News Report: Call for Fulton Family Court Investigation

What do Fulton County families and children need most?

If you ask parents caught in legal conflict, you’ll likely hear the word transparency.

Georgia news media, parents, advocates and legal professionals attended a press conference on April 24th that covered in detail the danger experienced by safe, loving parents and their children in family court cases.

The allegations are serious and a plea was made to Fulton County’s District Attorney Paul Howard to investigate the claims.

The press conference featured Georgia expert William Perry who is known for his news reports on ethics failures in government. Perry, who goes by Georgia Ethics Watchdog in his reports, learned just how dangerous the legal environment is for families, and decided to do something about it. Several tragic stories were shared and family law attorneys weighed in, agreeing that something needs to be done. Atlanta’s Fox5 News aired the story that evening, doing a remarkable job at laying out what is complicated and challenging to explain.

The news report explained that for these parents who are being victimized, nothing is more important to them than their children. Children are reportedly being taken from them without any regard for the law.

Perry addressed needed policy changes and spoke about his challenge to law enforcement and other authorities to investigate cases where good parents are wrongfully accused, torn from their children and set up to fail.

My Advocate Center’s term to describe the problem is profit over protection.

Outcomes make no sense given our laws and the facts in such cases.  The real needs of children are thrown by the wayside. Does it need to be this way?

The image here was taken by a news team at the Fulton County courthouse in recent years, when custody experts were paid to suppress evidence of child abuse that was substantiated by forensic evaluations and law enforcement. The litigation resulted in protection and proper medical treatment being withheld from the child.

Young adults are coming forward now to speak about their experiences such as what this child experienced when outcries for help were ignored and silenced. There is no need to wait in beginning investigations and working to remove danger by closing loopholes in state policies.

When families are exploited there is often a lack of transparency and due process in the management of the litigation, so Perry emphasized the need for parties to be allowed to record their own court proceedings.

Superior Court Rules on Recording Court Hearings

This issue was addressed by Georgia’s Supreme Court and Superior Court judges and includes recommendations from stakeholders in the press, My Advocate Center and other advocacy groups.

The new rule changes take effect in May of 2018, benefitting the public, professionals who are ethical and committed to protecting clients and children, and also benefitting the courts in creating more efficiency and positive outcomes.

Parents, grandparents, professionals and even children are speaking up about experiences and the need to take action. Contact My Advocate Center’s founder Deb Beacham here to report details to My Advocate Center or to ask for assistance.

Investigations and News Reports Matter

Learn more about what is happening across Georgia and how investigations can make all the difference in improving safety, family stability, and the ability for parents and children to recover from trauma.

Contact My Advocate Center to review case studies and data on these issues. Investigators will discover that the problems described here are wide-spread and found nationwide, but with Fulton County’s large population and high rates of domestic violence and child abuse, there is a special need for a concentrated review of cases in this area.

Background material for news reports and investigations can also be found in reports such as this story by an Augusta news station about glaring misconduct by a Guardian ad Litem who manipulated cases based upon whether vulnerable women would comply with his demands, or not.

Remaking of Minds using Psychological Abuse

It’s possible to wear someone down to the point of making them think and act in ways they otherwise would not. This is one form of psychological abuse explained by Psychology Today in this article that reveals what happens to children who are mistreated within the context of family conflict.

My goal since beginning research on this problem, and then reporting on the ways children are used and harmed through the mismanagement of family conflict, has always been about reducing childhood trauma and disrupting cycles of dysfunction.

The dysfunction I’m referring to manifests as addiction, mental illness caused by family violence, sexual abuse and neglect of children, abandonment, financial failure and home loss, suicide and divorce as primary examples. Children experiencing these forms of dysfunction are more vulnerable to exploitation, more inclined to rage and desperation. Boys seem to be more severely impacted by divorcing parents than girls, according to this article featured on Mic.com which explains the commonality between young men involved in shooting rampages. [See Ready, Aim, Fire at Pain and Anguish]

A prominent dysfunction is also seen in how bonds between loving, safe parents and their children are broken down and destroyed. Georgia law speaks to misconduct in the form of poisoning the mind of a child against a parent, showing that this is abuse and that it harms both the child and the targeted parent.

