Rights for Mothers | Resources and Support for Noncustodial and Custodially-Challenged Mothers.

People are outraged everywhere.  The last time 15 year old Rikki called to cancel her two hour Sunday visit she is allowed each week with her mother, she was crying on the phone and said she couldn’t come.  Abuser WOS Hal Richardson was yelling in the background, and Rikki cried more.  Dear Claudine told her daughter it was okay, that everything would be okay.  That was it.  After that, not even a phone call to cancel, Hal Richardson failed to produce Rikki at the Topeka Police Station as he was ordered to do.  Nothing.  And the court let him get away with all 67 violations of this court order on August 20th when they went to court.

This girl is suffering, and being threatened with what to say, and she needs help immediately.  We may need to get a hold of the United Nations or NATO to seek help if we don’t’ get action soon from the Kansas Legislature.  I plan on calling Lynn Rosenthal, Obama’s White House Advisor on Domestic Violence, at the White House today and discuss this with her, as she and Department of Justice personnel have been looking at ways to stop abusers from getting custody.  Please call her too and let her know you are disgusted that an abusive criminal could keep a mother and daughter apart for ten years, thanks to money-hungry court personnel and lawyers.  Her phone number at the White House is 202-456-1414 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202-456-1414 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, and ask for Lynn Rosenthal.

From Anne Caroline Drake’s Website:

Injustice in Oz: Are Judge David Debenham and GAL M. Jill Dykes Acting in the Best Interest of the Child or Engaged in a Cover-up?

Posted by Anne Caroline Drake on August 22, 2010 · 11 Comments


// <![CDATA[// <![CDATA[
PDRTJS_settings_28393_post_3599={“id”:28393,”unique_id”:”wp-post-3599″,”title”:”Injustice in Oz: Are Judge David Debenham and GAL M. Jill Dykes Acting in the Best Interest of the Child or Engaged in a Cover-up?”,”permalink”:”http:\/\/annecarolinedrake.com\/2010\/08\/22\/injustice-in-oz-are-judge-david-debenham-and-gal-m-jill-dykes-acting-in-the-best-interest-of-the-child-or-engaged-in-a-cover-up\/”,”item_id”:”_post_3599″}

Claudine Dombrowski and her daughter got caught up in a Kansas-style tornado of injustice and pretext on Friday.  There are so many abusive narcissistic wizards in this courtroom catastrophe that I felt like Dorothy in Oz when I heard what happened.

You Decide:  Incompetence, Pretext, Cover-Up, or Best Interests of the Child?

In the 14 years this case has been pending, Ms. Dombrowski has gotten just one day of justice back in January when she and Rights for Mothers‘ founder Nancy Carroll packed the courtroom.  Judge David Debenham allowed her the First Amendment right to shine a bright light on the injustice perpetrated by Hal Richardson and facilitated by GAL M. Jill Dykes.

GAL is the legal term for guardian ad litem.  These attorneys are appointed by the court to protect the best interests of the child in custody battles.  They are supposed to remain neutral and protect and advocate for the child.  It’s a sweet gig for attorneys.

Pretext is the legal term for blowing smoke up the court’s ass.  It’s a nice way of describing a courtroom that operates more like a mushroom farm.  As you may know, mushrooms thrive when they are covered in shit and kept in the dark.

Sealed Records, Gag Orders, and Closed Court

Judge David Debenham’s first order of business on Friday was to clear the courtroom of witnesses to the proceedings.  He claimed it was in the best interest of the child.  Then, he confiscated Ms. Dombrowski’s cell phone, ordered the records sealed, and issued a gag order.  This is from the court docket:

Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order.

Before I rip into the pretext and cover-up in this order, this is what Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had to say about a Rhode Island judge who issued a similar order:

This court order is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.  If she believes she is being treated unfairly, or if she just wishes to make people aware of her case, she should be able to do so free of a court-ordered gag rule.

Was Hal Richardson held in contempt of court for routinely denying visitation between his daugher and her mother?  Hell no!

By the time he and GAL Dykes got done manipulating the judge, Ms. Dombrowski was the one in the hot seat. . .for shining a bright light on the truth. . .for exercising the very same First Amendment rights the judge guaranteed last January.

Claudine after being raped and beaten in 2000

Is GAL M. Jill Dykes Incompetent, Corrupt, or Clueless?

Before the hearing on Friday, I sent GAL Dykes a professional courtesy e-mail message.  A part of me was hoping she might make better decisions if she was apprised of the dynamics of PAS (parental alienation syndrome), domestic violence, and manipulation of the legal system as an instrument of abuse.  I also addressed my very legitimate concerns about a minor child residing in a house with a child’s coffin as a coffee table and a gun on the wall with a convicted criminal as custodial parent.

Her GAL-pal Rene M. Netherton sent me a threatening e-mail message in response.  I guess I was supposed to be intimidated into silence.  I wasn’t.

Instead, I was dumbfounded that licensed professionals would engage in behavior more common for junior high kids.  The tone and tenor of her comments let me know I was dealing with an abusive narcissist.  They can’t handle criticism and project their own evil intent onto others.  It explains why they are unable to distinguish between perpetrator and victim.

Ms. Netherton was GAL in this case before Ms. Dykes.  She didn’t respond to my concerns about Hal Richardson’s criminal record or choice of decor.

Best Interests of the Child

Yes, folks that’s a child’s coffin.  The photo doesn’t show the gun on the wall.  Y’all have sounded off with your concerns about the safety of a child residing in such a hostile environment.  GALs Netherton and Dykes don’t get it.  I’m not terribly surprised.  Ms. Netherton misses simple stuff like the fact that “privileged” is spelled incorrectly in her boilerplate.

Richardson Has an Extensive Criminal Record

According to Stop Family Violence, the abuse of Ms. Dombrowski and the minor child started when she was four months pregnant and discovered that Mr. Richardson had lied to her about being married.  He beat her.  As you can see, she was sporting a black eye when she gave birth to the child in 1994.

On February 18, 1995, Mr. Richardson was arrested for domestic battery and damage to property.  A no contact order was issued on February 21 which he immediately violated.  His bond was revoked when he failed to appear.  Shawnee County (KS) Court Services Officer Mary Kelly sent a memo on March 14 to Judge James P. Buchele regarding sentencing and probation:

Mr. Richardson has been placed on probation five times in the past 15 years.  I do not believe he is a good candidate for probation. . .I recommend. . .a psychological evaluation and follow all recommendations for treatment.  [emphasis added]

Nevertheless, Judge Buchele let him off with a slap on the wrist in a plea deal.  The domestic battery charges were reduced to disorderly conduct and the damage to property charge was dismissed.  Although he was ordered to get a psychological evaluation, he never did.  He was released from probation on June 13, 1996 after getting expelled from a court-ordered batterers group:

  • 3/6/95:  Fred Eisland:. . .marriage that ended in divorce and there was some violence there and he and his current partner are fighting.
  • 5/29/96:  . . .rude and disrespectful to female cofacilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language, his monopolization of the group with his loud voice, and his refusal to accept responsibility for his own actions.  Appears to be inappropriate for group.  JSM
  • 6/5/96:  No show
  • 6/10/96:  . . .client very disruptive during group. . .constantly challenging the structure of the program.  Client attempted to use the group as a forum to discuss his negative views of the local judicial system.  Client refuses to see himself as anything but a victim.  Very inappropriate actions for a group setting.
  • 6/11/96:  Called PO and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned.  He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth.  Terminated, with cause.  Will not be accepted back.  JSM  [emphasis added]

Please visit Anne Caroline Drake’s website for the rest of this excellent report.


Comments are closed.