C.R.

My Story:

I have been going through this for 11 years.(705 dockets and going strong). My first Judge was Phillips, and now I have Catherine Brunson for my second child custody trial. I have had 8 Judges and one Commissioner. I left my abusive home (two broken ribs and spinal lumbar arthritis resulting from the broken tail bone witnessed by our children) with our children and now our children are abusing others as well as me, just as my Former Husband did prior to the divorce.

I have not seen my 14 and 16 year old son and daughter since my FH took the children on their visit in September 2004, they are at our former home with their father. The police attempted to retrieve them and filed intervening with custody at the SA which is a felony. Nothing was done. This was also after my 16 year old spent the night in Juvenile Hall for abusing me.

Top that off with my FH wanting me to support them after alienating my children and turning them into scary adults from the date he stole them. I am a w-2 worker and can't hide income as my FH who is self employed.. Yet he falsifies all of his income and assets and the Judge allows it.

Our daughter‘s behavior in my custody was fine at the start of the school year in 2004.. Behavior changes are clearly indicated on her 2005 report card as well as several referrals and suspension from school in May. Our daughter is displaying the verbally abusive and disrespectful attitude this court has found the Former Husband and his current wife have displayed over the past 11 years with me.

Statements made by Former Husband’s attorney, at the 10:00 a.m. hearing on May 24, 2005 with Judge Garrison. was that our children were doing well in the care of the Former Husband and current wife. It appears from the reports made by Palm Beach Gardens Police, Duncan B. Watson Middle School, and the Palm Beach County Bus Driver that "thriving‘ would not be what is indicated.

I abided by the custody guidelines despite the fact that the Former Husband manipulates the system and has no regard for the Police or the Court. Never at any time did I ever taken the Courts rulings into my own hands as the Former Husband does on an abusive level.

The first custody trial by Judge Roger B. Colton showed all of this to be fact. The following were some of his findings. However, the Former Husbands attorney demanded a Motion to have the following statements removed and Judge Colton granted his motion in order to avoid legal action from the former husband. The following was also removed from the court records.

FINAL JUDGMENT BY HONORABLE ROGER B.COLTON CONCERNING PETITION FOR MODIFICATION dated April 1998 (SEE APRIL 1998 MODIFICATION)

Excerpts from paragraphs H, & J:

H. Expert Testimony: The Court heard expert testimony from Larry Mack and Ellen Chouinard. Larry Mack was an expert who was employed by the Former Husband to testify in this matter. Mr. Mack has a degree in Psychology and counsels with families concerning divorce issues and parental alienation. Mr. Mack did not examine the parties’ minor children nor did he examine the parties. Mr. Mack’s testimony was limited to hypothetical situations.

Mr. Mack testified to various questions propounded to him by counsel. He testified that the parties’ children were in extreme parental alienation. He recommended that the parties’ minor children be removed from the Former Wife and placed in the custody of the Former Husband with the Former Wife receiving only supervised visitation.

The parties’ agreed to a social investigation. This social investigation was conducted by, Ellen Chouinard. Ms. Chouinard met with the parties, observed them with the minor children and also made substantial additional contacts. Ms. Chouinard spoke various individuals, reviewed police reports and issued a report to the Court. She found no parental alienation and testified there was no reason why the parties’ minor children should be removed from their mother.

Ms. Chouinard recommended that any visitation schedule with these parties be rigid and inflexible given the animosity between the parties. She recommended that a visitation schedule be drawn up and strictly adhered to. This schedule would include a specific time for a minimum number of weekly telephone contacts between the children and their parents who they are away from. She recommended that if the parents are unable to follow this visitation schedule that they utilize the family connection. She further recommended that all parties and members of their household, relatives and friends refrain from making negative or demeaning statements about the other parent while the children are within hearing distance. Finally, she recommended that the minor children attend counseling and that both parents cooperate with this process.

Evidence Presented: The evidence presented in this matter is that the parties have had a history of inability to deal with one another. The Former Wife initially had difficulty dealing with being divorced and making the change from working in the Former Husband’s business to being on her own. The Court heard testimony from Mr. Berman who testified that he observed the Former Wife to be angry and upset in the morning when she dropped off the children due to her Former Husband’s actions.

The Former Husband has clearly made matters as difficult as he can for the Former Wife. His present wife obtained an injunction against the Former Wife. This injunction prevented the Former Wife from contacting the Former Husband because she resided with her husband. The former Husband, at the conclusion of this case, testified that he has done absolutely nothing wrong in the last two and a half (2 1/2) years.