The term often used in courts and by psychologists is parental alienation. Alienation of affection is specifically prohibited in court orders governing custody and care of children of divorced parents. If one parent acts to cause distance and break the loving bond between the child and the other parent, he or she can be held in contempt. Why this form of misconduct is not being confronted and corrected in our courts is a separate matter.

The term as an allegation of wrongdoing, however, has been improperly applied often in Georgia court cases involving actual child abuse and/or domestic violence, to blame the victimized or protective parent trying to keep the child safe and the abused parent’s rights intact.

The right to nurture and care for one’s own child is a protected right in our courts, but that right is stripped away by wrongfully condemning the targeted or abused parent for “alienating” the child from the perpetrator of abuse. As a result of this misapplication of the term alienation, it has had a polarizing effect on parents who have suffered from its use and amongst professionals involved in family conflict.

Another useful article on this subject featured in Pyschology Today can be found here.

Notoriously and across the globe, parental alienation syndrome (“PAS”) has been used by questionable custody experts to fault protective parents by claiming the safe parent has engaged in a sickness, a disorder, to cause an abused child or child who has witnessed or experienced family violence to want distance from the abusive parent. The conduct of such professionals goes against the needs of the child and is in direct conflict with laws specific to child safety and protection.

What the expert is saying to the child is that he or she should accept the abuse as normal. It is common for experts appointed or hired in custody cases to normalize abusive conduct, including psychological abuse, neglect, violence and even sexual abuse. Actually, this tactic is most commonly used in cases involving true sexual abuse of children to discredit the abused child and the parent fighting to protect the child. Of course, the expert, whether a psychologist or attorney acting as a guardian ad litem, is being paid to manage or filter information going to and from the child, to the court and other authorities, but always in a way that serves to guard the abuser and restrict the safer or more nurturing and emotionally healthy parent.

The expert is saying to the safe, protective parent that you should avoid asking for protection or else face condemnation and separation from your child. This tactic is based in fraud and often involves acts of false reporting and perjury by the experts influencing courts and other authorities against the safe parent and in favor of the abuser. Claiming that a parent who seeks help for a child who is having medical or psychological treatment withheld by an abusive parent, for example, is alienating the child from the other (abusive) parent is a false allegation.

This is extremely common in such cases involving child custody where there is evidence of actual abuse and the perpetrator expects the custody experts to suppress evidence of abuse. The false allegation serves to put the safe parent on the defensive, forcing him or her to spend more money defending against the false allegation. The focus of the expert’s investigation, instead of being on the perpetrator of abuse and on protecting the child, becomes a series of substantial steps to condemn an innocent parent. This is why U.S. legislators included language in a Congressional concurrent resolution discourages the use of “parental alienation syndrome,” as it is misused or used for wrongful purposes.

For the purposes of this article and throughout the rest of my reports, the terms alienation, alienating behavior and parental alienation are referring to the abusive conduct by either a party to family conflict or a professional engaged in targeting the safe parent and exploiting, for profit, the children involved. Any form of alienating behavior is an intentional act to cause harm and should be identified and corrected as such; children should be protected from this form of abuse.

The proposed legislation is solid, but there are other tactics involving psychological abuse and professional misconduct yet to be addressed. There are a host of false allegations and abusive methods that come in to play in litigation, but what they all have in common is that they cause trauma and increase risk of other injuries to both children and loving parents.

There is an entire body of work on this form of psychological abuse shown above in the poisoning of a child’s mind and in the manipulation of their normal behavior to break the bond between parents and children. Psychology Today featured the work of Dr. Craig Childress to explain the harm done and to demonstrate what can be done to address and correct the damaging misconduct. Excerpts of this spotlight on the issues follow:

