Broken NY Custody Court System v Barry Goldstein and Battered Mothers
In this case, the NY Court system ignored the facts, law, first amendment and their responsibility to the public to support retaliation by the sexist Judge Damian Amodeo. In doing so they have brought dishonor to themselves and placed the lives of innocent battered mothers and their children in danger.
Context
In order to understand and recognize domestic violence in a family or in a society one must view the events in context. The failure of many courts and professionals to understand this fundamental concept has contributed to the failure to protect battered mothers and their children.
Since the start of the modern movement to end domestic violence, society has made significant improvements. It became easier for women living with batterers to obtain criminal prosecution, orders of protection, divorce, support, shelter and support in the community. As a result of these measures that number of domestic violence homicides went down. Also as a result of these measures, male supremacists have developed tactics to create a backlash against this progress. One of their cruelest tactics is for fathers who often had little or no involvement with the children during the relationship to suddenly seek custody in order to prevent her from leaving or punish her if she does. This tactic has been successful because the courts and their often unqualified experts have failed to recognize and respond to this tactic.
Another standard tactic of abusers is to isolate his victim. This has long been done by keeping her away from friends and family during the relationship. In the context of contested custody cases, abusers and their supporters have taken to filing frivolous complaints against professionals trying to help the abusers’ victims. In this case they filed a complaint against the mother’s therapist with her insurance company (causing her to lose referrals), against the courageous school nurse who twice testified on behalf of the children and against the mother’s attorney, Barry Goldstein.
From the start, the complaint by Judge Amodeo and supported by the grievance committee took honest statements and opinions by Barry Goldstein and sought to consider them out of context. When the court said the complaint was based upon admissions they mean he acknowledged making the statements. He presented overwhelming evidence that in context their was a good basis for his statements. Most of the statements were opinions for which he was particularly qualified to give. The court decision in essence says they disagree with his opinions so he must be a liar. As they did in the underlying Shockome case, the court failed to address any of the inconvenient evidence and laws.
Underlying Shockome Case
Judge Amodeo received substantial justified criticism for his mishandling of the Shockome cases. This was especially true after he jailed a seven-month’s pregnant mother who was trying to preserve her right to appeal by repeatedly saying objection. The judge never told her she had her exception but instead took her objections as if they were designed to interfere with the court process. He also looked bad when Newsweek took a close look at the Shockome case and concluded it was an example of abusive fathers obtaining custody because of the mishandling of cases.
The male supremacists have attempted to distort Shockome by repeatedly spreading the claim that there was no evidence of the father’s abuse. What they should have said was there was no evidence the judge was willing to consider. The abuser’s entire case consisted of one witness, the abuser himself. The mother had eleven witnesses including five experts and neutral professionals such as the school nurse, son’s therapist and couple’s therapist. The nurse testified that when the children lived with the mother the daughter would skip around the school, holding another girls hand laughing and giggling. When she was living with the father she walked around by herself, head down very sad. All of the genuine experts agreed the father had severely abused the mother and their were boundary issues regarding his interaction with the children including showering with the children and leaving pornography around.
In the middle of the trial Judge Amodeo decided he needed another evaluation. Barry Goldstein asked that any evaluator have expertise in domestic violence. The judge said he wanted someone who knows a little about domestic violence and child abuse, but not too much because such experts always find abuse. Accordingly he found an unqualified evaluator with little experience. She later admitted she was influenced by her belief that the judge and law guardian wanted the father to have custody.
During cross-examination the evaluator admitted the father probably abused the mother throughout the marriage physically, emotionally and verbally and the children probably witnessed his abuse. She said the mother was a safe parent and there was no alienation. She also said the father’s abuse was probably the cause of the mother’s PTSD. She explained that she could not be a neutral expert if she found domestic violence as long as the father was denying it. In her report and testimony she admitted she used a certainty standard regarding the mother’s allegations of domestic violence and a probability standard regarding the father’s allegations that the mother made negative statements about the father in front of the children.
The NY Court’s own Committee on Women in the Courts found widespread gender bias and one of the common examples of such bias is giving women a higher standard of proof then men. Barry Goldstein raised this issue aggressively in the trial and appeal of the Shockome case. Neither Judge Amodeo or the Appellate Division responded to this most fundamental issue of fairness and bias. In the latest case, Barry Goldstein was charged with saying Judge Amodeo is biased. This would seem to be more than adequate proof to support his opinion. In his papers, Barry Goldstein told the court it could not reach a fair decision against him unless it explained how it can possibly permit a certainty standard for the mother and probability for the father. In failing to address this issue they confirmed that their decision was not to be based on the evidence or law.
First Amendment
Fundamentally this is a case in which a highly trained and knowledgeable expert criticized a public official for what he believed were serious errors. This of course is the purpose of the first amendment. In this case, Barry Goldstein raised first amendment issues even before the trial and cited numerous cases that demonstrated the impropriety of pursuing such claims against him.
