Georiga Family Law

The Rachel House, aka Rachel Foundation

This place in Texas is not a hospital or a real therapeutic environment subject to the normal oversight you would expect of a medical or psychological facility that treats children.

Everything about it is suspect at best, and there are known investigations into this facility related to child trafficking. This was stated on the record in Forsyth County if you want to see the transcript. Aside from that statement, when you hear teens and young adults reporting back about what they’ve been put through there and at other “deprogramming” and “reunification” camps, all doubt will be removed.

So why would judges, attorneys and custody experts in Georgia be so comfortable in taking children away from healthy parents and forcing them out of state to this place?

Why would Georgia divorce attorney Tera Reese Beisbier write to a New Jersey judge that her friend Judge Bagley would be willing to get on the phone about his recommendations for sending children to the Rachel House?

Why would Dr. Howard Drutman be named as the “doctor” in Georgia to use to enforce Rachel House recommendations during child custody cases? (see below the examples of professionals associated with the Rachel House and the descriptions of their misconduct)

It is important that Georgia recognize why Dr. Drutman is used on this case and others involving damages to children, even though he doesn’t have the credentials to support his involvement. It is also important to note that he has been investigated for billing fraud by an insurance company, and that he has committed billing fraud according to visible records. But these select attorneys still pay him top dollar on sensitive cases, and certain judges accept his recommendations in spite of overwhelming evidence against his positions. Why is that?

Dr. Howard Drutman: why is it noteworthy that this is the “doctor” trusted by these judges? Let’s take a look. Reviews such as this one are telling:

“Doctor Drutman was unprofessional, biased, and writes his opinions in child custody to favor known proclivities of the court judges, not as an uninfluenced professional. He damages children’s lives by falsifying reports, skewing information and failing to follow established APA guidelines. His work is an embarrassment to the profession and he should be barred form child psychology evaluations.”

We can only imagine what their motives are, but we thought you might want to hear more specifics on why we were drawn to Forsyth County Superior Court to learn more about this case. A case involving a teen girl pleading for her freedom from abuse.

If you have been reading our posts here, you will recognize the patterns across several cases, from Fulton, to Cobb to Forsyth…around how select custody experts and attorneys ensure that evidence does not work in favor of children or support the parent the evidence is actually in favor of on these cases. *In some cases the evidence supports the father as the healthy/nurturing parent, but the custody experts are going against that evidence also; it is not that they are against women, or in favor of affluent fathers with status. Select experts just choose to do the wrong thing, as apparently that ensures the need for their ongoing services.

We are asking our leadership and authorities to pay close attention to what makes sense here – and to compare the law to the conduct of these professionals. Things do not match up, and it is way too easy to spin messaging and create glossy brochures that put a happy or normal face on top of the abuse that is being enabled and covered up using this and similar facilities. (Not all wrongdoing by professionals involves sending kids to these camps; they are just one method used to increase fees and to further destabilize children and nurturing parents.)

The following statements are excerpts from this news story, in which an investigative reporter in FL went after the facts surrounding the Rachel House.

From kids who were subjected to therapy here – therapy that is less humane that what arrested criminals are allowed to have done to them:

“The Rachel Foundation is a scary organization. It’s taken every day of my life since to put myself back together in a way I see fit.’

The Hochs “told us that if we didn’t obey our dad and if we didn’t agree to act happy with him that we would never see our mom again,” testified Kelli Carr, now 17.

She said she and her sister weren’t allowed to eat until they agreed to say positive things about their father.

“How many days did you go without being fed?” the judge asked.

“Just the first two days, because then my sister and I just started . . . making things up.”

The foundation falls through licensing cracks because it is not a hospital, group home or mental health facility — all of which are regulated by Texas. Professionals connected with the Rachel Foundation are licensed, but several have run afoul of regulators.

The former clinical director, California psychologist Randy Rand, is on five years’ administrative probation for “unprofessional conduct” in child custody cases in Orlando and California.

A former member of the foundation’s advisory board, J. Michael Bone of Orlando, lost his Florida mental health counselor’s license in 2007 for failing to act in the child’s best interest in a custody case.

A Texas psychologist who has worked with the Rachel Foundation was put on probation for failing to disclose a DUI arrest and submitting a custody report with “numerous inaccuracies.”

And a California psychologist who has been to the Rachel House several times to help the Hochs does not have permission to practice in Texas, state regulators say.

“There are scientific standards and practice standards for how to go about delivering therapy to children,” Silberg of the Leadership Council says, “and nothing I’ve seen from the Rachel House follows any known standards about the delivery of mental health care.”

Stranger, and more disturbing yet, is the fact that one of the pro-pedophile “leaders” in the US was instrumental in making Rachel House so well known:

A onetime Columbia University professor, Richard Gardner thought society is too harsh on adults who have sex with kids.

