In a great victory for abused children, Gail Inman of Texas has surrendered her license after allegations/complaints of failing to report child abuse. Gail Inman was a therapist involved in a case where a child was taken from a protective and caring mother. In the usual Parental Alienation Syndrome scam, a young girl was taken from her mother and placed in the custody of an alleged abuser. The judge in the case was Judge Scott Beauchamp who allegedly had some previous questionable relationship with the opposing counsel, Cheryl Snyder, on the case. Also involved in the same case was Dr. John Zervopolous, reportedly known for repeatedly accusing protective mothers of parental alienation syndrome type allegations in case after case, using the same language in amazingly similar psychological evaluations. See this link for more: Zervopolous
| License Number: 10519 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Name: | INMAN, GAIL BERRY | ||
| License Rank: | Licensed Professional Counselor | ||
| License Status: | Voluntary Surrender | ||
| Expiration Date: | 02/28/2010 | ||
| Effective Rank Date: | 04/08/1991 | ||
| Addresses (for most license types, full address will not display) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Address | Address |
|
http://www.narcissisticabuse.com/billofreview.html
FILED and Time Stamped
September 28, 2006, Dallas County, Texas
available for public review with attachments
-
-
-
-
JANAY BENDER ROSENTHAL,Plaintiff § §
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. 301 JUDICIAL DISTRICT JAMIE ROSENTHAL,Defendant DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
-
-
-
ORIGINAL PETITION FOR BILL OF REVIEW,
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
This Petition seeks to vacate and set aside the temporary orders of Associate Judge Scott Beauchamp, and all subsequent orders in Cause Number 03-18320, entitled In the Interest of Addyson Rosenthal, and pending in the 301st District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The temporary orders were based on extrinsic fraud involving an undisclosed conflict of interest. In support of this pleading, Plaintiff shows the following:
-
- Introduction
1. Plaintiff is Janay Bender Rosenthal, mother of Addyson. Defendant is Jamie Rosenthal, father of Addyson. All parties are residents of Dallas County, Texas. The acts or omissions complained of occurred in Dallas County, Texas. This Court therefore has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this cause.
2. This cause of action arises out of a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), Cause No. 03-18320, supra. The SAPCR is ongoing and involves Plaintiff, Defendant, and their 6 year old daughter, Addyson.
3. Service is requested upon JAMIE ROSENTHAL, Defendant herein, at the following address: Process should be served at the Defendant’s place of employment: Accountability International, 8111 LBJ Freeway, suite 1150, Box 122, Dallas, Texas 75251. Alternatively, process may be served at the Defendant’s place of residence: 15575 Lewis Place #2658 Addison, TX 75001.
4. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Factual Background
5. At all times relevant, the father was represented by the firm of SNYDER & SNYDER, a partnership consisting of Cheryl Snyder & her mother Diane Snyder.
6. Unknown to the mother or her attorneys, there was a personal relationship between Associate Judge Scott Beauchamp and Cheryl Snyder. At 1:30 am on October 1, 2003, Cheryl Snyder and Associate Judge Beauchamp were involved in a drunk driving accident; Cheryl was arrested for DWI and Scott Beauchamp, her passenger, was listed as a witness on the police report. See Exhibit A, true and correct copy of police report.
7. After her arrest on 10/1/03, Ms. Snyder’s criminal DWI matter took approximately 18 months to resolve. Her criminal case was pending simultaneously with the Rosenthal post-divorce custody case, which was filed in January 2005, about one year after her arrest. Associate Judge Beauchamp was a witness in Ms. Snyder’s criminal case, which went to trial in March 2005. At this same time, he was making key rulings and critical decisions in the SAPCR (custody) case – rulings that favored the father, Jamie Rosenthal, a client of SNYDER & SNYDER. See Exhibits B & C, true and correct copies of DWI criminal records and trial transcript; see also Exhibits D – G, true and correct copies of temporary orders signed by Associate Judge Beauchamp between January and June 2005. Associate Judge Beauchamp and SNYDER & SNYDER failed to recuse themselves from this case or to even disclose this information.
8. There were procedural improprieties and rulings contrary to the evidence and insufficient to protect Addyson, who had made numerous disclosures of sexual abuse and/or sexually inappropriate behavior by her father. On January 6, 2005, the father was placed on supervised visitation, and Judge Beauchamp allowed continuing overnight access and named the father’s parents as supervisors instead of a requiring neutral supervision. Addyson was placed with her paternal grandparents while Steven Rosenthal was attending a Batterer’s Intervention Program (BIP) for violence against his wife; he had been arrested after punching her in the face. Concerns over Addyson disclosing that her father forced her hand on his penis, on the sofa, and that they slept together on the sofa while his parents were supervising, were ignored. See Chronology, infra. In response to being placed on supervised visitation, the father filed a motion to modify cusotody, and for the first time sought full custody of Addyson.