The danger is that this decision will have a chilling effect on the ability of attorneys to represent their clients zealously as they are ethically bound to do. There was already a serious problem with protective mothers finding it hard to obtain representation for someone who would zealously represent her. There have been many complaints including in the Shockome case where other attorneys compromised the mothers claims and rights. If an attorney has to be afraid to challenge a judge or tell a judge he has made a mistake, the attorney cannot ethically represent the client. Ironically, a committee that is supposed to act in order to protect the public’s confidence in the court system has instead used its powers to make it much more difficult for protective mothers to obtain competent representation.
The consequences to battered women and society’s efforts to end domestic violence are scary. Already women were deciding to stay with abusers out of fear that if she tried to leave she would lose her children. This is exactly the threat abusers are using to keep their control over the victim. This decision will cause still more women to stay with her abuser, accept beatings and sexual assaults in order to be able to protect her children. Some of these women will not survive this decision. In this case the NY Court system placed their desire to protect a biased colleague over their duty to protect domestic violence and support the state policies against domestic violence.
Conflict of Interest
There was and is a fundamental conflict of interest in the court’s handling of this case. At issue were the mistakes of Judge Amodeo in the original case and the mistakes of the Appellate Division in mishandling the appeal. In its decision on the Shockome appeal the court failed to respond to any of the legal issues and made one factual statement in an attempt to support its decision to defer to Judge Amodeo. The evidence in this case demonstrated that unquestionably they got this fact wrong and they did so because they just repeated what Amodeo said instead of looking at the record.
The referee who tried the case did not have an understanding of domestic violence and made some mistakes, but he sincerely tried to understand the issues and threw out many of the charges. He found that Barry Goldstein is an honest and sincere individual with a lot to contribute as an attorney. Interestingly the court deferred to Judge Amodeo because he had heard the case and observed the witnesses, but did not do so with the referee. They failed to consider any of the inconvenient evidence or follow the laws. For whatever reason they blindly supported Judge Amodeo. The decision creates at least the appearance that it is impossible for the court to provide a fair hearing when they have an interest in the outcome. The legislature needs to look at alternative resolutions that put more non legal professionals on the Commission of Judical Conduct and bar courts from handling cases in which they have a reputational conflict of interest. The court unfairly attempt to attack Barry Goldstein, but in doing so brought dishonor to themselves and a court system that used to have a reputation as progressive.
And more from Legal Profession Blog
Attorney Sanctioned For Web Site Post
The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a five year suspension of an attorney found to have committed a laundry list of ethics violations in two matters. One involved misuse of funds entrusted to the attorney in connection with his representation of a not-for-profit tenants housing resource center; the other involved representations to and about a court in a domestic relations case where custody had been transferred from his client to her ex-husband:
The respondent represented Yevgenia Shockome, the mother in the child custody matter, and in a divorce action in the Supreme Court. The respondent wrote an article entitled, “A Call for Genia’s Law by Barry L. Goldstein, Stop Family Violence,” which was posted on a web site for the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference as part of a campaign to free the respondent’s client, who had been imprisoned after being held in contempt by Judge Amodeo. One or more of the following excerpts from that article were dishonest, false, or misleading:
i. “Without an evidentiary hearing or any written explanation, Judge Amodeo took the children from the mother who has raised them and sent them to the abuser.”
ii. “Judge Amodeo got around this in his decision by constructing a bizarre conclusion that he, the Judge, had caused the mother’s PTSD.”
iii. “At one point it was discovered that the court had erased two of the transcripts[,] further delaying the appeal.”
iv. “The decision demanded that the mother stop therapy with her present therapist and instead use someone selected by the court.”
v. “I had to make a motion to withdraw from the case in front of Judge Amodeo for medical reasons… The law requires that when a party loses an attorney for medical reasons, that she is entitled to at least a 30-day stay to obtain another attorney. Instead, Amodeo continued to make her come to court unrepresented, to face more abuse. After the 30 days has passed (with no stay) he decided that she had enough time to find an attorney.”
vi. “The police were called and they found that the supervisor had attacked the mother and child.”
viii. “Judge Amodeo called numerous conferences to attack and berate the mother for interfering with the phone calls and the father’s relationship with the children.”
The court rejected the following contentions:
In determining the appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the Court to consider, with respect to the escrow violations, that they were “technical errors,” that “he was just an honest attorney attempting to help others,” and that he has since corrected his ways. The respondent’s witnesses testified to his reputation for cooperation, honesty, and sincerity.
While the respondent contends, with regard to the charges relating to the Shockome matter, that these disciplinary proceedings were brought by the Grievance Committee in retaliation and as a penalty for his criticism of Judge Amodeo and the courts, we find no basis for such a contention. To the contrary, we find the respondent’s utter failure to appreciate the fact that his conduct exceeded the bounds of propriety as a courtroom advocate, his complete lack of remorse, and the pervasive nature of his deceptive conduct to be aggravating factors. Irrespective of the respondent’s sincerity in his beliefs, his overzealous behavior which took the form of disparaging remarks on the court, false accusations about Judge Amodeo disseminated in a public forum as part of a campaign to pressure the court into changing its rulings, and noncompliance with multiple court orders, truly constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The attorney had no record of prior discipline.(Mike Frisch)
And From Newsweek
It took six years for Genia Shockome to gather the courage to leave her husband, Tim. He pushed her, kicked her and insulted her almost from the moment they married in 1994, she says. She tried to start over with their children when the family moved from Texas to Poughkeepsie, N.Y. It didn’t last long. Tim called her constantly at work and, after they split up, pounded on her door and screamed obscenities, she alleged in a complaint filed in 2001. Tim was charged with harassment. As part of a plea deal, Tim agreed to a stay-away order—but denies ever abusing her or the children. In custody hearings over the past six years, Tim has insisted that he’s been a good father, and argued that Genia’s allegations poisoned their children against him. The judge sided with Tim. This summer he was granted full custody of the kids, now 11 and 9. Genia was barred from contacting them.
Genia is one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory, children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to domestic-violence advocates. And it’s working. The few current studies done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one 2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard’s Jay Silverman, 54 percent of custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every case.
This year the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges denounced the theory as “junk science,” and at least four states have passed legislation to curtail its use in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence. “It’s really been a cancer in the family courts,” says Richard Ducote, an attorney in Pittsburgh who has represented abuse victims in custody cases for 22 years. “It’s made it really difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection, you’re deemed a vindictive, alienating parent.”
It may seem hard to fathom how a judge could award custody to a parent accused of abuse. But battered spouses often don’t file criminal charges—so no judicial finding is made against their mates—and family-court judges typically aren’t trained to referee the complexities of abusive relationships. (Although men are sometimes battered by their wives, women are the victims in the majority of abuse cases.) Judges often throw out documented evidence of spousal abuse, arguing that it is irrelevant in a custody case. And experts say that family-court judges often look favorably on the alleged abuser because he seems more willing to share custody than the accuser—who is hellbent on keeping the father away from the child. According to a survey by Geraldine Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San Bernardino, attorneys will caution battered spouses against reporting abuse in court so they don’t lose their children. (Stahly and other academics say the parental-alienation argument has more legitimacy in custody disputes that don’t involve charges of abuse.)
Parental-alienation syndrome was first introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in the 1980s. Fathers-rights groups picked up on the idea and began trying it out in court. These groups condemn abusers. But Dan Hogan, executive director of Fathers & Families, a nonprofit group that advocates for joint custody, argues that all too often the accusers lie in order to win custody of their kids.
There’s a small but growing movement to ban parental alienation in custody cases, sparked by embattled parents bonding online. They’ve linked with lawyers and advocates for battered spouses across the country. At least four states, including California, have laws protecting parents who make good-faith abuse allegations. Others may soon follow their lead. Greg Jacob, an attorney who takes cases for abused parents pro bono, is drafting legislation to shop to Virginia and Maryland next month. Meanwhile, parents like Genia keep fighting. “It’s so hard, having my children lost,” she says, her voice breaking. “This was my life—my children.”
© 2007
Social worker Gail Brick, and Meg Sussman, PhD, and the Guardian Ad litem, Frank Marocco have all failed to protect these children.
Statement of facts (combined).
Appellant Yevgenia Shockome (mother or “Genia”) was born and raised in Russia. She married Respondent (father) in August of 1994. Father was born and raised in Texas, had two prior failed marriages and a son named Anders (T:06/12/2003 – missing, T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,p. 5)
The parties’ son, Alexander was born March 2, 1995 while the couple still lived in Russia. Their daughter Victoria (Vika) was born on November 13, 1996 after they moved to Texas. During the time in Texas father was often out of work and failed to provide adequately for the family (T:06/12/2003- missing, T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,pp. 27-30).. The mother was repeatedly forced to seek charity in order to have food, clothing, diapers and other necessities (T:06/12/2003- missing, T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,pp. 27-30).
Throughout the marriage, the mother was the primary parent (T: 10/21/2003, p. 226) and cared for the children with little help from the father (T:06/12/2003- missing). The trial court recognized her outstanding parenting skills (T:08/24/2005, pp. 27-28, Also, Order of 05/10/2004, pp. 51-52, Also T: 01/17/2003, p. 13) for which she received the Mother of the Year Award (T:06/12/2003- missing). The father’s more lackadaisical approach to parenting included failing to watch them when they were very young (T:06/12/2003 – missing); leaving them alone in a car when he went to see his lawyer (T: 09/02/2003, p. 31); feeding them a lot of junk food (T:11/03/2003, p. 66); failing to make sure they were adequately dressed (T:11/03/2003, p.67) and excessive use of spanking (T:06/12/2003 -missing). The evidence of these parenting habits was uncontroverted.
The father physically abused mother and engaged in verbal abuse throughout the marriage (T:04/15/2002, pp. 68-82) including regularly calling her names like “fucking bitch.” It is likely the children were present for such incidents (T:11/03/2003, pp. 165-66). The father also sexually abused the mother (T:08/21/2003, pp.141-142). Significantly, the trial court issued more than three protective orders during the divorce proceedings(Order of 01/10/2001, Order of 02/07/2001, Order of 04/19/2001, Order of 05/21/2001, etc.) and the father was detained and jailed for stalking and harassing Mother in violation of one of those orders (Mother’s November 28, 2005 Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, verified, para. 19). Although two witnesses testified about the father’s repeated violations of Judge Amodeo’s protective orders (T: 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, pp. 5-13, also T: 10/02/2003, pp 28-33) Judge Amodeo did nothing to punish the father or protect the mother from further harassment and abuse. The trial court stated minimized father’s aggressive behavior toward the mother (T:06/10/2003, pp. 187- 188).
The father hit Victoria on her thigh (T:06/25/2002 , Rene Reyholds, pp. 10 and 12), forced Victoria to stand for a long period under a pouring rain, while himself being inside the car ( T: 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, pp. 5-13), failed to adequately dress both children for the weather and school (T:06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp. 7-18, also T:07/09/2002, Linda Meeker, p. 37) , left children alone in the car for extended period of time (T:09/02/2003, pp. 31-32), hit Victoria on her face with his jacket (T:10/02/2003, p. 219) – all these actions characterize the father as being unfit for custody, yet receiving full custody with same Judge Amodeo later during the same court case.
While living in Texas, the mother finished her degree in Mathematics and obtained a job with IBM in Poughkeepsie. The parties moved to Poughkeepsie in 2000. Shortly thereafter the father twice abandoned the family to return to Texas (T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,p.48 and p.50). After the second such incident, the mother decided to separate from father and thereafter filed for divorce in August of 2000 (T:06/13/2003 -missing). Father became angry at the mother’s decision to leave him and threatened to punish her (T:09/02/2003,pp.196 and 198 ) by taking the children away from her (T:08/21/2003, p.115). The father harassed and threatened the mother on a regular basis, but she was reluctant to file for an order of protection and pursue jail time for the father due to her cultural limitations and beliefs, specifically that Russian women don’t call police on their husbands (T:04/15/2002, p.72), and because she believed the father’s saying that American police won’t do anything to protect her (T:04/15/2002, p.74).
The court entered several temporary orders (Order of 11/08/2000, Order of 01/10/2001, and others), granting the mother full custody and giving the father regular visitation and phone contact. Over the next two and a half years, the father sought to obtain custody of the children.
During this time the father continued to harass and abuse the mother through threatening and repugnant phone calls and repeated threats that he would “take the children away” from her (T:06/13/2003- missing). His calls were so threatening and repugnant as to cause the mother to suffer panic attacks (T:06/13/2003– missing).
There was also evidence that father behaved inappropriately with the children. For example, in the spring of 2002 the mother received a call from Alex’s school informing her that Alex, then seven years old, was acting out sexually at school (T:10/21/2003,p.137).
The father admitted that he often scratched the children lightly over their entire bodies (but not their genitals) (T:06/12/2003 -missing) and a therapist who had interviewed the father testified that he admitted to her about such practice and she considered that type of contact to be inappropriate and sexualized (T:08/22/2003,pp. 16, 23-24)
On July 11, 2002 the mother was pressured by her then attorney Michael Kranis into accepting joint custody whereby she would have the children 60% of the time (Stipulation T:07/11/2002, p. 27). The court ignored the extensive evidence of Domestic Violence, disregarded evidence of the father’s questionable parenting practices, including sexualized behavior with the children and approved joint custody despite the fact that the mother had a Permanent Order of Protection against father from criminal court and allegations of domestic violence in her divorce complaint (Criminal Order 07/24/2001, Original Divorce Complaint 08/25/2000, T:06/25/2002, Yevgenia Shockome, pp. 68-82, T:06/13/2003 – missing). In late July of 2002, after he obtained joint custody and the Order of Protection had expired, father increased the frequency and abusiveness of his phone calls (Family Court Protective Order of 08/23/2002). On August 15, 2002 before the joint custody stipulation was reduced to writing, father petitioned for sole custody (father’s petition 08/15/2002). On August 23, 2002 the mother obtained TOP for herself and children based upon father’s increased abuse and harassment (Family Court Protective Order of 08/23/2002). On September 5, 2002 she filed for sole custody (mother’s petition 09/05/2002). The initial appearance of above three petitions was set for September 27, 2002.
The court moved up the date from September 27 to September 12, 2002 forcing mother to appear unrepresented, since she was given only three days notice. During the hearing the court gave father’s attorney an opportunity to make whatever arguments or representations she wanted (many of which were never even attempted to be proven at trial) (T:09/12/2002, pp. 3-7). But when the father’s attorney finished, judge refused to give mother any opportunity to respond. Instead the Judge abruptly stated he was inclined to take children from the mother (T:09/12/2002, p. 7). Every time mother tried to respond she was cut off, talked over, yelled at and threatened with jail (T:09/12/2002, pp. 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29). The court removed all protection for children and every meaningful protection for the mother (Order of 09/12/2002). Court also placed restrictions on mother although father had no family offense petition pending (T:9/12/02, pp. 24-27).
On January 17, 2003, without an evidentiary hearing or written decision explaining the extreme actions taken against the mother and children, court took children from mother and limited her to supervised visitation (Custody Order of 01/17/2003, and Supervised Visitation Order of 01/17/2003). The court also barred the mother from speaking with the children’s teachers, doctors or other providers (Custody Order of 01/17/2003). The court stated on these two orders that they were temporary but did nothing to expedite a final ruling.
