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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Whole Truth - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part VI
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Indianapolis Bar Association's Family Law Commitment - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part V
In Part IV of this series I left off with the summary that Child Advocates Inc., 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 children whose parents are in a custody battle. This is directly contrary to law, court rules and what the Indianapolis Bar Association knows to be best for children. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
The Indianapolis Bar Association's Family Law Commitment to Respect and Civility provides some guidance to attorneys appearing in Marion County Courts.
Preamble
The members of the family law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association, recognizing the high degree of conflict and the volatile nature of domestic disputes, their impact on children and the need for direction in balancing the duty to zealously represent the client with the obligation to rational, peaceful and efficient administration of justice, now make this pledge to promote the highest degree of respect and civility in conduct with the parties, attorneys and courts.
Guidelines [portions relevant to this matter]
I will maintain the highest level of professional integrity and personal courtesy in all dealings with parties, counsel, witnesses and courts.
I will not knowingly misstate, mischaracterize or fail to disclose relevant facts or legal authority.
I will whenever possible, encourage clients to reach amicable settlement of all issues after careful review of statutes and reasonable consideration of the risks, costs, delay and emotional trauma of trial.
I will not seek judicial intervention in matters that can be resolved through cooperation and communication between counsel and parties.
Yet Cynthia Dean lied to Brian Moore about a court order in an effort to get him to violate it and bring disruption to the children's lives. Dean filed an objection with the court to the proposal that the parents settle outstanding issues through mediation. Additionally, Dean has sought to perpetuate conflict between the parents and increase judicial intervention.
Just like numerous other attorneys, Cynthia Dean is aware that harm to children and conflict among parents pays the bills. Just last week a judge said, “I find that in my cases the parents that have attorneys fight more than those without.” This is often true of unscrupulous attorneys like Cynthia Dean who use tactics to perpetuate conflict and prevent harmony among parents even though it is contrary to the Bar Association's commitment to families and children.
That Child Advocates Inc. intentionally engages in actions to the knowing detriment of children is reprehensible. That they do so without adherence to law, court rules and what the Indianapolis Bar Association knows to be best for children is inexcusable. That they will likely continue to do this so long as their financial backers of this nefarious plan keep supplying funding demands a public response.
In the immediate upcoming segments I will disclose the results of evidence obtained that disputes Del Anderson's claims and also how use of third party evaluators exceeds their benefits. Following that I will begin to take on the financial backers who facilitate this harm to children and give to you the responses, if any, that I received from them.
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
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.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
A Challenge to Perjury - Assault on Judicial Integrity by Child Custody Evaluators - Part III
In Part II of this series I left off with Judge Welch disqualifying herself after all parties involved had a conference about the evidence that Del Anderson, a GAL who works for Indianapolis based Child Advocates, Inc., had just committed perjury. Anderson had submitted a report to the court in November of 2012 and was being questioned by Jonathan Deenik the attorney for petitioner Kristy Moore. Under cross-examination by pro se litigant Brian Moore, Mr Anderson reiterated the 'facts' that he presented in his report. Mr Anderson testified that his report was based, in part, on notations he had written during that three hour interview with Mr Moore.
When giving testimony under oath in a court of law witnesses, such as Anderson, are required to affirm that such testimony will be truthful subject to the penalties and pains of perjury. It's okay to stand at a party table and give testimony if the court permits. It's okay to sit at the witness stand or even lay yourself there, although I don't recommend it. Someone needs to let Del Anderson know that it's not okay to lie on the witness stand.
Del Anderson is the GAL from the Indianapolis based corporation Child Advocates, Inc. and was assigned to the case of Moore v Moore 49D12-0810-DR-44790 in October 2011 by Judge Welch. He was to provide a report to the court regarding the parents and children as part of the proceedings related to mother's March 2011 petition to modify custody and parenting time in her favour. After about a year Mr Anderson submitted his report to the court.
In that report Mr Anderson made numerous claims as to the father, Brian Moore, based upon the content of a three hour interview that he conducted. I won't recite the particular claims here but the essence was that Mr Moore had engaged in bizarre behaviours and was not fit to be a parent.
I have requested that a transcript of the proceeding by prepared and sent multiple public records requests to parties named in Anderson's testimony. Those along with Mr Anderson's Report and the documentary evidence of his perjury I plan to prepare a full report to present to the Marion County Prosecutor seeking criminal charges against Mr Anderson.
In the next installment I will discuss the brazenness of the lies by Del Anderson, how Child Advocates has sought to manipulate this case and the depth of their efforts to prolong this litigation.
If you need assistance in selecting an Indiana child custody attorney or evaluator 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.
Friday, February 8, 2013
An Assault on Judicial Integrity by Third-Party Child Custody Evaluators and Lawyers - Part I
Before I proceed with my diatribe on the latest assault to judicial integrity that I have encountered I provide to you the first paragraph of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.
[1] An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.
These words should be blazed across the bulkhead to every jurists' latrine, head, lavatory, powder room, john, W.C. or however named the sanctum of the great porcelain oasis to which those jurists who are regular types of guys or gals pay tribute every morning. Euphemisms aside, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that our court system operates in a just manner that builds confidence in itself by expunging from its hallowed halls those who would subvert the means of justice for their own personal gains.
What I will bring to light in this series of articles is the use of third-party evaluators in child custody proceedings and how some perpetuate conflict to enhance opportunities for additional court proceedings thereby increasing their own financial gain.
Particularly, I will focus most of this series on the actions of Child Advocates, Inc. an Indianapolis based agency that supplies evaluation services to judicial officers in Marion County child custody proceedings. I have previously posted about Cynthia Dean, a staff attorney for Child Advocates, Inc., who specifically told a father to violate a court order – one for which the mother was eventually found in contempt for violating. Dean then went on to oppose resolving the contested child custody proceeding.
Onto the scene has come Del Anderson, a GAL for Child Advocates, Inc., who filed a report with the court containing numerous lies in an effort to disparage father in the eyes of the court. He then proceeded to repeat and embellish the lies during sworn testimony in open court. This went on until it was brought to a sudden halt.
More details are to follow.
If you need assistance in selecting an Indiana child custody attorney or evaluator 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.
