Greetings to all,

We are searching for a pro bono Alabama attorney who is an expert in domestic violence and child abuse to work with a nationally known attorney to support a case pro hac vice.

This case involves a child and a wonderful protective mother who is advocating for her child, other mothers and their children and recently presented her testimony in Washington, D.C.

Time is of the essence. Please forward this request to your lists and call if we can help answer any questions or be of assistance.

Let’s help make a difference for this child and mother.

Linda Marie Sacks

FL NOW Co-Chair of the Child Custody and Family Court Committee

lindamariesacks@aol.com

Cell 386-453-3017

From The Alabama State Bar website:

ADMISSION OF FOREIGN ATTORNEYS PRO HAC VICE

An attorney or counselor-at-law who is not licensed in good standing to practice law in Alabama, but is currently a member in good standing of the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or other United States jurisdiction may appear as counsel pro hac vice in a particular case before any court or administrative agency in Alabama upon compliance with Rule VII, Rules Governing Admission to the Alabama State Bar.

A foreign attorney appearing as counsel pro hac vice is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.

To appear pro hac vice, a foreign attorney must associate in that cause an attorney who is a member in good standing of the Alabama State Bar (local counsel). A foreign attorney must then file with the court or agency where the cause is pending a verified application for admission to practice.

The application required by Rule VII shall be on a form approved by the Alabama State Bar and the Supreme Court. The granting or denial of an application for admission as counsel is discretionary with the court or administrative agency before which the application is made.

For further information, contact PHV Admissions at (334) 269-1515 or phv@alabar.org

“… Not only are these children in danger,
but your children,
their neighbors children, and
the child’s friend at school …”

THE NINTH BATTERED MOTHERS CUSTODY CONFERENCE BMCC IX: IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING?

FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 6TH, 2012

Registration beginning at 4:00 p.m.

6:00 Angela Shelton: Humorous Healing: You Could Use a Laugh Right Now! Angela shares funny stories along the healing path to inspire us all to laugh as we continue our fight for freedom and justice.

7:30 Lundy Bancroft: WHERE DO WE FIND STRENGTH TO FIGHT BACK? How does the human spirit keep itself alive? How do people who have suffered tragedies — or atrocities — get back up on their feet and move forward again? Lundy is going to look at what makes it possible for some people to rise up out circumstances where their defeat seems total, and fight their way back to thriving. These are the individuals who become the greatest thorns in the side of the powerful and the oppressive. He will suggest a road map for how all of us can become those Phoenixes.

Saturday Morning, January 7th 8:30 – 9:30

Plenary 1: Wendy Murphy: Rethinking Reform: New ideas and strategies for when the rules don’t work

9:30 – 10:30 Panel: Barry Goldstein, Moderator; Joan Zorza, Kathleen Russell, Rita Smith, Connie Valentine, Karen Anderson, Gabby Davis, & Eileen King: News from the Protective Mothers Movement You May Not Have Heard

Many exciting events have taken place in the last year which we hope will make a difference in changing the broken system. A panel of activists who have been involved in these events will discuss this news. It includes a roundtable discussion for OVW at the Justice Department, training in custody issues for the National DV Hotline, a new consortium that is in the process of forming to support our goals, marches and meetings in DC, new publications coming out and other events. The discussion should give our movement hope and opportunity.

10:30 – 10:45 Break

10:45 – 11:45 Plenary 2: Dr. Phyllis Chesler: Mothers STILL on Trial

Saturday Afternoon, January 7th 11:45 – 1:45 Working Lunch: BMCC Premier of Garland Waller’s New Documentary No Way Out But One This feature length (1 hr and 35 minutes) documentary looks at family court injustice by telling the story of Holly Collins, the first American woman to get asylum from the Dutch government on grounds of domestic violence. In 1994, Holly Collins became an international fugitive wanted by the FBI for kidnapping her own children. Ordered by a family court to turn her two children over to live with the father who had been abusing them all, Holly felt she had no way out but one. Only by kidnapping her children and running was Holly able to protect her children.

1:45– 2:00 Break

2:00 – 2:30 Gabby Davis and Loretta Frederick: Developing and Implementing a Conceptual Framework for Identifying, Understanding and Accounting for the Implications of Intimate Partner Abuse in Contested Child Custody Cases. Ample research, local practice, and lived experience collectively inform us that the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children are not adequately accounted for in contested child custody cases where domestic violence is alleged. Very little systematic attention is paid to whether there is a history of abuse, whether the abuse is ongoing, who is abusing whom, what the abuse looks like, and how the abuse impacts the children, the abused parent, and the parenting capacities of both the abusive and the abused parent. Consequently, from an institutional standpoint, the family court system is often poorly organized to accurately identify and describe what is actually happening in people’s everyday lives so that it can respond in ways that are helpful, or at least not harmful, to the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children. This presentation describes a collaborative effort by the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Praxis International, and a local jurisdiction in NW Ohio to develop and implement a concrete framework to help family court professionals better identify, understand and account for the context and implications of domestic violence in contested child custody cases.

2:30 – 3:00 Connie Valentine and Karen Anderson: Good News from the California Protective Parent Association As a growing coalition of 99% protective mothers groups, we are moving forward toward the common goal of keeping abused children safe when their parents separate and divorce. This workshop will review the movement’s accomplishments during the past year. Accurate definition is important: this is a civil and human rights movement. Come to the workshop, hear how far we have come, and share your accomplishments.

3:00 – 4:00 Karin Huffer: Is What We Are Doing Working? Yes…But Not Fast Enough –An Overlooked Powerful Focus for 2012 This presentation will discuss how mothers can learn to re-image themselves and their cases in a positive light. Women and children can take control of “impression management,” thus wiping out damage caused by their opponents. Effective but often unused laws and tools exist in the standard legal setting. Due to the wrong impression being sold to the court, mothers are beaten down, traumatized, marginalized by the batterer. However, through combining the ADA law with trauma treatment and political savvy, mothers are winning their cases.