Trauma to Safe Parents and Children

  • Enduring the experience of parental alienation is also a profound form of psychological trauma experienced by targeted parents. It is both acute and chronic, and externally inflicted. It is thus a type of domestic violence directed at the target parent. The fact that children witness such abuse of a parent also makes alienation a form of child abuse. This is perhaps the principal source of anxiety for the alienated parents, who witness the abuse of their children, and are prevented from protecting them.
  • This psychological trauma of alienated parents differs from what groups like combat veterans face when they develop PTSD, yet the experience of targeted parents is a form of trauma as debilitating as any other. Although not all parents who are victims of parental alienation experience trauma, as the same event that plunges one parent into trauma may not do so with another, those who are closely attached to their children and were actively involved in their lives most certainly do.
  • Losing the bond with your child is also a form of complex trauma. It is no coincidence that the pathology of the parent who engages in alienation is often born in complex trauma from the childhood of that parent, and that the current processes of attachment-based parental alienation are transferring onto the targeted parent a form of complex trauma. The childhood trauma experience leads to the development of the aggression behind parental alienation. From a psychodynamic perspective, the processes of parental alienation represent a reenactment of the childhood attachment trauma of the alienating parent into the current family relationships. The trauma reenactment narrative represents a false drama created by the pathology of the alienating parent, in which the targeted parent is being assigned the trauma reenactment role as the “abusive parent;” the child is being induced into accepting the trauma reenactment role as the supposedly “victimized child;” and the alienating parent adopts the role of the “protective parent.” None of this false drama, however, is true.
  • The parenting of the targeted parent is entirely in normal range, and the child is in no danger and does not need any protection from that parent.

The Nature of the Problem

  • A major impediment for victimized parents is that the problem is largely systemic in nature, as support services for alienated parents are virtually non-existent, and support services for their children are also in short supply.
  • When parents of alienated children attempt to bring their concerns to child welfare authorities, as parental alienation is a form of child abuse and thus a child protection matter, these agencies often disregard the problem, and when they do become involved, rarely share their findings in family court child custody hearings, despite the fact that this information will serve the best interests of the child.
  • In parental alienation situations the targeted parent is put on the defensive, and must continually try to prove to therapists and others that he or she is not “abusive” of the child. The targeted parent is often blamed for the child’s rejection, even though he or she did nothing wrong: “You must have done something wrong if your child doesn’t want to be with you.”
  • It is often deemed irrelevant that the parenting practices of the targeted parent are entirely within normal range. The alienating parent, often skilled in the use of adversarial combat (and thus rewarded within the current adversarial system), thus has the upper hand. In this upside-down world, your child is being taken from you, and no one seems to care or understand.
  • The emotional trauma inflicted on the targeted parent is severe, and the grief of the targeted parent is deep.

Keep in mind that the intent of the parent using alienating tactics against the targeted parent is to do harm. The effect if the abusive behavior if successful is erasing the targeted parent from the lives of their children either completely or to a significant degree.

There is no current solution to prevent this abuse or to help targeted parents and children overcome it.

  • The trauma experience captivates the psychology of the targeted parent, as the world of the targeted parent revolves entirely around the trauma experience and the false drama.
  • Repeated court dates, lawyers, therapists, custody evaluations, that all occur in the context of continuing parent-child conflict, consume the targeted parent. Yet it is vital for targeted parents to find ways of coping with the attachment-based complex trauma of parental alienation. They must strive to achieve the triumph of light over the darkness of trauma, and find their way out of the trauma experience being inflicted upon them.
  • They must free themselves from the imposed trauma experience, restoring their psychological health within the immense emotional trauma of their grief and loss.
  • As much as targeted parents desperately want to save their children, they cannot rescue their children from the quicksand by jumping into the quicksand with them. If they do, they will both perish. Instead, they must have their feet firmly planted on the ground, steady in your own emotional and psychological health, and then extend your hand to retrieve your child. But even then, given the nature of parental alienation and its profoundly damaging effects on a child, a child may not grasp the parent’s hand.

Can a Parent Engaged in Alienating Behavior Become Self-Aware and Change Course?

  • According to the work of Dr. Craig Childress, parental alienation is first and foremost an attachment-based trauma.
  • Attachment-based parental alienation is essentially a role reversal of a normal, healthy parent-child relationship.
  • Instead of serving as a “regulatory other,” which involves providing stability and meeting the child’s emotional and psychological needs, alienating parents use their children to meet their own needs, violating boundaries and seriously compromising and damaging the child’s healthy development.

If a parent is indifferent to the harm he or she is causing a child, that parent isn’t going to seek treatment and work to change behavior, let alone help heal the injury caused to children and the targeted parent. The alienating parent will refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing and, if confronted, will escalate the abusive behavior. Left to his or her own devices, the abusive parent will continue causing harm.

