In Part III of this series I left off with preparing to cite the brazenness of the lies by Del Anderson and how Child Advocates, Inc., has sought to manipulate this case and the depth of their efforts to prolong the litigation. Child Advocates Inc., was asked for comment about this matter but did not return requests made by email or phone. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The lies by Del Anderson are not out of the ordinary. Mr Moore is not the first parent that I have seen assaulted by these third-party evaluators. Usually it is the most fit parent that these evaluators find against and they do so with good reason. Hired guns like the recently deceased Richard Lawlor devised a technique of identifying through psychological evaluation which parent was likely to endanger the child and if the other would seek to litigate to protect the child. If these criteria were met then Lawlor would recommend sole custody to the unfit parent. This set up the likelihood that the protective parent would seek additional psychological evaluations, parenting evaluations and additional litigation. All of which would pump more money into the industry. Child Advocates Inc., has honed this strategy as well.
In the case of Moore v Moore 49D12-0810-DR-44790 Child Advocates Inc., has two of these manipulators involved. The first is the GAL, Del Anderson, who was appointed by the court to do an evaluation of the parents and report his findings to the court. He promptly did that after just one year. The second manipulator is attorney Cynthia Dean who is counsel for Mr Anderson and employed by Child Advocates Inc. She has sought to prolong litigation and as I previously disclosed in a series of articles about her, that she tried to get Mr Moore to violate a court order.
In his testimony on Tuesday 05 February 2013 Mr Anderson alleged that Mr Moore said that all judges are corrupt. Mr Moore, when his opportunity comes to testify, will say that he did not say that. Clearly this is an attempt by Del Anderson to prejudice Judge Heather Welch against Mr Moore.
Del Anderson didn't count on one thing; a parent who knows that his participation in the process is going to be a perfunctory duty that will result in himself being branded the unfit parent without a factual basis. Mr Anderson has likely routinely gone into court and lied knowing that his only challenge is going to come from a parent whom he has already assessed as being combative, not respectful of authority and antagonistic towards third-party evaluators. Well this time it was different because it wasn't just Mr Moore that Del Anderson would be up against. Mr Moore had already sought the assistance of someone who could escort him through this process and be prepared for everything. One of those preparations paid off big time. Using discrete digital audio recording devices with large memory capacity, the entire three hour interview of Mr Moore by Del Anderson was recorded without interruption.
Copies of that recording are what Mr Moore sought to introduce into evidence last week over the objections of Cynthia Dean and Jonathan Deenik of Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey & Glazier, P.C., who is the attorney representing Kristy Moore. Mr Deenik's objections were quickly over-ruled as the parties went into about a half hour conference prior to Judge Welch calling a recess in the hearing. She then recused herself for unknown reasons.
This litigation has dragged on into its third year partly because of the efforts of Cynthia Dean who specifically misinformed Mr Moore about the purpose of a court order in an effort to get him to violate the order. Ms Moore was later found in contempt of court for violating the order. Clearly it was the goal of Cynthia Dean to have that happen to Mr Moore.
When Brian Moore sought to have the parties ordered into mediation to resolve Ms Moores' motion for modification of custody and parenting time Cynthia Dean objected. Interestingly, Child Advocates Inc., was brought into this case to represent the interest of the children. I'm not sure about Ms Dean's qualifications and I'm not going to go into mine. One thing I am sure of though is that mediated agreements produce the best results for children. I know many judges both personally and professionally. All have told me to some extent that it is best when parents can agree because what is presented in court is such a microcosm of the family dynamic of the parties before them and they can't always be sure that, given their limited resources, that they can make a decision in the best interest of the children. Judge Heather Welch knew this and trusted that Child Advocates Inc., could, as she stated on the record, assist her in making this vitally important decision.
But Child Advocates Inc., has violated that trust. They sent representatives into court who lied, attempted to manipulate the parties, acted in an adversarial position, and sought to prolong the litigation and turmoil in the lives of the Moore's children. Child Advocates Inc., has undoubtedly sought to inflict harm upon children and doesn't even have the decency to try to defend themselves with a response.
In the next installment I will reveal more about the involvement of psychologist and custody evaluators in general.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Litigation Pays Attorneys more - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part IV
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment