Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Alienator Christine Porcaro is Still Lying and Abusing the Children

Just yesterday I was writing about Current Child Custody Statistics and Shared Parenting in which I made brief reference to the harms children face in the sole custody of their mothers. While doing so a filing that clearly demonstrates this was being tendered in the Madison Superior Court.

I have previously told you about the model parental alienator Christine Porcaro and how she is using and abusing the legal system to the detriment of the three children she bore with Craig Scarberry. One would hope that a little public scrutiny would help her understand the harm she is doing but apparently it has only increased her resolve to continue to do so.

Based upon this Finding in the court where Judge Newman presides; "There was evidence that the Mother/Respondent had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time [sic] buckle them in their car seat." I made a report to Madison County DCS, as I am required to by law, that Christine Porcaro may be abusing or neglecting the children.

Before I get into what Porcaro told DCS let me give you a bit of an update from the 24 January 2011 filing on what Judge Newman feels is best for Craig Scarberry's children. Judge Newman doesn't want these children to have the benefit of two parents. Instead it is apparently his desire that a child of only four years of age have her necessary treatment for Cerebral Palsy discontinued or greatly reduced as Christine Porcaro has apparently done.

Based upon doctor recommendations the youngest child "has been receiving physical and occupational therapy" and "has been wearing braces on her legs." Additionally she has also "been receiving Botox injections for spasticity in her legs bilaterally which is medically necessary for her physical therapy to help control muscle tone."

A doctor "ordered occupational therapy" for the child who "was taken to the initial assessment at Community Rehab and Sports Center in Indianapolis which was attended to by both parents. The parents were to schedule additional appointments for [the child's] occupational therapy. Following that time Respondent/Mother was granted sole legal custody. Respondent/Mother has failed to make any occupational therapy appointments for [the child]."

The filing then goes into detail about a series of missed or canceled medical care appointments by Mother;
"On August 20, 2010 Petitioner/Father appeared at Community Hospital Pediatric Neurology for [the child's] treatment but was informed by staff that Respondent/Mother had canceled the appointment.";
"On December 14, 2010 Petitioner/Father appeared at Community Hospital Pediatric Neurology for [the child's] treatment but was informed by staff that Respondent/Mother had canceled the appointment.";
"On January 7, 2011 Petitioner/Father was en route to Community Hospital for [the child's] physical therapy but was informed by Respondent/Mother that she had canceled the appointment."; and
"On 06, 13, and 20 January 2011 when Respondent/Mother brought [the child] to Petitioner/Father for regularly scheduled parenting time [the child] was not wearing her braces nor had Respondent/Mother supplied such to Petitioner/Father for use on [the child] while in his care."

I don't know with what frequency these appointments are scheduled but it seems quite clear that Mother is neglecting the child and that Father has been available to provide the care as indicated by him either being at the appointments or en route to them when notified of the cancellations by Mother.

The filing then speaks of psychological counseling of another child. That child "had been receiving psychotherapy at the Anderson Psychiatric Clinic. The appointment record . . .indicates the following for the most recent three appointments;
08/13/10 Late Cancel. Mom has to work
09/01/10 No Show
11/13/10 No Show"

This one does indicate the frequency with this being the "most recent three appointments". Here it is clear that Mother has discontinued the care.

This is the exact type of neglect that concerns me in sole custody situations. It is clear that Porcaro initiated an intense custody battle lasting 20 hours in court. As you will becoming aware of further in this posting she believes that she is being followed and unjustly made out to be a bad person.

I believe that she is being blinded by such an intense desire to hurt the children's father and exhibit her legal control over the children that she is willing to harm the children to accomplish these desires. Clearly she is not acting in the best interest of the child.