On June 10, 2003 the court began a trial that, despite Appellant’s requests for expedited proceedings, was dragged out over the next 11 months. The court heard “parts” of the evidence for 5 days in June (06/10, 06/12, 06/13, 06/16, 06/19), for 2 days in August(08/21, 08/22), for 1 day in September (09/02), for 2 days in October (10/02, 10/21), for 3 days in November (11/03, 11/06/, 11/24) , and 1 day in December (12/22) of 2003. The court would not render a final decision until May 10, 2004 (Order of 05/10/2004).
In the middle of this 11 month trial, and over Appellant’s objection, the court appointed an evaluator with limited experience and knowledge over the objection of Appellant (Orders of 06/25/2003, 01/22/2004)
The evaluator’s review of the evidence was limited by the court, so that the mother was unable to present a full picture of her relationship with the children (Order of 06/25/2003). For example, the order appointing the evaluator referred to the father’s domestic violence as “alleged,” but did not use “alleged” to refer to the negative remarks that father had alleged (Order of 06/25/2003). The only documents she was denied were ones offered by Appellant (T:10/21/2003,pp.70-71). The evaluator also saw the father and children at a time when he had complete control over them (Custody Order of 01/17/2003, Supervised Visitation Order of 01/17/2003). She could only see the children and mother when a supervisor was present which interfered with the ability of the children to be open and honest and spontaneous (Sussman’s evaluation). She had limited time to complete her report and failed to speak with several people having important knowledge about the family and children (Sussman’s evaluation). Linda Meeker, the school nurse, was the only person from children’s school that the evaluator interviewed (Sussman’s evaluation). Mr. Meeker requested to speak with the evaluator again after she was able to review her notes about the children, but the evaluator refused (T:10/21/2003, pp.12 and 25).
The evaluation was not ordered and finished until the middle of the trial (Order of 06/25/2003, Sussman’s evaluation). The evaluator’s testimony did not occur until most of the witnesses including expert witnesses had already testified (T: 10/21/2003). In addition, the court cut short Appellant’s cross-examination of the evaluator (T: 11/03/2003,p.102), which would have exposed her faulty reasoning and conclusions and severely limited redirect (T:11/24/2003,pp.195-200). In addition, the court refused to permit Appellant to call any witnesses to rebut the evaluator’s report and testimony (Amodeo letter) even after repeatedly promising that Appellant could at least call Dr. Hannah for rebuttal (T:10/21/2003,p.12, 11/24/2003,p.174).
The court started out by acknowledging that Yevgenia was a very good mother ( Stipulation T: 08/24/2005, pp. 27-28, Also, Order of 05/10/2004, pp. 51-52, and T: 01/17/2003,p. 13) and that the children were very close to her and wanted to stay with her (Order of 05/10/2004, pp.36-38, Affidavit of Yevgenia, 12/08/2006). In fact, the trial court’s findings throughout the case acknowledged that the Mother is a good mother and that the children “need both parents.” (Stipulation T:08/24/2005, pp. 27-28). The teachers from children’s school, and other witnesses testified about superior mother’s abilities and the bond that children have with her ( T:06/25/2002, Joan Seifts, pp. 10 and 20, 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, p.13, 06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp. 9-12, 08/22/2003, Carol Barden, pp. 95-97).
Despite all of this, and citing the acrimonious relationship between the
parents, the court transferred full custody from the Mother to the
Father and limited the Mother to one day of supervised visitation a week
(no overnight visits). (Order of 05/10/2004, pp.51 and 52). The court continued it’s order of supervised visitation for the mother. The supposed reason for supervision was the mother’s alleged alienation of the children by denigration of the father. But there was no evidence of such conduct. In fact, the evidence showed that children did not resist any visitation that had been ordered and did not reject the father (T:06/12/2003 –missing). If the children did have negative feelings about the father, it was all due to his conduct with them (T:04/15/2002 , Rene Reynolds, pp. 10, 12, 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, pp. 5-6, 12. 06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp.17-18, 07/09/2002, Linda Meeker, pp. 36-37, 10/02/2003, Linda Meeker, p.219, 09/02/2003, Rosemarie Struk, p.31, 08/22/2003, Hanna Talmadge, pp 23-25, 43).
The children were nice to each other, and behaved better in school, when they were in mother’s care, and were aggressive to each other and behaved bad in school while in father’s care (T:06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp.15-16, 18, 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, p.13-14, 06/25/2002, Joan Seifts, p.8-9, 14). The children showed signs of distress, suffering and troubling behavior after spending time with their father and after he gained full custody of them (T:06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp.8 -12, 15, 17-18, 08/22/2003, Carol Barden, pp.85-88, 90-91, 10/02/2003, Linda Meeker, p. 208-210). The children became physically sick more often, depressed, sad, withdrawn, Victoria lost her eyelashes – after their father gained custody of them (T:06/25/2002, Joan Seifts, pp. 5-6, 08/22/2003, Carol Barden, pp.85-88, 90-91, 10/02/2003, Linda Meeker, p. 208-210, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, para 13).
Several days of the testimony was suspiciously erased by the trial court, including the critical testimony of the mother, the cross examination of the father and several diatribes of the Judge Amodeo (T: 06/12/2003, 06/13/2003, 08/22/2003, p. 78, 79, called “break in the proceeding”). The missing parts weren’t reported missing at the time of final custody order (Order of 05/10/2004), and were discovered only afterwards by the mother, when she was ordering the transcripts for the Appeal of stated order.
In April 2005, claiming to have lost his job, Father – over Mother’s objections – abruptly relocated with the children to Texas, while Mother continued to reside in Poughkeepsie, New York (T:05/05/2005). Mother filed various motions attempting to secure visitation with her children, and/or their return to New York, without success (OSC: 11/29/2005, Cross Motion: 07/05/2006, OSC: 11/10/2006).
Later through the series of subsequent rulings – including an order based on a “stipulation” that was coerced through threats of jail (Stipulation T:08/24/2005, p.22, Affidavit of Jennifer Shagan)– the court further eroded the Mother’s contact with her children to the point that her parental rights effectively have been terminated. (T:08/24/2005 (stipulation); Order of 11/10/2005; Order of 06/29/2006; Order of 05/22/2006; Order of 05/10/2004; Order of 12/29/2006).
In May 5, 2005, appearing pro se and trying to exercise her right to obtain court-appointed counsel to oppose Father’s relocation with the children to Texas, Mother – who was then seven months pregnant and on leave from her job due to medical complications resulting from her pregnancy – was summarily found in contempt of court by the trial judge and sentenced to thirty days in jail (Order of 05/05/2005). The experience of being jailed, particularly in the advanced stages of pregnancy, was very traumatic and left her with an extreme fear of being jailed again. (Mother’s Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, 11/28/2005, para. 42.) Mother spent Mother’s Day in jail, and the term imposed still unable to contact or visit the children.
After mother got out of jail and only 1 month after she gave birth to her baby, and was still breastfeeding and bleeding from the birth, she was called into the court again – by the father’s attorney. As described in detail in an affidavit submitted to the trial court by an eyewitness (Affidavit of Jennifer Shagan), Mother’s attorney negotiated for hours with Father’s counsel at the August 24, 2005 session, outside Mother’s presence and without informing Mother of the terms she was negotiating. (Affidavit of Jennifer Shagan, 01/05/2006,p. 1.) Afterward, Mother’s attorney suddenly confronted Mother in a corridor to announce that a “settlement” had been reached, but refused to answer Mother’s questions about it, saying there was no point in discussing it because “she [Mother] would go to jail if she does not agree to this deal!” (Id.) According to Ms. Shagan’s affidavit, Mother’s attorney would not even allow Mother time to consider whether to agree or not, because “the Judge would change his mind” and “Yevgenia [Mother] would be in jail.” (Id., p. 2.) Unable to understand what had been agreed to without her knowledge or approval, and greatly agitated by the threat of being jailed again (she had only recently given birth and was breastfeeding her baby) (Mother’s Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, 11/28/2005, paras. 43-44), Mother began to cry. Her attorney spent only minutes with her and did not explain the terms of the purported stipulation, insisting that Mother had to agree immediately or go to jail. (Id., paras. 40-41.)
Proceedings then commenced on the record. The purported “stipulation” was read into the record by Father’s attorney. Only afterward was Mother asked whether she agreed voluntarily to the terms of the “stipulation.” She clearly told the trial judge, “I was told I would go to jail.” (Stipulation T:08/24/2005, p. 22.) The trial judge made no attempt to determine how this threat had been conveyed to Mother, how she understood it, or whether she felt free to make a free choice in the face of such a threat (particularly given her great fear of incarceration as a nursing mother, and the traumatic aftereffect of her recent jailing in May). Instead, the trial judge simply belittled the mother’s fear, saying “Oh, please. Please. . . . If anyone has suggested that to you, that is not correct. Now, you know, I don’t know where that notion came from, it’s a notion that – I’m not even going to go into it, either.” (Id.p.22) The judge’s evident meaning was that Mother had simply invented the threat – which, as shown above, she did not.
Ms. Shagan specifically described, under penalty of perjury, what happened next:
Ms. Coughtry [Mother’s attorney] turned to Yevgenia [Mother] and said: “Why did you say that? You need to say that you voluntarily signed it.”… Ms. Coughtry . . . never stated on the record that she did threaten Yevgenia with jail. She squeezed Yevgenia’s hand tight, looked at her, like she had to finish the deal as it was planned. She dictated the words to Yevgenia, that she was “voluntarily entering into this,” and squeezed Yevgenia’s hand. Yevgenia said to Ms. Coughtry that she was making her lie. Ms. Coughtry gave her a look and said that she needs to finish this up.
(Shagan Affidavit, p. 2.) Clearly, Mother’s free choice was compromised, and in full sight of the trial court.
