no panacea given the fact that laws and rules are being disregarded in a wholesale fashion. However, it will serve to strengthen and clarify the use of laws and rules in the case of PCs with the hope that it will dampen the tendency to abuse the system.
Regarding Rule 74(K) immunity:
I pray the following be included, “Immunity shall not be conferred if the PC makes a willful misrepresentation to the court. Further it shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including perjury.” It is not unusual for the core of the court appointed professionals to lie to the court. Nor should immunity be conferred for willfully causing harm to the client and gross negligence.
The law enforcement and prosecutor community is interpreting the immunity conferred by this paragraph as absolute. It is unlikely that the court has that intent. I have seen documents which prove that this is so in numerous cases. The immunity conferred needs to be explicitly limited to civil immunity resulting in competently administering their duties in the case. It should be explicitly stated that any violation of criminal statute or rules of professional conduct is not condoned by the court nor immunity conferred for such conduct. It is unlikely that the court has the authority to issue blanket immunity for criminal conduct. The enforcement in such a fashion is corrosive to our community and a clear violation of our Constitutions and the values held by our society. I pray the committee to remedy this.
Specific examples of abuse follow:
Dr. Allen is a short, portly man. He started out his parenting coordination by taking a heated stance over the man, screaming at him, and denunciating him in the most defamatory way imaginable. Not a thing he said had foundation and even if it did the behavior is inappropriate.
Dr. Allen shortly later lied to the court in an attempt to inflame the judge. A complaint was filed before the Board of Psychological Examiners. At the hearing Dr. Allen brought a one foot stack of folders, probably all blank. A PC does not need or make copies of the entire court file. His entire and only defense was that this was a contentious case. There was one outspoken member of the board but the man influencing the board had a matching stack of folders before him and stentoriously announced, “I have reviewed this case. It is a contentious case. There has been no violation of statute.”
Dr. Yee in open court when asked if he was factually determining who was telling the truth, Mr. xxx or Ms. Xxx, replied, NO. In spite of claiming in his report that “the truth was challenging to determine but over time a pattern has emerged.” The ex in that case gleefully asserted that she had sex with Dr. Yee. Subsequent gross misrepresentations of the truth by Dr. Yee were without consequence when brought to the court's attention. Dr. Yee among other things claimed that a pediatrician who sent a letter of concern and advisement to the mother did not mean what the he said. His words were “that it can only be concluded that the doctor was manipulated....” This was a statement without foundation or truth and was only one of many falsehoods given to the court.
In the mental health industry this is called risk taking. Dr. Yee and the other four percent that are ASPD revel in their ability to manipulate the court and all others that happen to pass through their environment. They take risk often for no other purpose than to revel in their influence, control and invincibility. They believe they can talk their way out of anything. And generally they are correct, they can. Therefore, they have no boundaries.
It is noteworthy to note that they have no physical ability to feel empathy. This means that they no conscience. This can be seen in brainscans, for instance fMRI. The National Institute of Mental Health last summer announced that it was going to brainscans as the primary diagnostic tool. This is what is called widespread acceptance of this diagnostic tool. I personally spent an hour with the one doctor who does all of the fMRI's at Barrows Neurological Institute. She validated this use and referred me to a professor at the University of New Mexico as a world leader in this forensic use of these tests.
In another instance Dr. Wienstock, as parenting coordinator, wrote a parting letter to Judge Adelman recommending that the parties be ordered to propercom.com and it be paid for by the father as a sanction for alleged email rule violations. The email violation was that the father deigned to be critical in passing of Weinstock in emails to the mother. The father was actually doing everything in his power to protect his family, including the ex, from the ravages of severe drug addiction that she was afflicted with. This last was uncontested and thoroughly acknowledged fact.
The situation was this:
1. There was no dispute that the mother has an extreme alcohol addiction. The son speaks of it.
2. Mother has accused the father of being a child predator, a rapist, a homosexual among other things. These go by the wayside.