4:00 – 4:15 Break

SATURDAY AFTERNOON BREAKOUT SESSIONS

4:15 – 5:15 Workshop Session 1

LEGAL ISSUES TRACK 1. Renee Beeker & Joshua Pampreen: Findings from the National Family Court Watch: Prelude to Publishing. We are so excited to be sharing with the BMCC our latest news and some inside information on the project. We also will provide copies of our abbreviated form for use for supportive court watch and will teach participants how to use it in conducting court watches.

2. Linda Marie Sacks: Strength in Numbers One day Linda Marie Sacks heard a mother being interviewed on television about the court taking away her children. It was a familiar tale and Sacks knew immediately that she too was a “Dr. Deborah O. Day Mom”. Now, Sacks works with “Day mothers” all over Florida. Combining forces with other mothers who have lost their children due to same court professionals is an important step. Teaming up to write complaints, comparing experiences and the emotional support offered by these partnerships are invaluable but finding these other parents can be difficult. RecordChronicle.com is seeking to identify these clusters.

PERSONAL HEALING TRACK

1. Michele Jeker: MST, PTSD and Domestic Violence in military life and after discharge Military Domestic Violence/Military Sexual Trauma This workshop will address the negative impacts of military life on the family, including the extreme pervasiveness of DV regardless of assignment, and the magnitude of the problems facing the military family. The military’s response to DV and the lack of judicial relief are among other topics we will be covering.

2. Raquel Singh: Healing Within and Without: How community and political activism are an essential part of the healing process This workshop examines how community-organizing benefits the healing process of survivors of domestic violence both individually and collectively. It will explore questions such as: • How does internalized oppression impact how a survivor interprets her abuse and others who have similar experiences? • Does this create a false separation between women who have been abused and those who experience sexism in other ways? • Does simply replacing the term “victim” with “survivor” really empower women to reclaim their lives? • How can we skillfully craft and integrate our personal stories into a wider social-political context as part of our organizing?

3. Maralee Mclean: Prosecuted But Not Silenced

 5:15 – 6:15 Workshop Session 2

LEGAL ISSUES TRACK

1. Wendy Murphy

2. Holly, Jennifer, & Zachary Collins: A Life on the Run In 1994 Holly Collins was determined to protect her children from a life of abuse. So she grabbed her own children and went on the run. She became an international fugitive, hunted by the FBI. Eventually, she and the kids became first American citizens to be granted asylum by the government of Netherlands. 17 years later, all charges have been dropped and Holly and her children have returned to the United States.

3. Sandy Bromley, DV-LEAP: Improving Outcomes for Battered Women and their Children: DV LEAP’s Custody & Abuse Project DV LEAP has recently entered in to a cooperative agreement with the federal Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), an agency of the US Department of Justice. Through specialized training and technical assistance, DV LEAP works to reduce the number of battered women losing custody of their children or being required by courts to turn over their children for unsafe visitation with an abusive parent. This presentation will review the goals and strategies of this cooperative agreement and allow participants an opportunity to provide feedback and ideas to the project manager. PERSONAL HEALING TRACK

4. Karin Huffer, Justin Huffer, & Crystal Huffer: Your Looking Glass Self: Making Sense of Court Rulings and Correcting Defeating Perceptions to Unlock Protective Mothers Justice in Your Case From being a nationally know expert and DV/ADA Advocate in court with battered mothers, I observe a common disastrous pattern that is rectifiable. • Lies damage mother dominating the case; • A correctable fundamental attribution error fills the record with false negatives toward mother making her a target; • Court appointees are influenced by coercive controlling, abusive mechanisms; • Mothers suffer diagnosable traumatic stress. Participants will learn to: • Re-image from fear to using properly postured emotion to achieve systems power; • Correct the court record with authority; • Counter lies without lying; • Engage legal help without going broke; • Influence the legal process.

5. Tammy Gagnon: No Longer Silent: From the Scars of Survival, We Reclaim Our Lives Those who have never experienced an abusive or violent relationship often believe that upon finding a way out, victim difficulties are solved: their life is good, they are safe, and recovery will be swift. However, survivors know that leaving is not the end of the nightmare — it is the beginning of an often difficult and challenging journey toward healing and happiness. They need practical guidance, emotional reassurance, and psychological awareness that survivors of relationship abuse and domestic violence need to heal and reclaim their lives after leaving their abusers.

SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 7TH

6:15 – 7:30 p.m. (Optional) Dinner at a special rate will be available in the hotel restaurant, so feel free to carry it out to attend the Organizing Session with Connie Valentine, Karen Anderson, & Kathleen Russell

7:30 – ? Welcome Home Party for Jennifer, Holly, & Zach Collins

SPECIAL SAT. EVENING WORKSHOP

8:00 – 9: 15 p.m. Nancy Erickson, J.D.: Filing an Ethical Complaint Against a Custody Evaluator: Do It Yourself Many battered women have lost custody of their children because a “custody evaluator” (sometimes called a “forensic”) has recommended that custody be given to the abusive father. Yet, in many cases, the custody evaluator was incompetent, unprofessional, or unethical – perhaps even taking bribes from the other side. A common example is a custody evaluator who believes all mothers try to alienate the children from the fathers. This will be a do-it-yourself workshop where participants will be guided through the process of filing licensing board complaints against these evaluators. If successful, it could have an effect on your case, and it might lead toward another valuable result — that the evaluator would never ruin the lives of more protective parents and their children.

SUNDAY MORNING, JANUARY 8TH

9:00 – 10:00 Plenary 3: Toby Kleinman

10:00 – 10:45 Barry Goldstein: From Poughkeepsie to Quincy: How to Save Thousands of Lives, Trillions of Dollars and Reform the Custody System. Barry Goldstein has written a new chapter based upon studying responses to domestic violence. He looked at the failure in Poughkeepsie that has resulted in ten deaths in a year and the success of the Quincy Model that led to no domestic violence homicide for many years. His investigation plus current research establishes that practices that could eliminate most domestic violence crime, a lot of other crime and save at least $500 Billion every year. In order to obtain these benefits the custody system will have to be reformed. He believes the huge financial savings and other benefits can be the incentive to create a different discussion about domestic violence custody issues.

10:45 – 11:00 Break

11:00 – 12:00 Workshop Session 3

LEGAL ISSUES TRACK

1. Michael Bassett, J.D. and Carol Pennington: Turning Around The Titanic Without Hitting an Iceberg: Battered Moms and Turnaround Cases Much like turning around a ship, turning around a custody case can be time-consuming, dangerous and draining. This presentation will discuss strategies that have been successful in past cases. Other topics that will be discussed include working with your attorney, changing attitudes through practicing law, the use of psychological experts, and the use of evidence of acts that may seem like it occurred “too far in the past.”

2. Liora Farkovitz: The Electronic Advantage: Understanding Technological Evidence This workshop is a companion to a technology guide, “Understanding Technological Evidence for the Legal Professional: 101 the Basics” which highlights the murder/suicide case of Katie Tagle of San Bernardino County, California in 2009/2010. Highlighting how the judiciary often ignores electronic evidence in domestic violence cases, the last 2/3 of the guide provides a step by step “basic” guide of current technology.

3. Dara Carlin, M.S.: Coloring Outside The Lines: Potential Solutions When The Ones In Place Aren’t Working If you have found your way to the BMCC, chances are the system that was designed to protect you and your children has failed you. Despite “coloring within the lines” (having followed all of the instructions and all the professional directions) you’re in a bad place and stuck with nowhere else to turn – NOT SO! This workshop will illustrate and explore some of the more creative things survivors and their allies have done when all solutions were exhausted and “acceptance” became the only one left.

PERSONAL HEALING TRACK

1. Louise Monroe: “WHEW”: Women Helping Empower Women This is the story of one family’s five year journey through that black hole known as “family court.” The evolution of this journey through the support and caring of others also traveling through this blackness and how all the negative in their lives was used is such a positive way that the journey has ended and the sun is shining brightly.

2. Chrys Ballerano: Nurturing Rhythms for Self Care- Experiencing the Healing Power of the Drum This is primarily an experiential workshop and interactive experience. An atmosphere of gentle safety will be maintained and modeled as Chrys provides participants with an opportunity to connect with themselves and their own innate sense of play. Therapeutic benefits of rhythmic drumming will briefly be discussed. Participants are welcome to bring their own percussive instrument. Sufficient instruments (enough for 40- 50 people) will be provided. This isn’t a workshop about “beating” drums but about connecting with our own heartbeat, and our own abilities to play in community and find ways to respond to the natural world. Come enjoy a circle of rhythm that is fun for all- no experience necessary!

12 Noon: Sunday Lunch with Jennifer Collins and Carly Singer: Abused Children to Children’s Advocates

2:00 p.m. Close

St. Louis Misery – A mother fights for return of abducted child

The Court System of Missouri has had their brutal shackles coldly gripping the lives of Sonja De Vivo and her severed family for over a decade. This is no run-of-the-mill ten year prison sentence; that would be far easier to stomach. It has been a savage court-ordered, daily regiment of emotional and psychological torture. The storm troopers of the 21st Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, have been administering the torture upon Sonja De Vivo for 3,500 some-odd days and counting, without fail, and in true Nazi fashion.

Sonja’s daughter was taken from her ten years ago by the Missouri court. The ruling was given based upon false accusations by Sonja’s ex-husband amid a tumultuous divorce. The court found no “abuse”, however, they refused to return her daughter. Read more about the baffling and sadistic tale of state sponsored abduction in “Child Abduction By The State.” They have blatantly neglected to even glance back on their decision since, despite the fact that she still has custody of two other healthy happy children who long for their little sister. The only abuse being implemented is the torture by the Missouri court system against a defenseless family.

The gavel fell hard in 2001, like a guillotine, severing the bond between a loving mother and her daughter. The piercing sound of that blade slicing down to the chopping block reverberates in Sonja’s ears every day of her life, and the Missouri court room has done everything they can to make sure she cannot forget that piercing sound. To condition and intimidate her into submission to these high crimes of the state. The most recent activities of the 21st Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, are a grim testament to that.

On April 30, 2009, Sonja received a restraining order, further restricting her relationship with her daughter. De Vivo’s daughter made an attempt to contact Sonja. After punishing Sonja’s daughter (now 15) for attempting to reach out to her biological mother, the court ordered foster ‘father’ filed a restraining order against Sonja! The state of Missouri had officially, and wrongfully, terminated all of Sonja’s parental rights six years ago. Sonja and her daughter have been out of contact for this time due the foster parents neglect to establish further allowed visitations. Now that her daughter is desperately trying to contact her, the state of Missouri feels that even more brute force must be brought down upon the already fragile situation.

The request was granted with no questions asked. No word was given to the fact that her daughter was the one trying to contact her natural mother, or that the adoptive parent had punished her for doing so. No proof was needed to validate the perjured allegations “justifying” the request, and, in an effort to not break the precedent already set by the court, Sonja has been denied the ability to present evidence against the accusations in front of a judge. In fact, all of her previous court-appointed attorneys have refused to represent her if she wished to have any evidence-backed response be presented in front of a judge. The appointed Washington University
interns have been defending her under “free” representation. Apparently, representation that caters towards the benefit of the defendant is not included when you get it for free. Apparently, the right to a fair and speedy trial is only a right for those who can afford it.

For the entire duration of De Vivo’s case, none of the proven false allegations made against her have even been addressed in front of the Judge, and submission of any evidence defending her case has been refused. The chips are stacked against her, and every time she has a decent hand to play, the state of Missouri always finds a way to have a better one.

A Guardian Ad Litem was appointed to the case. This appointee is supposed to interview the child, as well as represent her. The Guardian Ad Litem was just another winning card stashed up the long, snide sleeves of the court. No interview was ever conducted with the daughter. The Guardian Ad Litem’s excuse for not interviewing her was based on the hearsay of the adoptive parent, who claimed she was just a liar. It is clear at this point that the state does not want it on record that the adopted child has been trying to reach out to her natural mother.