This pattern of continuing abuse despite laws and court orders is similar to that seen in the conduct of the perpetrator of domestic violence of a physical nature. The severity of the harm being done can be better understood by reading the statements made by Congress in House Resolution 72.

Intervention from authorities, responders, healthcare providers and other stakeholders in child protection is needed.

Learn more about tools provided to courts around the United States about coercion, bullying and deception of children, about how easy it is for the abusive parent to present as the better parent because of being skilled at lying and manipulating, and about approaches courts can take to remedy these forms of abuse.

Download and read the Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases.

Access insights about bullying and suicide rates.

Let’s talk if you are interested in learning more about solutions.

I appreciate your time here and commitment to improving protections for our children.

Deb Beacham

Troubling Endorsements of Sexual Harassment and Abuse

It’s hard to image how we as a society stomp out sexual abuse and harassment and truly help victims of assault when those in positions of power and authority do not take it seriously. When efforts to seek accountability fail, it sends a message to predators that they are free to continue.

Two situations come to mind for me as clear and overwhelming examples of this problem with accountability. Both situations are well documented and involve many offensive acts which did cause severe and lasting damages to victims.

In learning of these and other such situations involving abuse, a cover up and avoidance of accountability, I couldn’t help but ask this: if this kind of misconduct is tolerated and protected, what else are these predators and those who protect them willing to do? Does any life, any right, any need…matter to them?

AUGUSTA: OUTSIDE THE GATES

In Georgia, in the family law area of our legal system, a sexual predator was given the position of Guardian ad Litem in many domestic cases involving child custody disputes. The role of this person as Guardian position lasted for years, so let yourself imagine how many lives were negatively impacted over that time and for years to follow. Unless you’ve been subjected to such pain and loss, however, it will be impossible to fathom the depth of suffering.

I’ll address the details of abuse by court-appointed Guardians (GAL’s) more fully in a separate post, but there are many and they are fueled by the same mentality that people are there to be used and taken advantage of, even when the court professional is a sworn officer of the court and expected to abide by laws specific to their role and profession.

Other court professionals knew of the predatory conduct in the Augusta area, and even discussed it amongst themselves in writing. They did nothing about it, and especially did nothing to address the twisted and harmful outcomes of cases, let alone the damages to the victims and their children. Of course the man eventually left the role of Guardian but was never held accountable and there was no investigation or relief for the families and children.

What happened?

The Guardian ad Litem chosen to sway the court in favor of one parent and against another used his position to coerce sexual favors from women subjected to his authority in their child custody litigation. In at least one case where the Guardian was complied with, the mother obtained custody when she was not the safe parent. That means the father in that case lost custody in spite of the evidence of the mother’s problems – endangering the children when they were in her care. Of course the father had no way of knowing that the mother of his children was being sexually harassed and assaulted by the GAL who influenced the court against him.

In many more cases involving abusive conduct by the Guardian, mothers who would not give in to his advances lost their children. In at least two cases, the children were forced to live with a parent who was psychologically abusive and potentially dangerous to them given issues with addiction and rage. Those mothers and their children were harmed badly as a result of this Guardian’s influence with judges and attorneys managing the cases, but there has been no recourse for them in either civil or criminal cases.

Even with news coverage of these cases and the pervasive sexual exploitation and fraud on the court, nothing was done about it. It was said by law enforcement that no crime occurred, that there was nothing the agency could do, and a judge actually just referred to the misconduct as “harassment,” saying, “sexual harassment isn’t a crime in Georgia.”

If a court-appointed Guardian ad Litem is not held accountable for such abusive conduct, and is allowed to freely abuse such power in this position of trust and control, what does that say about our system for determining what is in a child’s best interests? Can any parent expect to have their rights upheld when it comes to staying in a child’s life or having the ability to protect their children who are in harm’s way?

Taking it a step further, if such predatory conduct by a court-appointed Guardian is to go unpunished while the lawyers bill for the work going on around this conduct, what else, what other forms of abuse, were being perpetrated against victims of abuse? Were the professionals in this area aware of other abusive conduct and staying silent, or worse?

With Georgia’s extremely high rates of child sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking, the issues raised here should not just be filed away. These are not isolated incidents but indicators of bigger problems in the legal system and in our state.

Predatory conduct and the mindset of those in power who avoid holding perpetrators accountable make for a very dangerous combination. *If you can’t be protected from sexual assault when you enter the court system, where can you expect to be protected?