3. The father convinces the mother to get into AA with help.
4. The father joins AL-ANON and supports her armed with information gleaned from the AL-ANON education. The mother just entered into the program but of course is still unable to care for her son. Someone incapacitated by addiction cannot overcome it overnight.
5. Weinstock is not involved in, does not support, nor does he comment on any of the above.
6. Weinstock actively works against the mother in her fight against this horrendous disease by supporting her addiction. See the emails attached to Weinstock's report. Note that Weinstock did not include both sides of the conversation for the majority of the time.
7. Father works harder and more effectively to support the mother in her struggle. Consider an exerpt from the father's email dated 12/3/2013. “ The important thing to focus on, is this is a disease that will only provide you a miserable existence until it eventually kills you. Did they tell you that part yet? Most people die of it, directly or indirectly, sooner or later and everyone gets to suffer along with you until death finally comes. You are right, The reality is not very nice. The good news is that AA is your chance to cheat death. Those people you met are just as nice as the people I have met. None of them are in it for the money. They all genuinely want to help you live. That is love Shirley. You have discovered it. Whether you realize it or not, you are in a fight for your life that you must win. It's going to be a tough fight but everything you need to win is available to you. ….. “ and more of the same.
8. The above is deemed “Father's inappropriate behavior.” line 7 page 2 of the attached report.
9. January 2, 2014 Weinstock files a report that is attached to this comment. He recommends interventions with regards to Father's communications with mother.
1. He recommends a therapist be ordered by the court for father to address communication skills. Does the reading above imply substandard communication skills?
2. He recommends the court order Father to sign-up for www.propercom.com to block his email at a cost of $30 per email. This is tantamount to and intended for blocking all joint parenting efforts in a situation where the favored parent is an extreme drug addict and is endangering the child and others on the streets of this city.
10. 1/9/2014 Judge Adelman relieved Weinstock at his request and appointed Dr. Yee without any consultation with the family.
11. 1/20/2014 Judge Adelman ordered all the sanctions recommended against the father. Weinstock appeared without notice to either party at the hearing to testify. This is a violation of the rules of court procedure and a denial of due process. Weinstock had exparte communication with the judge after he had been relieved. The judge stated on the record, “that he (Weinstock) must have had a good reason.” This connotes two things. 1. The judge saw nothing to support his ruling or Weinstock's recommendations in what was presented him. 2. The judge made a ruling of great consequences to the family without foundation, based solely on hearsay and with the assumption that he was dealing with a professional whom he could trust absolutely.
12. Consequences? The child who is now 18 went abruptly from an honor student to failing and is in danger of not graduating high school. The mother is having a more difficult time with her addiction due to support that is an integral part of AA treatment being blocked by the court and the dark side of her addiction being catered to by Weinstock. Another apropos way of stating this is that Weinstock actively promoted conflict in the family and hindered and blocked to the limit of his ability their honest efforts to deal with the mother's drug addiction.
13. Weinstock did not support or endeavor to help the family. It is of note that his sole concern was that the parties dared criticise his lack of action.
14. That lack of action continued to be evinced by Dr. Yee.
15. Shortly after Yee's succession to Weinstock he was called by father to help get a court order enforced. Yee informed him that he did not do court enforcement. Yet Yee knew that father was under court order to first go to the PC for aid in particular for enforcement. Further, the court PC assignment required Yee to assist in enforcement of court orders as provided for in Rule 74(E).
16. Yee refused to do the job assigned him. Judge Adelman refused to give father access to the legal system until Yee did his job. Yee held the post for about six months but provided no services and billed no fees.
17. It seems certain that Yee colluded with Weinstock to string out the lack of court action and thereby engender and continue to cause psychological and physical harm to the parties.
Father struggled to get his child cared for while his child is under the care, and he is under the handicap, of an addled and severely addicted mother; struggling to help his son who is struggling through the nightmare of a daily struggle to survive the assaults of the incapacitated mother upon his senses and who controls his every access to the necessities of life and society.