The 21st Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, has been playing the same game for the past decade, gambling with the lives and futures of a mother and her daughter, and cheating all the while long. Despite all of the savage proceedings of the court, Sonja has not given up, and is continuing to tirelessly fight through the ruthless, unwarranted, emotional torture that she has withstood.

She is to the point, however, where she is unable to keep fighting on her own. Please help her to obtain her own lawyer, one that has not been appointed by the crooked court of the state of Missouri, and help ensure that she stands a fighting chance against this evil that has been wrongfully keeping her from her child. The unjust state court system has inflicted far too much emotional pain upon this mother and daughter for nearly ten years…

Click here to: Sign Sonja’s Petition

In this recording, the mother asks those present to communicate honestly in order to discuss very specific issues about her daughter’s case. 

Mom says the Spurwink Clinic substantiated that her child was abused and that the clinic ruled out “coaching”.

The DHHS supervisor’s response?  He protects himself and defends his actions in this case. He talks about which words he used to decribe “coaching”.

Mom says she’s not talking about which words were used to describe coaching. She says the reports say the abuse was substantiated. 

The DHHS supervisor says mom is difficult to communicate with.

The tape goes on. 

Did a DHHS worker in Maine lie to this mother? Did a worker in the Maine DHHS office say that office had “secret information” about the case and, as a result, decided there was no abuse?

There apparently was no “secret information”. And that DHHS worker was apparently fired.

At 17:00, you can hear discussion of the DHHS’s interpretation of The Spurwink Clinic’s reports.

Two years have past since those reports were written. If the Maine DHHS offce is still looking for a clarification from the Spurwink Clinic, here it is:

From Carver County Corruption:

Bryan Stranberg, Carver County Detective took the stand for the prosecution today. No one could understand what he was testifying for, other than to the contents of the DVD, of which Stranberg conveniently could not recall much of any of the DVD`s contents.

Caroline Rice asked once again for the DVD to be entered into evidence and shown to the jury. This was granted today. The judge had no choice at this time since the questioning revolves around the DVD and no one seemed to be able to recall what it said. The TV was brought in, the DVD began. Tears and gasps were heard in the courtroom throughout the DVD. For 40 minutes A Rice cried and stated, `I want to be with my mom`. Carole Cole stated, `You are not permitted to be with your mom`, A Rice replied, `Yeah, why is that?` A Rice stated, `No one here will help me, none of you will help`, `I have waited two years to see my mom, nothing changes`… and it went on and on.

Prosecution rested with witnesses after the DVD and Bryan Stranberg`s testimony.

Caroline Rice subpoenaed witnesses last Friday. Those witnesses include her children, the foster mother for A Rice, Caroline Rice`s parents, Carole Cole (unlicensed Social Worker on the DVD interrogating A Rice) and a few others.

Carole Cole took the stand. Her behavior was shocking. She rolled her eyes at Caroline Rice continually, smirked and laughed through Caroline Rice`s questioning of her. She did not look at A Rice`s file prior to taking the stand, she did not bring her notes from the incident or take Caroline Rice seriously, this was obvious in the courtroom. Carole Cole`s demeanor was incredibly unprofessional and crude. Cole admitted A Rice was suicidal and placed into a hospital less than two years ago. Carole Cole admitted that A Rice was suicidal because A Rice has `problems` with her father. Cole admitted A Rice wants to be with her mom and she cannot be. Carole Cole admitted A Rice was placed into a foster home after the hospitalization. When Caroline Rice asked Cole why A Rice was not placed into a relative`s home instead of a foster home Cole claimed, `There were no suitable relatives available to care for A Rice`. Caroline Rice`s parents were in the hall during the testimony – because they are witnesses they cannot be in the courtroom. Caroline`s parents would be horrified to hear Cole state `there were no suitable relatives` since Caroline`s parents have been stripped and robbed of years with their grandkids due to the corruption in this courthouse.

CH, foster mother for A Rice took the stand. CH told the courtroom that A Rice was inconsolable while living with her due to A Rice not being able to be with her mother. Caroline asked CH if she tried to console A Rice. CH replied, `I tried but you cannot replace a mother`s comfort.` CH stated A Rice is afraid of her father and would talk about wanting to be with her mother continually.

T Rice, 18 year old Rice son took the stand. T Rice stated there is a restraining order keeping him and his siblings from having contact with their mother, Caroline Rice. T Rice stated he and his siblings still do not know why there was/is a restraining order forcing them away from their own mom. T Rice stated A Rice would in the past beg him to take her to their mom. T Rice stated it has been very difficult to not be able to have contact with their mother. T Rice stated A Rice`s emotional state prior to running away was bad, she was struggling with not being able to be with her mom.

Judge Perkins stated something very odd. Perkins stated, `The Rice children are not restricted from seeing their mom or contacting her, Caroline Rice is restricted from contacting them` This caused puzzlement throughout the courtroom, it would any courtroom or social setting. So… the kids can see and call their mom anytime… but Caroline cannot embrace them or answer the phone? She is supposed to tell them to go away per court order? Good grief.

Judge Perkins` treatment of Caroline was the same as always: terrible. At one point Perkins stood up and ordered Caroline Rice and Peter Ivy (prosecuting attorney) into the side room, again. Caroline would not go into a room with Perkins due to his conduct last time, Caroline is afraid of Perkins. She was so shook up the last time from his yelling at her that she refused to go through it again without a witness, she said, `I am not going back there, I am not comfortable with it unless I have a witness`. Perkins told her, `You are not permitted a witness, get back here!` She said no. The room stood still. Perkins did the right thing and came back, sat down, and dismissed the jury to have a `talk` with Caroline in front of the courtroom. This was a very good move on Caroline Rice`s part. The judge tries anything in his power to frazzle and intimidate her. The judge will not try the `side room` move again.