 

CORPORATE MALFEASANCE AND COVERUPS

The story below is connected to a recently resolved criminal case and ongoing civil matter in Georgia. Both sides of the story are troublesome and raise issues of accountability for wrongdoing; it appears that there is no perfect answer, no one clear resolution in store. I’ll say for now that one crime does not justify another, but it will be up to the jury and court to determine if secretly video-taping inside another person’s home is a punishable offense in this particular situation.

April 11, 2018, update: the jury acquitted the defendants today on all charges. Read more in the Daily Report here.

The purpose of sharing this information here is to highlight the mindset of sexual predators and lack of accountability for their misconduct, as well the extreme challenges for victims of abuse in seeking relief. Currently, there are no criminal investigations into any form of sexual abuse related to these parties that I’m aware of. News media, especially the legal news media, are only focused on the gyrations of the criminal trial for eavesdropping violations by the alleged victim of sexual abuse.

Updates on this trial are being reported by Robin McDonald with the Daily Report/ALM. For the latest as of Monday, April 9th, click here.

This update reveals the detective who tried to look into the allegations of sexual abuse by the employer stated that no crime was committed, but he was also unable to conduct a thorough investigation due to records being sealed and ongoing civil actions wherein parties and lawyers did not want to talk openly. Allegedly the court issued a gag order preventing the housekeeper from speaking about the matter. Police Lt. Carben Tyus pointed out that the existence of a parallel civil case does not, as a rule, impede a criminal investigation. “They are often simultaneous,” he said, adding that criminal prosecutions often take precedence over civil cases. It seems that one of the issues raised was that the alleged victim waited months before reporting, and produced no evidence of a crime, only narrative about the civil litigation.

BACKGROUND

In Texas, a woman was fired in retaliation for reporting severe and prolonged sexual harassment and assault by her co-workers and supervisors. When she left and started her own business, her business was attacked to cause her loss of income. I didn’t know about this case and the federal court’s scathing opinion of the predatory and retaliatory conduct until April of 2018 because it was introduced in the aforementioned criminal trial of a woman and lawyer involved in confronting the former Waffle House chief executive. Regardless of the outcomes of these cases, the information and federal court judge’s response to this abusive behavior are noteworthy, timeless and should be preserved.  We shouldn’t just move on from this like it’s another headline to be forgotten.

This is worth repeating:

Predatory conduct and the mindset of those in power who avoid holding perpetrators accountable make for a very dangerous combination. *If you can’t be protected from sexual assault or harassment in your place of work, where can you expect to be protected?

What allowed the entitled and predatory mindset seen in both of the above situations is pervasive and causing our society to rot from the inside out. It’s about a lack of humanity and empathy, the notion that people are there for the taking, there to be exploited and profited from in some way, no matter the cost.

After publishing this post, I dug a little further to find this AJC article from several years ago when the Waffle House “sex video” and the cross-claims were in the news; this was before the recent criminal case gained momentum. It provides added perspective which I believe is missing from the recent coverage of the criminal trial.

This is what followers of the Waffle House CEO Sex Tape “scandal” and the resulting civil and criminal cases are not hearing about:

  • In 1998, a U.S. district court judge in Texas ruled in favor of a former Waffle House personnel recruiter who alleged repeated sexual harassment at the hands of her superiors.

He, the chief executive, “… either condoned the wrongful conduct of (top Waffle House executives ) or sanctioned it in advance,” wrote the judge, who awarded former Waffle House personnel recruiter $8.1 million. The district judge’s written decision was later “vacated” by the court as part of a confidential settlement between Waffle House and the woman. (her name is redacted to keep the focus on the patterns of conduct relevant to this article)

  • The former recruiter agreed to support the woman in this present case, stating, “I think it’s important for this case that people realize that the power (he) has and the personality he has, how he could coerce someone to do what she did over all those years,” she testified. “And she, unlike I, could not just walk out and get another job.”

“You know, if a boss invites you to have sex or do sexual things, you always have to wonder what will happen if you say no,” she said.  The man who was her boss, she said, is “a bully. I find him to be someone who preys on others weaker than he is.”

As it turns out, the woman who did report repeated sexual harassment was terminated, with no record against her to justify the termination.