Now, in addition, he is under attack by a sociopath, mentally, socially, legally, and emotionally. The professional who was hired to help both the mother and father is only concerned about blocking all his efforts to help his child. It is the father's observation of the previous that Weinstock objects to. Weinstock DID NOT ONCE SEEK TO SUPPORT THE MOTHER IN HER STRUGGLES WITH ADDICTION WHICH WAS IN ITS MOST PERILOUS STAGE, SUPPORT THE CHILD IN ANY WAY IN HIS DAILY STRUGGLE TO LIVE IN THE MOST HORRENDOUS CONDITIONS, OR SUPPORT OR GUIDE THE FATHER IN HIS VAIN STRUGGLE TO AID HIS CHILD. INSTEAD WITH HIS LAST ACT HE CUT OFF ALL FAMILIAL COMMUNICATION, AND WITH IT, SUPPORT FOR MOTHER AND CHILD IN THAT VENUE.
WEINSTOCK HAD NO PART IN GETTING THE MOTHER IN AA, THE FATHER IN AL-ANON, AND DID NOT COUNSEL OR ATTEMPT TO AID THE CHILD OR EITHER PARTY IN ANY MANNER.
INSTEAD HE USED HIS INFLUENCE WITH THE JUDGE TO BLOCK JOINT PARENTING. The parents were confined to email and email was blocked at Weinstock's request to the judge by a $30 per email and $10 per text bounty charged for every attempt to coparent. For the most fundamental requirement of successful coparenting is free communication between the coparents. Weinstock Ph.D. intentionally used his influence with the judge to block coparenting, block the support being given to the addicted mother as an integral part of AL-ANON and AA, and in so doing block the parental support to the child that both parents in their own way were attempting to provide. The first stage of dealing with any addiction, especially a severe one, is getting into a crafted program. Weinstock actively worked to prevent the AA program from working. AA and AL-ANON are two essential parts of the most successful treatment of alcohol addiction available.
Weinstock was replaced with Mr. Yee. Yee left all of Weinstock's work in place and endorsed it. It IS certain that both Yee and Weinstock in exparte communications with Judge Adleman were the instruments in convincing the Judge to order almost a month after Yee's assignment on January 20, 2014 the blocking of communication between the parents.
The fact that the mother is an extreme alcohol addict is not mentioned by Weinstock, in his report. Weinstock endorses the mother's addiction. Weinstock endorses the mother driving a child while “blithering” drunk. Weinstock endorses the mother putting everyone else on the road, including children's, life at risk. In short Weinstock endorses the addiction of the mother.
This is a pattern that has crossed my desk over and over and over again in the fourteen years I have been supporting fathers, significant others, and grandmothers. Gossip is never given credibility unless it's supported by court documents and documented communications. In particular it has happened with Yee, Weinstock, and Selmi. There has not once been an instance cross my desk of any of these three doing anything but injuring the family, gross fabrications to the court, grossly excessive fees, and humiliation of the vilest kinds. It is by no means limited to these three but they give new meaning to the word corruption.
It is not unusual for Dr. Selmi to wait four to seven months before a first visit with the parties, especially in reunifications. This is because she is too busy traveling the world at the expense of children's education, clothing, nutrition, standard of living, and their physical and emotional well being.
In parting it seems wise to consider what Dr. Martha Stout advises when asked how to identify ASPD. She says they always make use of the”pity party.” One sees this in the Yee and Wienstock exerpts above. It is also seen quite often in different kinds of reports. Changes implemented in Rule 74 should be mirrored in all other categories of court appointed persons.
The list of litigants that caused this committee's formation is requested. The information has passed through so many hands to get to this stage that the points represented may very well be partial. Again, the committee needs data to make judicious changes to Rule 74. Also the 4-7 litigants should be able to participate in this committee. They are where the facts reside, at least some of them.
Thank you for your consideration,