The trial judge, however, accepted the purported “stipulation” as the voluntary agreement of the parties. The judge – who presided simultaneously over this matter in both Family Court and Supreme Court, Dutchess County – issued separate orders from each of the trial courts, purportedly to reduce to written order the terms contained in the “stipulation.”
Mother duly raised objections to the trial court’s orders, pointing out her lack of voluntary consent to the purported “stipulation” and the impropriety of the orders themselves, because 1) the purported stipulation was invalid as a matter of law, 2) even assuming the validity of the stipulation, the orders deviated from the terms thereof, and 3) the orders violated the stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Mother also pointed out to the trial court that – relying on the terms the trial court had added sua sponte to the November 24, 2005 order ( The order had a asterisk addition, which was never part of the stipulation) – Father had unilaterally blocked all of Mother’s attempted visitation with the children, claiming he could not afford to pay for her airline tickets, as he had agreed to do in consideration for the stipulation that he could move to Texas with the children and insisting on illegally collecting the $10,000 “equitable distribution” from Mother before he would even consider allowing her to see the children. (Mother’s Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, 11/28/2005.). The court’s orders that mother pays full child support, which turned into over $2,400.00 a month plus $7,000.00 money Judgment, and $10,000.00 to the father in “equitable distribution” had forced mother into the bankruptcy (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, para 39). Thus, Mother was still denied all direct contact with her children since Father relocated with them to Texas 4 months earlier. The mother was impoverished and drained off all the money by numerous court orders and litigation, thus not able to afford any paid for supervised visitation (Summation of Yevgenia Shockome, 02/14/2005). The father prevented visits even when mother offered to pay for them (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Para 15, 12/20/2004, Para 4, 01/18/2006, Para 11, 12, 13, 14). Before August 2005 hearing, the father did not allow for a single visit or a phone call, and prevented the single visit to occur for at least 6 weeks (which eventually happened March 20, 2005) (Summation of Yevgenia Shockome, 02/14/2005, Memorandum 03/16/2005). The mother had not seen her children at all since that day – March 20, 2005. The mother had tried to arrange for the visits with the father, only to get denied by the father, until she “pays $10,000.00” to him (Bankruptcy T:01/31/2006, p. 7), and only to be denied by the court – by imposing harsher conditions on the visitation, taking the financial burden off the father and placing it on the mother (T:01/18/2006, pp 40-41). The mother still had not had a single visit since then until today.
The trial court’s only response to these objections was to threaten Mother again, this time to “have the matter turned over to the D.A.’s office” for criminal prosecution for “perjury” – because of her alleged agreement to the purported stipulation of August 24, 2005, the coerced nature of this she was now trying to point out (T:01/18/2006, pp. 2-4).
Although the final order modifying custody and visitation was signed December 29, 2006, the Mother has had no contact with her children since March 20, 2005. (Although the Mother ostensibly has e-mail contact, the evidence showed that the Father was deleting her e-mails and the children, therefore, were not receiving them. See OSC of 06/30/2006, – Mr. Shockome’s email dated 06/05/2006, T: 12/08/2006, pp. 20-21, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Paras 34, 35.)
Mother still has not had a single visit with her children. Father has continued to refuse to pay her airfare and to block contact between Mother and the children, though Mother has made all child support payments and other payments imposed by the trial court’s orders (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Para 39). Mother had strictly complied with the terms of the purported stipulation, even though she believes it was coerced and unjust. (Petitioner’s Affidavit in Reply, January 18, 2006, para. 36.) In fact, Father has gone farther and blocked Mother’s telephone contact with the children as well. (Id., paras. 33-35, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Paras 18, 19, Cross Motion, 07/05/2006, Para 37). The court backed the father with it’s orders (Order of 06/30/2006, and 07/27/2006, and 12/29/2006), instead of punishing him for self help interference with the calls. The court terminated the phone contact and the father has rendered the email contact null by deleting her emails (T:12/08/2006,pp.14-16, 20, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Paras 34, 35).
The Law Guardian only participated in 1 phone call(s) with the children. (T:12/08/2006, p. 12). Nevertheless and despite the fact that he has never observed their living conditions in Texas, the law guardian continued to report to the trial court that the children were doing well in their new environment (T:01/18/2006, pp 6-8, 11/13/2006, pp 11-14). The mother’s repeated requests that the court appoint a new law guardian who can observe and report on the children first-hand have been ignored (T:12/08/2006, pp. 14-16, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome 12/08/2006, Para 5).
The evidence shows that once the Father obtained complete custody and control over the children by virtue of their relocation to Texas, he effectively deprived the Mother of all meaningful access by refusing to pay for her airfare to facilitate visitation, as required by the Stipulation and Amended Custody Order, and by interfering with her court-ordered right to telephone and e-mail contact (T: 01/18/2006, pp. 8, 10-12, 20-22, 26-27, 12/08/2006, pp 20-25). Although the Mother complained to the trial court about the Father’s non-compliance, the court declined to enforce the stipulation against the Father and, instead, excused his obligation to pay ( T:01/18/2006, pp. 40-41). The court also ordered the Father not to interfere with the Mother’s e-mail contact, but when presented with evidence of such interference, the court took no action (T: 12/08/2006,pp. 14-16, 20) .