A very big development occurred today in the courtroom. Caroline Rice is on trial for 3 counts: intent to coerce A Rice to run away, aiding and abetting a minor, and neglecting to return a minor who has ran away. Prosecution admitted in open court that Caroline did not coerce A Rice to run away from home: this has now been proven. Aiding and abetting is left. When A Rice found her mother – Caroline immediately headed for home with her. That will also be proven by first person witnesses, L Rice and A Rice.

Judge Perkins does not want L Rice (19 yr old) and A Rice (13 yr old) to take the stand. Everyone in the courtroom had to sit while Perkins drilled Caroline as to why and what the witnesses will say, he says he is not sure he is letting them (L Rice and A Rice) take the stand and he wants `proof` as to what they will say. L Rice and A Rice are first-person witnesses to the incident of A Rice running away and what occurred during that time (the reason for this trial). The truth will come out. Perkins went so far as to ask and taunt Caroline, `How do you know what A Rice will testify to? You have no contact with her.` Caroline Rice stated, `I know my children, they will tell the truth`

Perkins had L Rice enter the courtroom at the end of the day. Perkins informed L Rice she should consult with an attorney prior to testifying and threatened her with charges. Peter Ivy stated in open court he cannot guarantee the protection of the witnesses should they admit to harboring A Rice. (this was directed at L Rice)

State vs. Caroline Rice, trial day #5 begins tomorrow, December 20th, 2011

Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

Steven Walburg

Judge Richard Perkins

Jaspers Moriaty & Walburg Carver

County District Court Attorneys At Law

Dear Attorney Walburg and Judge Perkins:

By this letter I discharge Mr. Walburg as my attorney and public defender and demand that I be permitted to represent myself at my forthcoming trial. I take this action because Mr. Walburg is not preparing any defense for me or taking any of the actions he should be taking as follows:

1. You have not prepared any defense for me to my knowledge or even discussed any defense with me even though I met with your investigator and told him the facts in my case and told you the facts you asked about. You have not met with any of my proposed witnesses.

2. Before being appointed as my public defender, you “conferred” with Judge Perkins as you related to me. This was highly improper and unjustified. You represent me, not Judge Perkins. There is no justifiable reason for such a meeting with Judge Perkins. The judge is required to be independent and prohibited from Influencing any attorney who represents a defendant or from conspiring with anyone to railroad a defendant into a conviction. I believe you are conspiring with Judge Perkins and the prosecutor into convicting me of a crime I didn’t commit and justify Judge Perkins’ mistreatment of me.

3. The fact that Judge Perkins conferred with you before appointing you as my public defender is public record. Judge Perkins said in open court on the record that he would confer with the person he would appoint as my public defender.

4. To my knowledge, you have not prepared or submitted a list of witnesses for my trial scheduled for December 13, 2011. You have not shown me such a list or consulted me about it. I hereby demand, Judge Perkins, that I be allowed to submit my list of witnesses and be allowed to call them to testify. These witnesses include my daughter L*** Rice who was admitted to West Point University and is highly credible and who was with me when the events I am being prosecuted for occurred, Another witness I want to call is my daughter A*** Rice, my daughter who ran from her father’s home because she was being mistreated and whom I did not encourage to run from her father’s home or help her in this endeavor in any way. My other children who were mistreated by their father and can verify my innocence also are witnesses I want to list and call and others. You should know that none of the prosecutions witnesses have any first person information about what occurred.

5. You failed to list my daughter’s DVD that completely exonerates me. This is essential evidence which I believe she will verify. This DVD must be shown to the jury.

6. Apparently, You allowed Judge Perkins, without objection, to deny my affirmative defense that I was justifiably protecting my children who for years were neglected and abused by their father. That defense is allowed me by statute.

7. You lied in your emails to me in which you claim that I would not meet with you. I have witnesses who accompanied me to your office and were not allowed to meet with you because you insisted on meeting with me alone. These witnesses are available to verify my visits to your office and your refusal to meet with them.

Truthfully,

Caroline Rice

cc: John Stuart, State Public Defender

_____________________________________________________

State vs. Caroline Rice continues Monday, December 19th at 8:30 am.

Let’s give the judge in this case the benefit of the doubt.

Is he saying “all evidence of child abuse neglect or misconduct” will not be allowed at this trial as stated in his order?

If you look at the memorandum following his order, you can see a clarification that ”unsubstantiated allegations” are not allowed as evidence.

Okay. That’s reasonable. But why would any judge need to clarify, with an order, that “unsubstantiated allegations” are not admissible evidence? Isn’t that what objections are for? If there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s this:

The cottage industry that some have built around our family courts is one industry we won’t miss.

See Carver County Corruption for more information about this case.

A. Rice and her brother (two youngest Rice children) are still living with their father. Caroline has not had contact with the two kids in over three years – other than when A. Rice ran to her mother last year.

Trial Wed, December 14th, 2011 at 8:30 am. We will keep you updated as to what Judge Perkins does and rules during the proceedings. Legally, all charges should be dropped against Caroline Rice. But we know this Judge does not abide by law – in any way shape or form.”

See related posts: Letter to Caroline from Annie and You Always Stand for the Truth

Justice Department Sides with Child Molesters and Pedophiles AGAIN

By James R. Marsh

The statistics speak for themselves.

We need a Best Interests of the Child Summit in every state. If you’re in contact with your state representative, ask them to contact Michigan State Representative Kurt Damrow to get the blueprint… 

From Bestinterestsummit.com:

Best Interests of the Child Summit

Hosted by

State Representative Kurt Damrow

Why does the US, one of the most prosperous nations on earth, have the worst child abuse record in the world?

America’s child maltreatment death rate is triple Canada’s and 11 times that of Italy. Over the past decade, more than 20,000 American children have been killed by their own family members – that is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Five children are murdered a day by a family member, that is the equivalent of 70 classrooms of children a year.

Together we can make Michigan become known as the safest state in the country to raise our children.

This is a summit where real mothers, fathers, and grandparents will come together for the first time and share their stories, their losses. All of these are Michigan stories, all of them are tragic. We understand how hard it is for them, we applaud them their courage, strength, and their fight to stop another child from suffering the same fate as their loved ones. Please join us and help us get their voices heard.