“What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles . . . far beyond what I consider the gravity of the crime,” he wrote in 1991.

Gardner argued [about pedophilia] that it’s common in many cultures and that children might be less harmed by sex abuse than by the “trauma” of the legal process.

Attorney Failure to Advocate Leads to $20 Million Claim for Breach of Duty

What would lead a judge in Family Court to terminate a parent’s rights?

We all assume – until this happens to a GOOD parent you know – that parents must fall below some clear and compelling threshold of conduct to cause a loss of parenting rights:

This article shown below clearly reveals, and in a simple way, that this is not true for the parent named who has not seen her child for three years.

It is also not true in hundreds of cases here in Georgia. This is why My Advocate Center is growing rapidly through the support of both parents and professionals.

Disclaimer added following an objection raised online: It is My Advocate Center’s position that the problems being faced by parents and children in #GAFamilyCourt cases are caused by select attorneys, experts and not all. There are a good number of ethical, talented and diligent professionals who do not condone the practices that are escalating conflict and leading to increased injury to children and losses to families. Our mission is to raise up those professionals while improving the process for families, to allow them to transition more smoothly through and out of conflict.

Children deserve the best that both parents have to offer (assuming both parents are safe for the child), so we are highlighting cases where apparent professional misconduct and violations of ethics rules are interfering with what is otherwise possible and necessary for the needs of children to be served.

In this case, which is an accurate representation of what happens to many parents who report child abuse, this parent has made a bold move to pursue her attorney for obvious failures to advocate for his client as his duty states he must under ethics rules.

Excerpts are posted here from this article, which we believe more parents – both mothers and fathers – should use to compare to what they are experiencing in their own cases:

Counsel’s “failure to adequately prepare for {the custody expert’s} testimony left the judge with the impression that Perkins {the protective parent} had a personality disorder.”

Relying heavily on that impression, the judge terminated Perkins’ parental rights to one of her children.

“Because of Peterson’s {counsel for protective parent} deficient trial representation, M.P. has been adopted, and Katie will never be able to raise her son or have a meaningful relationship with him,” the lawsuit states.

Christensen said Perkins lost contact with the child about three years ago.

[My Advocate Center can reveal to the State Bar, to our legislators, law enforcement & to the Press and Public that similar Georgia cases caused a shocking number of parents here to not see their children for longer than this, even as long as 12 years+. The point is that this was not necessary, could have been avoided, but for the conduct…the missing loyalty, honesty & diligence of the attorney representing the undermined parent.]

The lawsuit states Peterson’s failures led to Perkins losing all contact with one of her children, and severely limiting contact with another child.

Perkins also racked up nearly $100,000 in attorney fees. She is seeking more than $20 million as compensation for emotional distress, the lost opportunity to spend time with her children, and attorney fees.”

It is our opinion at My Advocate Center that these attorneys know full well that the judge is going to rely on custody expert’s opinions, and that they have the duty to ensure the facts and evidence of the case are relied upon by the experts and then the judge.

What we are seeing in Georgia – repeatedly with a certain group of attorneys and custody experts – is that key evidence is not being used and diligence is not being exercised in representing to the Courts what should be considered in decisions and orders, especially affecting children who are under stress from some form of physical abuse or alienation.

In many cases, while desperate to protect children & to try to retain their rights to nurture and protect, parents are put under duress and told they must forfeit money and rights in order to continue seeing their children.

Considering how many parents are wrongfully cut off from their children, you might believe that the ability to purchase the right to nurture your child is a great “deal” – but this notion has no place in our Court system, and can be avoided where counsel & experts follow the rules and our laws.

There is another lawsuit of this nature currently before the Georgia Court of Appeals, which is due to be ruled on at any time. This case is a template for “Breach of Fiduciary Duty” specific to Family Law attorneys who lied to their client and withheld loyalty in the context of a custody dispute. These failures led to losses, not just large financial losses where duress was used, but also led to damages to mental health of the parent as well as damages to the children.

Other family law & psychological and financial professionals have weighed in that these damages were caused directly by the parent’s counsel, and could have been avoided.

We have a rapidly growing list of case studies, and according to the Georgia Supreme Court, this exercise of using duress around the rights of parents to care for children is viewed as fraud. [Case citation information available through consultations with our professional advisors].

If you are the kind of professional who can support lawsuits of this nature, please email here or send a message via LinkedIn. The Counsel for Change was established to help support solid & committed professionals, including legal, psychological & financial counselors who will lead by example to help change how cases like these are managed.

Parents who have experienced loss from custody experts and attorneys who ignored evidence, did not properly prepare testimony and did not uphold their duty to advocate diligently, please contact us for more information.