The mother had not seen her children since March 20, 2005, and before then it was sporadic – once in several months, due to father’s interference and mother’s prebankruptcy state due to the court orders (Summation, 02/14/2005). Since August 2005, the mother had only sporadic phone contact with the children, and not a single call since May 2006 (Order of 06/30/2006). Her email contact renders pointless, since the father deletes emails and mother never received any responses (Petitioner’s Affidavit in Reply, 01/18/2006, para. 33-34, T: 12/08/2006,pp. 14-16, 20).
Southern District of New York, ruled that Father’s attempts to collect amounts purportedly due him under the Judgment of Divorce in exchange for visitation between the children and their mother violated the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362, imposing sanctions on Father and his attorney for their willful attempts to violate the stay (Bankruptcy Order of 05/11/2006, Bankruptcy T: 01/31/2006, p.7, Bankruptcy T: 02/14/2006, pp. 6-8).
The father had stated to the mother that until she pays him 10,000.00 US dollars, she can’t bring visitation issue up (T: 01/18/2006, p. 9). The father engaged in active interference in visitation between the children and their mother – Yevgenia by denying her air tickets, self -declaring new “rules” that she has to follow to be allowed the visits, such as to “address her issues before visitation can begin” (T:01/18/2006, pp. 21-22, 26-28), and demanding money in exchange for allowing the visits (T:01/18/2006,pp 9-11). As a result, the mother had not had a single visit (T:01/18/2006, pp. 10-12).
With the children thus isolated from any maternal contact, the Father embarked upon a plan to alienate them from their Mother, even going so far as to deliberately show them articles on the Internet dealing with this case that he falsely claimed were put there by the Mother. (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome dated 12/08/2006, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, paras 28, 29, 33). Left with virtually no contact, the Mother has been rendered helpless in her attempts to counteract this alienation.
After Family Court’s custody/visitation order dated May 10, 2004, awarding Father sole custody of the children, Father repeatedly prevented Mother’s normal visitation with the children, despite Mother’s payment of child support. (Id., paras. 9-13 – “I have had no physical in person contact or visitation time with my children for the last 8 months. . . . [I]n the last 14 months or so to the present, I have seen my children twice and spoke to them by phone a total of 45 (forty-five) minutes each . . .”) A memorandum of the trial judge’s secretary, dated 03/16/2005, describes how Father had blocked visits between Mother and the children by refusing to pay an intake fee to a visitation supervisor (even though he was only required to pay $20.00 per week – eventually Mother herself offered to pay the fee for him!) Mother has also complained of Father’s interference with her telephone and email contact with the children, though this was specifically provided for by court order. (Petitioner’s Affidavit in Reply, 01/18/2006, para. 33-34.)
Although the Father demanded that the Mother remove the materials from the Internet (and encouraged his children to make the same demand), the trial court acknowledged that it would be impossible to impose such a requirement on the Mother(T:08/24/2005,pp. 15-16).
Nevertheless, and even though it was he who gave the children access to the internet postings in the first place (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/08/2006, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, paras 28, 29, 30), the Father convinced the trial court to officially terminate the Mother’s telephone contact partly on the grounds that her discussion of the postings during their conversations was harmful to the children (Order of 07/17/2006). The court ignored the fact that, by exposing the children to the Internet materials himself and then directing them to call their Mother and complain, the Father had forced the Mother to talk about subjects involved in the on-going case. (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome 12/08/2006, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, paras 28, 29, 30).
The father failed to provide Yevgenia with court ordered tapes of the conversations with the children for full 9 (nine) months (T:01/18/2006, p.41). Yevgenia did not have a full set of tapes until September 24, 2006 despite numerous complaints to the court (OSC of12/08/2006, Cross Motion 07/05/2006, para 47-49, T:11/13/2006, p. 3, OSC of 11/10/2006, Paras 2, 3, 4, 5.)
The father terminated the telephone contact without any court order, by using self help (Cross Motion, 07/05/2006, also T: 01/18/2006, pp. 8 and 28).
Judge Amodeo did not hold father acountalbe for terminating phone contact and for interfering with visitation, and proceeding for creating more difficult terms for my visitation with children by inventing “issues” that the father wanted Yevgenia to “address before any visitation begins”(T:01/18/2006, pp 31-32), therefore making Yevgenia to chase a “moving target”.
Judge Amodeo had denied due process rights to the mother throughout the course of this case, by scheduling the court appearances without a sufficient notice (Scheduled 09/12/2003 appearance instead of planned 09/27/2003, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/04/2004, Paras 8, 9, 10, 11), without explaining what court appearance was for (T:05/05/2005, p.3, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Para 11, 01/03/2005, Para 7), without allowing the mother to be represented by an attorney (T: 09/12/2003, many, many other places), by prejudging the case before it even started, for example telling the mother that she will lose her children (T:09/12/2003, pp. 23-24), by threatening to put mother in jail as intimidating tactic (T:09/12/2003, pp. 19, 26, 29), by letting the court officers to surround the mother and intimidate her with their handcuffs and guns ( Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Paras 8, 9, 10, 11)
The citings are accurate.