  • Classic victim-blaming:

“She was a jilted lover with an axe to grind,” said the lawyer for the former executive. The lawyer also stated that prior claims of sexual abuse or harassment are irrelevant in the current case.

I’ll leave you with one last thought for now: the situations featured here involve clear and compelling evidence of abuse, as well as evidence of failures by professionals and authorities to properly respond.

If such well documented abuse, exploitation and betrayal cannot lead to accountability and protection, what does this mean for victims of abuse – including children who are sexually exploited – where there is less evidence?

What other forms of misconduct, including retaliation for reporting, are being endorsed and covered up by corporations? What about by our courts?

Can you expect your own family members and children to be kept safe?

 

Sexual Harassment: Scribner v. Waffle House, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 439 (N.D. Tex. 1997) via Justia by Deb Beacham on Scribd

Advocates for Open Government and Open Records

Today was a fascinating day in the world of justice as I watched a packed courtroom full of people wait on the sentence issued by the Dawson County judge in Nydia Tisdale’s case.

There should have been no case to begin with, but since this was taken to a jury trial it became obvious that Tisdale had the most far-reaching and compelling support you likely have ever seen in a courtroom. Her legal team did outstanding work and Tisdale herself was like a beacon of bright light in that courtroom. That’s what the truth does, it shines.

Please watch WSB-TV in Atlanta at 6pm for the story and I’ll update this post soon with links to news reports, images and documents from this case as it will mean a great deal to all of us – as Nydia and her journalistic work will – for a long time to come!

With much gratitude to the Tisdale team lawyers, the politicians and other officials who testified on her behalf today, members of the press and many more who brought transparency into this trial and the issues in play, it is my request to you as you read this that you donate here to help Nydia Tisdale continue her priceless public service.

Follow via Twitter, @MPetchenikWSB for updates on this story, along with Chris Joyner @cjoyner and @alexisnews of the AJC and Robin McDonald of the Daily Report.

Deb Beacham

 

Protected: Children Traded as Commodities

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: In the Name of Justice

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

The Right Bug Repellant

Years ago when I first started studying the conduct of professionals who assist families during times of conflict, I noticed something interesting. When someone who is intensely worried and frustrated believes they have the right counsel, they will dress as they are told, cut their hair and change various behaviors for the sake of achieving the objective of the day. These changes in behavior and style and speech seem to happen quickly, without study, due diligence or challenge.

Imagine if a man relying on counsel is heading into the woods instead of into a courtroom.

He’s mainly worried about mosquitoes.

He asks his highly recommended counsel to hand him bug repellant to save him from the buzzing mosquitoes. He’s assured that if he applies this spray liberally and forges ahead, he will come out fine on the other side of the woods.

As he heads into the woods, believing he is covered and really has only about 100 yards to go, the buzzing sound goes away but he notices something else. He pulls up his pant legs to find a handful of ticks – you get the picture.  Ticks dig in and they are hard to get out. Treating disease caused by ticks? Expensive, time-consuming, stressful, and not always possible.

The man is confused. He has no reason to believe that his counsel would not give him the right advice or that he wouldn’t receive the protection he’s paying for and expecting, so he starts looking around trying to figure out where all the ticks came from and why he wasn’t warned about them. The ticks are much more threatening and painful than the mosquito bites he was trying to avoid…so what to do?

He calls out to his counsel who offers to sell him another bottle of spray and some ointment. So the man pays for what he is handed, takes the bottles out of the bag and begins spraying and applying the ointment. While he’s busy with these bottles another problem hits him. He can’t see his feet…or his ankles any longer. While applying the ointment to the back of his legs and prying out ticks, he doesn’t see he’s been standing in quicksand. He panics – he’s never seen quicksand before and realizes it seems to be pulling his legs in an inch at a time!

Now angry and scared, he calls out loudly to his counsel. Then he pauses.

He sees his counsel and a couple of other suits approaching with shovels and barbed wire. Quickly he tries to rationalize how they are going to save him with barbed wire? Is the shovel enough to move the quicksand away as he is now in up to his hips?

Feeling stuck?

You know what to do now, right? Click here for the right tools.

 

Parents Rights in Georgia Law and Rule 22 Application

Rule 22 Governs Permission for Recording Court Proceedings

Parents in Georgia have rights that are often not applied in child custody cases, including when someone other than a natural parent is seeking custody of the children. But is anyone paying attention to this type of loss and trauma?

If you are paying attention or are interested in increasing this focus, contact me here.

Protecting the right to record and maintaining open access to courtrooms does improve protections for families and children.

The content to follow is a developing body of work revealing clear examples of the difference it makes to have cameras allowed in courtrooms and to avoid restricting our press.

While I have much more to do here I wanted you to have access now to documents and videos as I upload them and welcome your questions and feedback as this story unfolds. Your attention is needed to ensure we protect access to our judiciary and ensure our courtrooms remain open.

Two problems are ripe to be solved:

1. Missing clarification of Georgia’s laws on the rights of natural parents.

Georgia judges and domestic lawyers expressed interest in this case because it could help clarify what was previously an uncertain matter left to the court’s discretion. Let’s address this issue first.

In the case featured in this article, the lawyer for the maternal grandmother convinced the court that the children would be at risk if they were left in the care of their father. The father was able to receive help thanks to volunteer lawyers through the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation and successfully appealed the trial court’s order giving custody to the grandmother.

With no evidence in support of the grandmother’s claims that the father was a violent man, the trial court gave custody for a second time to the grandmother. This time the Court of Appeals made sure the message was received, that the rights of natural parents should be taken seriously and that absent clear proof of ongoing or future danger to the children the natural parent’s rights are above those of a grandparent. Attached first is the June 24th ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the final ruling driving home the instructions to adhere to the law and facts of the case. Additional filings and orders follow in reverse order.

Rights of Parents Georgia COA Jun 24 2016 by Deb Beacham on Scribd

2. A lack of transparency or ability to review proceedings in child custody matters

You might say this is the problem in all types of judicial proceedings, hence the attention given to the proposed amendments to Georgia’s Rule 22 governing decisions to allow filming or other types of recordings in courtrooms. Changes were proposed by Georgia’s judiciary and only a few organizations and individuals are focused on the flaws which could further restrict public access to court proceedings and discourage open records.

The focus here on child custody is due to the high volume of cases wherein children are used for leverage and/or to punish the other parent by moving to restrict rights, to cause pain and suffering or to avoid paying child support, for example. This is a widespread problem with almost nothing being done to curtail damaging tactics which exploit children and vulnerable parents.

Given the question of law governing the rights of natural parents and the opportunity to observe and film three pro bono lawyers fighting for a wrongfully accused father, I filed a Rule 22 Request to record this Hart County hearing. I learned about the case because the Court of Appeals had twice reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case.

When I began my investigation into the case history and factors that caused the reversal, I recognized the pattern of abusive litigation that is causing so many of Georgia’s children to lose access to loving, available parents. When you’ve seen this pattern of foul play unfold nearly one hundred times, it becomes obvious pretty quickly that intervention and transparency are needed.

There are several videos to this story:

Initially the hearing was set for late summer in 2016, and the grandmother’s attorney argued vehemently against having the proceeding filmed. This video portion will be added shortly.

After listening to her argument, the judge allowed the recording to go forward.  The lawyer was not about to give up on her strategy for denying the father custody, so another tactic was put into play that would either prejudice the court against the father or cause another delay, or both. This clip will be added.

Rather than allow the grandmother’s surprise expert to testify without fair notice and a deposition, the father’s counsel objected and moved to continue the hearing to allow for their deposition of this child custody psychologist Dr. Barbara Oxley.

The argument made by Athens attorney Ed Tolley is one often missed in similar proceedings. His argument and commentary from our interview will be added here.

The continued hearing was reset for December, 2016, and again the court ruled in favor of my Rule 22 Request, saying afterwards, “These days you’re afraid not to grant these things.” Interesting perspective and statement, but I’ll take it.

I’ll be back to complete this story and share the outcome, which will definitely surprise you!  In the meantime, please let me know if you’d like to contribute to additional use of Rule 22 Requests and other forms of increasing both public safety and especially better protections for parents and children.

The rest of the footage of the trial above will be shared in the coming days, and admittedly it will have much more meaning to children taken from safe parents, and for parents stripped of their right to nurture children without cause.

In the meantime, here’s another sampling of images and news reports that have meaning and which support protecting the intent and integrity of Rule 22.