We ask that anyone that has an interest in children attend this event. Everyone except for young children, as most of these stories are too graphic for a child to understand. Understand if they are too young to hear it, they are too young to live it.

Judges, Attorneys, Pediatricians, Medical and Mental Health Professionals, Law Enforcement, Social Workers, Child and Domestic Violence Advocates, Legislatures, Families and Friends we encourage you to not only attend this event but to share your knowledge with us.

In describing what happened in Mila’s case, he also describes what happens in most family court hearings after a mother discovers that the father of her child has abused her child.   

This same hearing has been held Monday through Friday in most every state in the nation during the course of the last 30 years.  Of course, each case has different names, different dates and different details – and each case is the same.

Please read and share the following from Saving Mila :

Lori,

I didn’t see the following on your web page, it’s from last January’s hearing. Feel free to use it if you want, or not. … This account was taken from my handwritten notes made in court that day, and typed into an email a few days later.

The last paragraphs are the best I could write then or now about Mila’s situation and yours. I would only add that I am: Newbold Noyes, son of the late editor of the Washington Evening Star; I am a grand father, a retired independent documentary filmmaker and communications consultant; I am proud to say I am a neighbor and friend of Lori and Mila, and I ask God to bless and protect those whom we can not. I note that God isn’t doing well in that regard either.

I also note you do list court transcripts on your web page. Someday I’ll go through them, but one thing which I did not mention in the following account, is that I did not see the court reporter ever write anything down, not once. So the record was kept electronically; the transcripts may or may not be accurate. Be that as it may, the following is what I saw and heard and thought about during your hearing last January:

We all rise and Judge Moskowitz, black robe flowing around him, moves quickly to his seat. The witnesses are asked to leave, the three women who came to testify on Mila and Lori’s behalf will wait outside to be called later perhaps. So now its a male judge and two men, Igor and Waxman vs two women, Lori and Beth. With Lori on stand, Waxman directs the judge to emails he takes from one of several thick note books he has on his table, and submits one copy after the other; most are admitted, after hesitant objection by Beth, Lori’s young and shy lawyer, who is also seeking to withdraw from the case. We’re about to see why.

All the emails are written by Lori and sent out over the few days before this hearing, as she became increasingly concerned about losing her daughter. They were desperate attempts to get help from the new Governor, other lawyers and folk concerned with Mila’s safety and well being, to news media, etc., very critical of the judge, Waxman, Igor, DHHS, GALs, it is stuff I had seen and heard before. But how did Waxman get hold of them? I was amazed no objection raised by Beth. There was a whole fat note book full of emails, all from Lori.

Waxman states his intent, to reveal her very disturbed state of mind. He seems obsessed with her. She looks at the judge, I never see her look at Waxman or Igor. Waxman speaks crisply, persistently, his voice harsh and accusing, submitting email after email… he doesn’t care about the hesitant objections from Beth, or that some are denied. Most emails are accepted. He is degrading this witness and he likes this business. the emails are damning in that they show that Lori does not hold this judge in high regard, nor Waxman, and is increasingly desperate for her child’s safety. No objection or question raised re source? How Waxman got them? Relevance? Lori tells me later someone, maybe in the Maine Bar, forwarded them all to Waxman, who spends at least 30 min on them. There were other emails Waxman sent to Lori and to her various lawyers and witnesses, threatening, harassing, thousands of emails all in another fat book compiled by Lori, but her lawyer left the book at her office, didn’t think they’d be needed.

Judge admonishes both parties to be civil, says he is very understanding of Lori’s emotional state when she wrote emails, he is very familiar with her criticism, and looks at several before him, and then seems to look directly at me? I have a pen now instead of my pencil and am still taking notes. He doesn’t look at Lori, he rubs his eyes a lot and the bridge of his nose and looks at Beth, at us in back again, at the court reporter, closes his eyes, looks at Waxman and Igor. His language is straightforward, direct, admonishing, tired, flat. I get the impression he is not smart, perhaps simply confused. Lori looks straight at judge, who looks away. Waxman looks straight at Lori, focused on her but restlessly digging in his fat notebooks.

The court takes a break to look at the DVD of Mila talking to her cat, disclosing some very disturbing things about her father, which Waxman wants to submit, the reason escapes me. It is damning in its simplicity. I have heard and seen this tape before, and looked and listened closely. I heard no dropouts, no change or click of background noise indicating an audio edit. I listened for the whisper of another voice, coaching. I listened carefully, with good earphones. I was a professional sound recordist, editor, documentary director; I know the way edits sound. I heard neither edit nor coaching, nor saw any jump in frame, no sign of video edit. there are several jolts of camera when its bumped by Mila. She is not in frame. If i were going to make a coached video, I’d put the kid in frame for at least a bit… Lori said she heard Mila talking and just put camera down in record…

The tape is referred to by Waxman as being “produced” by Lori. The judge says he’s already ruled on it being inadmissible as evidence before, but seems to me to have admitted it in this hearing as evidence of Lori being unstable, of coaching her daughter, not as testimony from Mila . My notes say the judge “denied” the submission of the DVD, but as I recall he did not return it.

Lori is eventually questioned by her lawyer re her background, job and job search, why she wanted to move to DC, what preparations she had made for Mila’s school; what a “normal day” is like for them, how Lori might manage to have Mila visit with her father weekends, if the DC move is granted.

When Lori testifies her voice is very subdued. Igor and Waxman sitting with their backs to me, whisper and touch each other’s shoulders as they lean toward each other, Igor hands tissues to Waxman who seems to have a cold, he seems a bit hyper, doesn’t sit still, he fiddles with his notebooks. He sniffs a lot… Igor keeps running his hand through his long hair, which gleams and looks better than any woman’s hair I have seen this morning, Lori’s included. Igor is startlingly handsome, he looks like a bust of Alexander the Great. Lori talks about diet, bedtime books read; the judge rubs eyes, looks at watch, at emails; expressionless, the court reporter’s glasses gleam; the bailiff yawns sleepily… Igor and Waxman shake their heads sighing, whispering. The man in back of me, dressed in a gray suit, dull gray mustache, dull gray hair, comes to Waxman, bends over, whispers…

Waxman on redirect of Lori, goes over her employment, how she couldn’t/wouldn’t find a Maine job, critical of the contract jobs she did manage to get, and then goes after her income re Igor’s child support, over and over the same ground; this is confusing the judge, who occasionally tells wax to move on, which suggestion Waxman ignores. Questions are of Igor’s missed child support. These questions are clearly leading, Waxman’s questions begin “isn’t it true that…” He interrupts Lori’s answers, telling her she is not being responsive; the judge agrees, they go round and round, no objections raised by Beth, re badgering, relevance, redundant, already answered. Lori’s lawyer seems less than eager to defend herself, never mind her client.

Waxman calls Igor, who is in superb shape, in a skin-tight knitted shirt and fitted jeans, smiling, very casual, seems confident. Waxman begins by giving instructions to Igor, telling him to keep answers short, direct. He then takes Igor back to when he met Lori, why move to Maine, Lori’s parents, and why move to a small coastal town. Lori seems to be responsible for all their moves, their troubles, and their income. He establishes Igor as caring, even primary parent, not Lori, and notes Igor, not Lori filed for divorce, implying Lori was too unstable? Waxman badgers his own witness and client, when he doesn’t get the answers he wants, and asks very leading questions, one after another; everything seems to be Lori’s fault.

The level of detail is staggering. Waxman is careful and dainty with the notes in his note books, which he snaps open at one point, and pulls out a stack of 60 pages of photographs of Igor and Mila together, in their apartment, and at their new house, which is the first Lori heard of a “new” house, all photographs are submitted and accepted. Questions not asked: about new place or who took the pictures? especially the ones with both Igor and Mila. I suspect Waxman took them all around Portland, in parks etc., He takes Igor through every one. No objection, as picture after picture are passed to the judge, Igor drones on and on… He takes delight in turning Lori’s concerns for her girl back onto her: she becomes the abuser, aggressive, unstable, the flight risk, non-cooperative, rude, disdainful of legal process. Their move for primary custody being granted to Igor begins here.

Beth, Lori’s lawyer, questions Igor, who continues the patter set by Waxman’s questions, turning Lori into the unstable one. Igor is angry at one point, his smiling mask slips and its as if he is peaking out from inside, seeing if his show of emotion works. I realize his anger is as unreal as his smile. The person not here, Mila, the very-advanced-for-her-age 4 year old kid, considered so stable and intelligent, is an ambiguous commodity. She is described at the same time as being bright and articulate and as being completely unreliable as as witness; as being well cared for and neglected, as thriving but desperately in need of her father’s care, happy to be without her mother? Who is he kidding…

Igor suggests Lori seek therapy, and begins to badger Beth, speaking over her, and again she is intimidated, able to defend neither herself nor Lori nor go on any kind of attack. Waxman and Igor are making their case here, with Beth, Lori’s own lawyer, asking the questions. She, blushing, hesitant, is a bunny rabbit; Igor and Waxman are dogs hunting. She lets Igor ramble on about his work, income, difficulties caused by Lori; his expressions shift and slide across his face. Is he nervous? I think not. He enjoys this. At one point the man next to me whispers that Beth is like Bambi. I can’t think of her in any other way now.

Beth asks questions re school preparations Igor made, housing etc. Igor’s new house mentioned but how paid for, rent or own, gift? No questions asked. How is the school paid for? Not asked. Mila in daycare 8-5, at least twice/week, how paid for? When is she with Igor? Questions not asked. How Igor got his job, affords night school, who sits for Mila when Igor is working or at school? Questions not asked. Igor talks about gifts his friends have given, toys, clothes, loan of car… Who gives all these things and why? Questions not asked, neither by Lori’s lawyer nor by the court.

Beth does ask a question regarding Igor’s arrest for shop lifting of medicine from a drug store – as Igor explains, it seemed to be Lori’s fault he stole, and he didn’t steal, he sort of forgot…. he was concerned for his daughter’s health and all. Beth goes into Igor’s violation of the court ordered visitation agreement rather than focusing on the theft of sedatives and eventual plea or no contest, in effect Igor pled guilty. Igor blames his problems re visitation schedule, Mila’s health, and his arrest on Lori….

Waxman takes over, wants to submit transcripts and decision from his recent bar trial as evidence of Lori’s state of mind as being unstable. Beth objects and judge decides: he is very familiar with bar case, thought Judge Alexander provided “a good summing up of the matter,” but denies the submission. Waxman is persistent, then attempts to submit an “editorial” which was actually a letter by Lori in The Bangor Daily News and several other letters and emails, opening and closing his notebooks, very precise and dainty; is he obsessive compulsive or just careful? He attempts to submit pages from the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Illness regarding narcissism, which he reminds judge Lori was “diagnosed” with. The judge denies the submission but says as Lori has already been “diagnosed,” its a matter of record before the court or words to that effect. The diagnosis was by a guardian ad litem, not a qualified psychologist. There is no question, no objection. The judge, Waxman, and Beth don’t know what they are talking about, but it doesnt matter it seems to me now.

The expert witness Beth and Lori have, who flew in from Ohio, a child psychologist, is objected to by Waxman; sustained by judge, he has no interest in hearing from someone who actually does know what she is talking about. She will not testify. Lori’s two other witnesses are admitted, both professional women. One is a mother with a kid in Mila’s school in and a background as a social worker? The other who owns and runs the building where Mila is schooled. They both testify as to Lori’s character and caring skills as a mother. No questions are asked by Waxman, and the women are dismissed without a ripple. Its as if no one had spoken.