9. Associate Judge Beauchamp entered other orders in the SAPCR case that did not seem to comport with the evidence. See Exhibit H, true and correct copy of June 28, 2005 order removing Addyson from her mother. Associate Judge Beauchamp heard this “emergency” motion and signed the order even though proper legal notice had not been given to Janay or her counsel. See Exhibit I, true and correct copy of Emergency Motion to Remove Child and the incomplete “certificate of conference” and “certificate of service” attached thereto. Indeed, this was the most significant hearing in the post divorce custody case, and the ruling formed the basis for an illegal, de facto termination of Janay’s parental rights. The “emergency” prompting Addyson’s removal was that Janay had taken Addyson to doctors who diagnosed Addyson with a medical vaginal condition known as Vulvo Vaginitis, a condition which can be indicative of sexual abuse.
Chronology
- 10. The relevant chronology is as follows:
10/1/03: Cheryl Snyder of SNYDER & SNYDER (driver) and Scott Beauchamp (passenger) are involved in a drunk driving accident at approximately 1:30 am; Cheryl Snyder arrested for DWI;
10/17/03: father, represented by SNYDER & SNYDER, files for divorce in the 301st District Court;
11/2004: Scott Beauchamp appointed Associate Judge of the 301st District Court, Hon. Susan Rankin presiding;
- 11/29/04: mother is put on probation for one year for allegedly failing to turn over Addyson for one night, after the father files false contempt charges and a false affidavit;
- 1/6/05: Associate Judge Beauchamp orders overnight “supervised” visitation between father and daughter, with father’s parents the supervisors; during this time, paternal grandfather Steven Rosenthal is enrolled in batterer’s intervention program (BIP); after committing spousal abuse, he is allowed to supervise his son, an alleged sexual abuser, and his granddaughter;
- 3/2/05: Associate Judge Beauchamp signs temporary orders, continuing to downplay concerns over sexual abuse allegations and continuing informal supervision by father’s parents, who do not believe that their son could possibly be guilty of sexually inappropriate behavior toward their granddaughter;
- 3/4/05: Associate Judge Beauchamp enters order continuing visitation with father having overnight access to Addyson; Judge Beauchamp ignores concerns over father and daughter sleeping at night on the sofa together, and grandparents in back of house with the bedroom door shut, after hearing of Addyson’s statement that her father forced her hand on his penis;
- 3/7/05: DWI trial of Cheryl Snyder: Scott Beauchamp is summoned as a witness by Assistant District Attorney Kevin Harris, but does not appear to testify; testifying instead is Brad Nace, golfing partner of Scott Beauchamp who was briefly in the company of Scott Beauchamp and Cheryl Snyder on 10/1/03;
- 5/2005: Cheryl Snyder’s DWI trial is disposed of, following a guilty verdict by a jury and a denial of Ms. Snyder’s motion for new trial; Ms. Snyder is placed on probation;
- 6/28/05: Emergency motion to remove child was filed by father at 9:00 am with no notice to mother or her attorney, and by approximately 10:30 am Associate Judge Beauchamp orders the removal of child from her mother and awards custody to father, client of SNYDER & SNYDER. In a role reversal, mother is suddenly placed on supervised visitation;
- 7/26/05: Based on unsupported allegations that mother is a “flight risk,” and again without due process of law, Associate Judge Beauchamp further impedes access of mother to her daughter; this results in a $50,000 cash bond which remains in place.
III. Claims For Relief
-
- Bill of Review: Elements of Plaintiff’s claim
- 11. Plaintiff’s claims are based on the following elements:
(1) mother had meritorious claim(s) or defense(s) in the underlying SAPCR action. By way of example and not limitation, she could have filed a timely motion to recuse Associate Judge Scott Beauchamp; or, had she remained the custodial parent, she would have been able to present herself at trial as the primary caregiver of Addyson, avoiding the implied and unwarranted label of “unfit parent” based on improper rulings that took her daughter from her;
(2) mother was prevented from raising these claims or defenses by the fraud, accident or wrongful acts and omissions of Defendant. Upon information and belief, the Defendant; Jamie Rosenthal, his attorneys, Associate Judge Beauchamp and others concealed material facts which acted to deprive the mother of custody, possession and access to her daughter; and
(3) the acts and omissions complained of were unmixed with any negligence on the part of the mother; Janay, who exercised due diligence in attempting to present any and all known issues. See Transworld Fin. Servs. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Tex.1987); Schnitzius v. Koons, 813 S.W.2d 213, 218 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1991, orig. proceeding).
12. Pleading further, and in the alternative, the Plaintiff would show that an “official mistake” occurred which prevented her from raising certain material claims and defenses, and from presenting key evidence earlier.
13. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to avoid the effects of the questionable temporary orders. The conflict of interest issues were unknown and based on matters outside of the record; therefore, the claims in this suit are not and were not subject to traditional relief such as a motion for new trial.
-
- Emergency Motion for Relief
14. Until she was 5 ½ years of age, Addyson Rosenthal was a happy, well adjusted little girl who was always in the primary custody of her mother. On June 28, 2005, without due process of law, she was suddenly removed from her mother. Addyson, now 6 ½ years old, has not seen her mother since the summer of 2005. At the time of this filing, Addyson has been deprived of her mother’s love, affection and guidance for over one year.
15. Emergency Relief is necessary to protect Addyson’s welfare, her constitutional rights and Janay’s fundamental rights as a mother, which rights have been de facto terminated by a series of events that began when Scott Beauchamp, Cheryl Snyder, Diane Snyder and others failed to disclose a conflict of interest, and that continued with the associate judge’s improper rulings, including the court-ordered removal of Addyson on June 28, 2005. Janay has only telephone access three times a week to her daughter, which is monitored by the father. As the days, weeks, months and over a year has gone by, there still has been no evidence presented that a total lack of contact with her mother is in Addyson’s best interest. In fact, the court-appointed expert witnesses, therapist Gail Inman and John Zervopoulos, PhD, have testified that Addyson needs to have contact with her mother. The simple fact is that Addyson should never have been taken from her mother.
16. Plaintiff respectfully requests that all Orders subsequent to June 28, 2005 (and including same) be vacated immediately, and in the alternative, that these orders be suspended pending the outcome of this bill of review and/or Plaintiff’s appeal of the final ruling in the SAPCR case.
17. Plaintiff also refers the court to her pending Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders, which is on file but to date has never been heard. Plaintiff asks this court to take judicial notice of that pleading under Texas Rule of Evidence 201.
IV. Requests for Disclosure
18. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2 (a) – (l), Plaintiff hereby requests that Defendant and his attorneys make full, complete ad timely disclosures as required by law.
V. Prayer
19. Plaintiff prays that this Court instantly VACATE and SET ASIDE the June 28, 2005 Order and all subsequent orders including the final “Order in the Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship,” signed by presiding judge on April 12, 2006 (a ruling now on appeal), which continues to deny Plaintiff any access to her only child.
20. Plaintiff further prays that the Court ORDER the immediate return of her child and an immediate restoration of her parental rights, and a return to the status quo ante, prior to the orders of Associate Judge Scott Beauchamp and the court-ordered removal of her child.
21. Pleading further, and in the alternative, Plaintiff prays that the Court VACATE and SET ASIDE those portions of the April 12, 2006 order limiting Plaintiff’s access to her daughter, including the requirement of paid supervision, the $50,000 cash bond, and all other portions which infringe on Plaintiff’s constitutional rights of possession and access to her child.
22. Pleading further, and in the alternative, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court SUSPEND all judgments and orders pending the resolution of her appeal and/or this bill of review.
23. Pleading further, and in the alternative, Plaintiff requests a new jury trial on the merits, before an unbiased judge qualified to hear this case.
24. In addition, Plaintiff prays for an immediate reversal of all punitive orders in place against her, that these orders be declared null and void, including a new order of full restitution for all fines and attorney’s fees and costs paid by Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff have and recover from Defendant, Jamie Rosenthal, an award of all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and all other expenses paid by her or on her behalf. The punitive treatment of Plaintiff is unjust because it is based on invalid orders and outright fraud.
25. Finally, Plaintiff prays for all other and further relief to which she may be entitled, whether at law or in equity.
VI. Evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claims
26. Plaintiff attaches the following exhibits as initial evidence to support her claims and request for relief:
Exhibit A Police Report of DWI arrest of Cheryl Snyder and Scott Beauchamp;
Exhibit B Criminal records of DWI arrest of Cheryl Briana Snyder;
Exhibit C Transcript of DWI trial of Cheryl Briana Snyder;
Exhibit D 1/6/05 ruling by Assoc. Judge Scott Beauchamp;
Exhibit E 3/2/05 ruling by Assoc. Judge Scott Beauchamp;
Exhibit F 3/4/05 ruling by Assoc. Judge Scott Beauchamp;
Exhibit G 6/28/05 ruling by Assoc. Judge Scott Beauchamp, removing Addyson from her Mother Janay;
Exhibit H “Emergency” Motion for Removal of Addyson, with faulty “certificate of service” and lack of legal notice; and
Exhibit I Affidavit of Janay Bender Rosenthal.
Respectfully submitted,
-
-
-
- JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN
2600 Southwest Freeway, Suite 806
Houston, Texas 77098
-
-
-
-
-
- Tel. (713) 225-4357
Fax (713) 225-2818
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By:
-
- Thomas H. Burton, III General Counsel
-
- State Bar No. 24009927
-
-
-