Generally I will fault and chastise a judge as necessary for making an erroneous call. However, here I am fully willing to launch a virulent attack on Newman for his abuse of these children. There is a long line of research that clearly demonstrates that the next best thing to married parents is equal parenting time with two active and involved parents, which these children had. Sole custody with mother has been shown to be the most dangerous custody arrangement for children and Newman knew it. But BECAUSE HE IS A RELIGIOUS BIGOT who doesn't like it that Scarberry is AGNOSTIC he placed the children into this harmful custody arrangement.

So, now back to what I had been writing before getting the latest filing. Does Newman think it is best for the children to be exposed to violence? Immediately following Newman's order Porcaro asked Craig Scarberry to conduct a parenting time exchange at her home instead of a public location as was usual. Scarberry refused and instead they met at McDonald's. This time Porcaro was driving instead of her boyfriend, Brandon Galbraith, who was in the passenger seat. When Porcaro parked next to Scarberry's car and he exited Galbraith then got out and attacked Scarberry while the children watched. Porcaro did nothing to stop it.

Considering that Porcaro wanted that exchange to take place at her home and that she drove the vehicle to ensure that Galbraith would have immediate access to Scarberry it is reasonable to assume that she and Galbraith had planned the attack. Galbraith was charged in November 2010 under cause number 48H02-1101-CM-005120 for one count of battery.

Unfortunately for the children of Madison County they may continue to suffer by the actions of the deplorable Judge Newman. He feels that punishing a parent because of his open-minded attitude towards religion is more important than the best interest of the children.

To call Porcaro truthfully challenged would be an understatement. Let's face it, she's a compulsive liar who abuses their children. She lied to police while I personally witnessed it. The lies didn't end there though.

Although Galbraith was charged on 22 November 2010 with battery pursuant to I.C. 35-42-2-1 Porcaro told the DCS caseworker in December 2010 that no one had been charged with battery or anything else in relation to the McDonald's incident.

On 28 December 2010 Porcaro was interviewed by a DCS case manager. Porcaro expressed that she feels that she is being watched by Scarberry or a private investigator. She has said that the newspapers have blown it way out of proportion and that she is not the bad person she is being made out to be. She also complained that I have written a blog posting about her and that it was Craig who decided that I would make the abuse/neglect report to DCS. However, it was I who was under a legal obligation to make the report which I did within 48 hours of receiving the information. I then informed Scarberry that I made the report and that DCS would be contacting him at some point about it. It is not Scarberry who determines whether I will comply with the law.

Unknown to Scarberry [until he reads this] I will be sending a copy of the latest filing to the Madison County DCS and Prosecutor's Office. I believe it demonstrates that she is neglecting the children. It is not so much the assertions on their face that concern me, although they do, but based upon my experience and training these actions may reflect a greater level of abuse and neglect that is going on within the home behind closed doors.

Galbraith has stated that he is not a violent person although a witness at the McDonald's made a statement to police that Galbraith initiated the attack which resulted in Scarberry's hospitalization. It is this type of denial that endangers children. Is he the type of person who would use corporal punishment to excess but be in denial of it? Would he physically abuse the children "for their own good"? Those of us intimately involved in child advocacy are well-aware of the dangers that some boyfriends of the mothers pose to the children which are not biologically theirs. Galbraith, and his unwillingness to accept that he is violent, may be one such person.

I think it is appropriate to say here what I just said yesterday - The absence of a father and the introduction of a mother's boyfriend can have alarming results. Children in step-families are at increased risk for experiencing physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.[fn14] Children, especially boys, growing up in single parent mother-headed families are at 2 to 2.5 times the risk of child sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional and mental abuse and neglect by either the mother herself or her “new friend”, the so-called “stepparent”.[fn15]

The exalted and self-righteously heavenly-blessed Judge Newman feels that this is in the children's best interest though.

This case in now before the Indiana Court of Appeals who will hopefully reinstate Scarberry's parental rights so he can make the decision to continue with his daughter's necessary medical care and protect them from an abusive parent and violent boyfriend.

Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page


Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates

©2011 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

No comments: