The appearance of some real scumbags AKA child reps…

December 5, 2016 § Leave a comment

So i have posted some US case laws, here is one from Illinois. I will be concentrating on them for a few days (prepping for trial)
Illinois State Supreme Court case (NOT a federal)
Bates v Bates, 819 N.E.2d 714 (2004) ILLINOIS
– Dr. Richard Gardner referenced several books on PAS and an index of 56 articles on PAS.
– He described PAS as a disorder arising primarily, if not exclusively, in the context of child custody disputes
– it results from the combination of one parent’s programming or brainwashing a child into a campaign of denigration against the other parent, and the undue in documentation of the child by the programming parent with his or her own inflated “contributions”
– Dr. Robert B. Shapiro, a clinical psychologist, licensed in Illinois and a member of the Board of Evaluate families in custody disputes, also testified that PAS was generally accepted by the relevant psychologically community, observing that “I don’t know anybody who doesn’t accept it.”
– the court found “that the principle of Parental Alienation Syndrome is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular filed.”
– Dr. Gardner defined PAS as a psychiatric disorder arising in the context of a child custody dispute
– In this disorder, one parent “programs” or “brainwashes” a child into a campaign of denigration against the other parent, even though that other parent is generally good and loving
– The denigrating custodial parent inflates his or her own contributions, and PAS arises as a result of a combination of both the undue denigration and the inflated heightening of the custodial parent’s contribution
– the trial court found that Edward had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that S.B.’s present environment seriously endangered her physical, mental, moral and environmental health, and that it was in S.B.’s best interest that Edward be awarded sole custody immediately
– the court the words “parental alienation syndrome,” basing its findings instead on the standard set out in Section 602(a)(8) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/602(a)(8)), namely:
– “the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the parents and child.”
– the trial court recited that it would consider the report (from the GAL) “for what its worth” along with many other factors, abd, therefore, any error in considering the report was not prejudicial — 342 Ill.App. 3d at 214-15
– the private interest involved here is the right of parents to the companionship, care, custody, and management of ther children
– in Lassiter v Department if Social Services, 452 US 18, 27, 68L.Ed.2d 640, 649-50, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159-60 (1981), the Supreme Court held that right to be an important interest, warranting deference and protection, absent a powerful countervailing interest
– we have also recently held that one of the fundamental rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment is the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children without unwarranted state intrusion — Wickham v Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309, 316 (2002)
in In re Andrea F., 208 Ill.2d 148, 165 (2003), a case involving termination of parental rights, this court held that parents have a fundamental due process right to the care, custody, and contril of their children
– the representative, like any other witness, is not immune from error in observation and from inadvertent bias.
– The proper weight to be given the report of a child;s representative may be influenced by nay factors, including his training and experience, the contacts between the representative, the parties, and the child, and the existence of any bias or tendency to favor one gender of parent over the other
– cross-examination is likely to affect the trial court’s assessment of the worth of the representatives recommendations in many cases
– Section 506(a)(3) is unconstitutional
– representative’s report was received in evidence, read, and relied on by the trial court, and, thus Norma’s right to procedural due process was denied
– Section 610 of the Act allows modification of a prior custody judgement, absent consent, only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, upon facts that have arisen since or were unknown at the time of prior judgement, that modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child — 750 ILCS 5-610
– the trial court found that S.B.’s present environment seriously endangered her physical, mental, moral or emotional health and that a substantial change in circumstances had been proved by clear and convincing evidence
– the court expressly considered the standards for determining best interests set out in Section 602 of the Act, including “(8) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child.” — 750 ILCS 5/602(8)

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading The appearance of some real scumbags AKA child reps… at Will County Pro-se.

meta

%d bloggers like this: