You have not killed me…you have made me stronger like a Phoenix born from the ashes…so am I. You may have taken a piece of my soul but that part has been replaced by love and justice. Our children will someday come looking for their Mothers, they will not be pleased. Why you ask? Why would children that have purposefully separated from them for no good reason want to see you? Why indeed is the question you should all write upon your souls how you desecrated the most sacred of a womens being….MOTHER.
Why do you think I fight so hard? I fight as any Mother would, never-ending, unconditional LOVE. Our children feel the same way even though you have tried to break our bond it also is never-ending. So beware to those who intend to cause to do harm on my child…we will never give up in getting justice, we will never shut up about how much we love and miss our children and now that we are reborn and anew we will NEVER GO AWAY! For we have loved and lost and will never LOSE again!
UPDATE: Dombrowski Case: Trial set January 8th, 2010 (The Murder of Motherhood)
December 18, 2009 — Claudine Dombrowski
Quick Publish to just update, will delve further as I can, Thank you my dear friends and family,
(To the Perpetrator and his many many attorneys and the dea Judge who is monitoring the ww for any activity relating to this case!)I will not shut up, give up and I WILL NOT GO AWAY!
Sin Denied Telling All; Reminding Others of Morals
UPDATE: Dombrowski Case:
December 16, 2009
“ We walked into Court and Jason P Hoffman one’ of Attorney’s for the Perpetrator came with a two inch stack of ‘contempt’ papers (to clean up the internet) I still do not have copy of the recent contempt’s not allowed to have (as with GAL and FOC’s private reports) as I turn them all over to be published.
The current ‘claim’ remains – is I STILL have ‘ alleged images’ of my daughter (now why would I want images of my child and my dead mom?) But are actually ‘court documents’ and several media appearances’ most recently on Domestic Violence.
Not to mention that Kansas is at an all time record high in DV Fatalities in TWO DECADES with State Warnings and the Media and Senate Hearings Testimonies on the Kansas Joint Committee on Children’s Issues.”
and Audio Testimonies:
The bottom line is this:
1. I am NOT a threat to my daughter nor have I ever been alleged to be a threat to my daughter unlike that of the well documented HX of violence of the perpetrator.
2. Under K.S.A 60-1616: Unless AFTER hearing- showing that I am a threat or harm to my daughter- The Courts can not deny our parenting time- (as they have this past ten years) DV by Proxy and other Court Whores that Profit.
Like my daughters Guardian ad Litem GAL M. Jill Dykes, Topeka Kansas Bottom dweller and blood profiteer of children. and we shant forget the ‘good judge himself’ Judge ‘death’ David Debenham Who one year ago denied my daughter the right to go to her Grandmothers funeral.
Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy: Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers
“ I am tired this is draining to do- so I will publish now- and update as possible.” I Love you my Mother and my daughter- “ Don’t Give up”
K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
In the Matter of the Marriage of
JANET BOULEY, f/k/a KIMBRELL,
WILLIAM DAVID KIMBRELL,
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. Under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.
2. The fundamental rule of statutory construction to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed rather than determine what the law should or should not be.
3. Orders which condition parenting time and visitation upon a minor child’s desires to see a parent give a minor child the authority to determine parenting time and can have the effect of denying parenting time altogether.
4. Among the factors that must be considered when determining the issue of child custody, residency, and parenting time under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1610(a)(3)(B) and K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), the trial court must look at the desires of a minor child as to the child’s custody or residency. The child’s wishes as to custody, residency, and parenting time and visitation cannot be the exclusive factor relied upon by the trial court in determining parenting time.
Appeal from Douglas District Court; JEAN F. SHEPHERD, judge. Opinion filed September 16, 2005. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Brant M. Laue and Chadler E. Colgan, of Armstrong Teasdale LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant.
Sherri E. Loveland, of Stevens & Brand, L.L.P., of Lawrence, for appellee.
Before MALONE, P.J., GREEN and BUSER, JJ.
GREEN, J.: William David Kimbrell (David) appeals the trial court’s decision regarding parenting time with his 16-year-old son Evan Kimbrell. The issue in this case is whether the trial court can condition a noncustodial parent’s right to parenting time with his or her minor child upon the desires of the child.
We determine that this cannot be done.
K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) makes it clear that a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time with his or her minor child “unless the court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health.” Conditioning parenting time on the wishes of a minor child improperly gives the child the authority to determine a noncustodial parent’s rights to parenting time and visitation and can have the effect of completely denying the noncustodial parent’s rights to parenting time.