Clearly, the Former Husband has conducted himself inappropriately as was reflected by the testimony of witnesses. The Former Husband has demonstrative anger and animosity towards numerous people. When he thought his sister-in-law was in agreement with his Former Wife, he left a message on her answering machine threatening to blow up her house (which is also the house of his brother}. The Former Husband also accuses his father of having an intimate relationship with his Former Wife. The Former Husband and his father do not speak because HE ADVISED HIS FATHER THAT HE WOULD BREAK HIS FORMER WIFE FINANCIALLY THROUGH THESE PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THERE WAS EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT THE FORMER HUSBAND DEMEANS THE FORMER WIFE IN FRONT OF THE PARTIES’ MINOR CHILDREN.

THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS INTOLERABLE AND IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.

The most persuasive testimony in this case was presented by, Idis Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins was the juvenile counselor at the Youth Services Bureau who counseled the parties’ minor children. He testified that the Former Wife, in an effort to get the parties’ minor children back into counseling again in July, 1997, took a parent education course. This course took between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) hours to complete. Because of the Former Wife’s efforts in taking this class, the children qualified to be counseled further by Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins testified that the minor children were doing well and that they did not need any further counseling. It is clear from these actions that the Former Wife places the minor children’s best interests first. This is further corroborated by the fact that when Danica was about to be held back in school, the Former Wife through her efforts, had her tested.

When the daughter was tested, it was discovered that she had a learning disability and given that fact, it was proper for her to be placed in the next grade. The Former Husband merely acquiesced with school’s request.

The Former Husband’s insistence on the police being present for visitation exchange is without merit. There was no evidence presented that there is a need for the police to be present. While it is true that a domestic violence injunction was issued against the Former Wife by the Former Husband’s present spouse, there is no indication that it is necessary for the Former Husband to have the police present. The police presence is disturbing to the parties’ minor children and causes then great concern. THE FORMER HUSBAND’S CLAIM THAT THE PARTIES’ MINOR CHILDREN ARE BEING PARENTALLY ALIENATED IS WITHOUT MERIT. ALL OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THE FORMER HUSBAND AND HIS PRESENT SPOUSE, TESTIFIED THAT THE CHILDREN LOVE THEIR FATHER, LOVE THEIR MOTHER AND ARE DOING WELL. THERE ARE NO SIGNS EXHIBITED BY THE PARTIES MINOR CHILDREN THAT THEY WERE THE VICTIMS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION.

Now the Judge refuses to review anything from the past other than the past two years per FH attorney. Isn’t a file to be reviewed to see if there is a pattern? Why would this be allowed. Any motions I file are ignored with no reasons given.

I suffered a brain trauma in 2002. I have been told this is called Legal Abuse Syndrome. I am also starting to get the same dizzy spells that caused the trauma then and have been informed if I eliminate stress I should be fine. How is that possible with court ongoing?

The stepmother agreed to adopt which would eliminate any further dealing with court.

If I call our children the step mother alleges I threaten her life which is not true, but I am not going to have more false reports made. Their attorney says I never call when he knows I have tried on the FH cell and been told by the FH that I have no rights and brags about finally crushing me.

I have a letter from his attorney after I called him to arrange seeing the children and he tells me in a letter I have to contact my FH to see my children yet the attorney tells the court I have never attempted.

The ironic part is the attorney was introduced to my FH by me. He was at our wedding and home. He also knows my FH is hiding income and assets yet he is representing him which to me would indicate fraud. The attorney told me it would be a conflict of interest if he represented either of us. Yet his irrigation system is done by my FH, so I guess the conflict is only with me. The Judge does not bother to entertain any of this. I tried to introduce police reports, school reports as well as a forensic audit. Brunson denies all of it with no reasons.

Despite the fact I love our children I have to face the fact that they will be abusive and court will be never ending. Of course the step mother has never followed through to adopt them despite the court transcripts and now demanding so much child support that my FH has finally completed what he vowed, to take our children and financially crush me. There is no way I can pay the absorbent amount of support and be able to support myself. Yet he lives in a home we built together with both companies we both started together.

The November hearing was by telephone and the Judge hung up on me while I was in mid sentence. The hearing time allowed was 30 minutes, it ended in 11, with the FH attorney doing most of the talking. Brunson told him to write the decision and garnish my wages and send it to her for her signature.

I am awaiting that decision to object. If seems there is a delay since the FH stated under oath last hearing he only owed me $100 in back support, the court ledger shows almost $3,000 and now back to court to dispute that.