The Whole Truth - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part VI

In Part V of this series I left off with the enticement that in an upcoming post I would disclose the results of evidence obtained that disputes Del Anderson's claims. That evidence is presented to you here today.

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” This affirmation is often invoked without serious deliberation as to it's meaning. I have previously written about this testimonial surety. The Moore v Moore case highlights the relevance of the three part affirmation. It is this second part that I will apply to Del Anderson's testimony of 05 February 2013 in the Marion Superior Court 12 in re: Moore v Moore. During his direct examination Mr Anderson sought to establish that Brian Moore was an unfit parent as well as dangerous to his ex-wife, the children and the community. Mr Anderson proceeded to embellish and add to the lies that he had presented in his report.

One claim Anderson made was that the Pendleton Elementary School was on a lock-down and there was police presence at the school and patrols in the neighborhood because of threats that Mr Moore had made. An analysis of this claim to determine any veracity is easily accomplished.

Step one is to send a public records request to the school seeking; “~ Any written record – including but not limited to notes, memorandum, or incident report – related to an alleged threat that resulted in the Pendleton Elementary School being placed on 'lock-down' or any other response to a heightened insecurity, however named.”
The response by superintendent Joseph A Buck contradicted but at the same time appeared to support what Mr Anderson claimed. Mr Buck stated, “This is to inform you a lock-down did not occur at Pendleton Elementary School . . . [h]owever . . . heightened security, with additional police and administration presence, was in place.” No other documentation was provided nor excluded as confidential pursuant to law.
South Madison Community School Corporation Bylaws & Policies 7440 - Facility Security provides that “The Superintendent shall report to the Board . . . any significant incident involving . . . personal safety, or other security risk and the measures being taken to address the situation.” A parent calling the school and threatening to come harm personnel should certainly qualify as a “personal safety” or “security risk” requiring a report to the school board. But such did not happen. To me this sounds more like a CYA situation either by Superintendent Buck or the person reporting the information to him, likely Principal Natalie McQuade.

The second step to take is to send a public records request to the Pendleton Police Department seeking;
”~ Any written record – including but not limited to notes, memorandum, patrol log, dispatch log or incident report – related to an alleged threat at the Pendleton Elementary School . . .[that] may have involved a parent by the name of Brian Moore.
The response by Police Chief Mike Farrer was extensive and less ambiguous. The response consisted entirely of a narrative with no accompanying “notes, memorandum, patrol log, dispatch log or incident report” nor any denial of access to such. In his statement Chief Farrer stated that he was not aware of a lock-down at the school and did not send officers to the school. He did explain that sometimes he is notified about issues so he can keep a “heads up” in the community for possible problems. He disclosed that there were police patrols around the school during morning drop off times. But, he went on to say, “We regularly do this throughout the week and my presence in the area should have been seen as normal and not out of the ordinary by the public or staff.”

The Chief of Police in the jurisdiction of the school has made it clear that police presence in the area should not be seen or portrayed as out of the ordinary by Del Anderson or school staff including Principal Natalie McQuade. Even is Anderson says he was relying upon misinformation provided by principal McQuade, that is inexcusable. In the half year period he could have received the same results from the police chief as I did in 3 days he chose not to. More importantly, in advising in a child custody case this type of laziness and failure to obtain information from collateral sources is inexcusable. Chief Farrer deserves kudos for his prompt and exceedingly helpful response to my request that made it quite clear as to the lack of veracity of Mr Anderson's claims.

The testimony of Del Anderson would lead a trier of fact to conclude that a scenario existed where a threat was called into the school. Subsequently the entrances were locked, police surrounded the building and anxious teachers and students huddled together in classrooms waiting for the arrival and possible shoot-out between the police and the crazed armed gunman. That perception could be attributed to Mr Anderson being – in the softer and more polite words of Judge Welch – “not credible”. The difference in perception and reality may be from a lack of adhering to the second portion of the swearing in affirmation: the whole truth. When Mr Anderson says that the police patrolled around the school after Mr Moore called, he was absolutely correct. What he omitted though – which is tantamount to perception and is the basis for the “whole truth” clause – is that, as Chief Farrer explained, the police patrol the area around the school regularly. The Pendleton Police Chief himself said there was no threat and officers were not dispatched to the school. More particularly that the police presence in the school neighborhood “should have been seen as normal and not out of the ordinary by the public”. Mr Anderson specifically chose to take that fact and deliberately twist it to give the court the false impression that Brian Moore is a dangerous hostile parent. Anderson is NOT a neutral third party but a liar who perjured himself in an effort to malign a parent and influence the custody decision of a judge.

I have again called Child Advocates Inc. -- 317.205.3055 -- and pleaded for a response that I could share with you. However, for some reason my quest to present all possible explanations for these contradictions has been ignored again. Today I sent a request in writing through the postal service seeking comment because I believe that the public deserves to know Child Advocates position on why they deliberately misrepresent facts to the court for the purpose of perpetuating litigation.

If you need assistance in completely tearing apart, debunking, falsifying and exposing the personal motives of any one of these lying third-party agitators to child custody battles then please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.