Lori is recalled by Beth, regarding the incident when Igor not bringing Mila for Lori to pick up; Igor took Mila to an emergency room, she was suddenly sick, etc. Questions asked by Beth are not precise, the situation left confused, Waxman’s objections are sustained, over and over. Lori’s account is clear: Igor was at fault, was intentionally late and kept the child knowing Lori had a new job she had to go to, a plane to catch, had arranged child care. But Beth’s continuing questions and Waxman’s objections leave things confused and Lori’s answers while complete, leave openings for Waxman to pick at and to unravel, and he proceeds. He focuses on detail after detail, approaches Lori, without asking permission to do so, leaning over her to show her stuff, crowding and jamming her up, interrupting answers, repeating questions, asking judge to rule her answers non-responsive, as she tries to answer. This is becoming like the trial in Alice in Wonderland.

Waxman asks a hypothetical question about health insurance Igor might have provided (but didn’t) and goes around and around again, trying to get Lori to admit she would rather have her own insurance for Mila than Igor’s even if Igor’s was better, cheaper. It is surreal, as there wasn’t any other insurance, in reality, there was no policy to compare, and yet the judge keeps telling Lori to be more responsive…

Waxman asks Lori to name one good thing about Igor, again he is badgering, sneering, “come on”, he says, “cant you name one thing?” Lori quietly speaks about Igor teaching Mila to swim. “Is that all?” Waxman taunts, demanding and whining at the same time, imitating Lori’s hushed voice. No objection. The judge is looking away, nodding at the wall. Lori is asked what she would like for Mila. “To be safe and secure, to have a good life, more than I had” she says, quietly. Waxman sneers at this, “Without her father?” he is almost shouting now… Badgering doesn’t begin to describe this.

Lori talks about how much she respects the law and the court, even if she disagrees with decisions, like whether there is or was abuse; she complies with court ordered visitation for which she must drive, for hours, hundreds of miles, she manages to make it almost every time, on time. Waxman turns this into how difficult this must be on Mila, how much easier it would be for her to be in her father’s care. Lori is portrayed as thoughtless again…. She can do nothing right, and again there is no objection.

Beth sums up: she begins with a statement re relocation of custodial parent and the fact that while not common in Maine, it is done often in NY, NJ, PA… The judge interrupts, saying Maine has relocation issues covered… he clearly takes offense. Waxman and Igor roll their eyes, whispering and shaking their heads, snickering like school boys, disagreeing with each point Beth tries to make. Beth speaks very quietly, very carefully. She ends requesting her dismissal. The judge says he will grant her dismissal from the case. She looks very relieved, like she just stepped out of a storm.

Waxman sums up: they want primary custody to be with Igor. Lori would have only supervised visitation, and that only pending her examination by a shrink. Lori can fly back and forth “enjoying her career…” to visit her daughter. He wants Mila’s passport, she should be permitted to leave the state…. Lori accused of making plans without consulting Igor; she is not cooperative. He is relentless about Lori’s state of mind. Finally he is done.

The judge says he will make his decision soon, not now, but later… well-being of child paramount, blah blah, but child cannot leave state with mother. We all rise, the tired bailiff holds the door for the judge, he gathers up DVD, emails, and files and vanishes into the shadows of his chambers, the black robe billowing behind him.

I realize I have witnessed an inquisition, four hours of inquisitors at work, not a hearing on a request for relocation. This was about as close to a burning as I want to get. Lori’s lawyer is too young, too inexperienced, and no match for a brash, aggressive, obsessive lawyer like Waxman. Lori’s answers, long, detailed, leave her open to Waxman’s niggling and repeated questions re her mental state. Her every decision and action are questioned. He is a pit bull, and does not hide his vicious side. But in the end it doesn’t matter what Lori says.

I know she feels that because she can speak and think logically, the judge, or some judge, will agree eventually: this is the data she was given: her child discloses; the assessment of her child by Dr Ricci, the state’s own expert in assessing child abuse told her that Mila was being abused by her father, that only supervised visits should be ordered for Igor. These factors are all clear in her mind and the judge should see reason: she has acted to protect her child, as any caring mother would, and Igor, threatening her, violating visitation orders, and various laws while driving, stealing stuff with the kid, lying for his green card, is an unfit parent and should be deported at a minimum. At least this whole thing should be looked into more carefully.

But this judge is not smart enough to follow logic, and cannot, will not, reverse himself on his earlier opinions, both of the child abuse and of Lori. He simply doesn’t believe abuse took place, and he clearly feels Lori is at fault if not unstable. My suspicion also is that the divorce of Lori and Igor was one of this judge’s first divorce cases, and three years later, his failure came back to haunt him, and he blames Lori. Like Igor and Waxman, he views this whole mess is all her fault, and has from the beginning, when she first appeared in his court for the divorce.

My impression… these people are all too careless with children’s lives and the state law which says explicitly where there is doubt, protect the child, investigate thoroughly. Too lazy or confused to think this thing through, too parochial to care much how this looks from outside the state, and too small-minded to comprehend the effects these rulings have on Mila or any other kid caught in similar circumstances, the wheels of justice in this court and in the relentless but inept bureaucracy that is DHHS grind on and on. In fact I am surprised they don’t blame Mila, too. They probably do blame her.

According to this court, she, any child, has no voice, no rights. She must remain silent. If she cannot afford a lawyer, one will not be appointed for her, nothing that she says will be used as evidence either for or against her or any body else. Nothing she says matters. Pedophiles have the right to an attorney, children do not. In this “judicial process” she was never here at all, mute and invisible. She never said anything about her father, nothing bad happened, and if it did, she is too young to talk about it. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

This is just pathetic, heartbreaking, and real and raw drama. It won’t end here, not for Mila and not for Lori, not for the thousands of children that are just like her, thousands of mothers just like Lori. The mothers are desperate and confused by the hostility of the system; there is little sympathy for them, a lot of sympathy for the fathers, none for the children. They are confused and weary, their complaints lead nowhere, they continue to disclose, and are sent, without further investigation, by court order back to their abusers. They are legally voiceless and powerless in court, their fates determined by perfect strangers who know not what they do, nor care.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Dear friends,

DV LEAP now receives even more pleas for help from protective parents struggling in family court to keep their children safe from abusive fathers. In large part, this dramatic increase in requests for assistance is a result of wide publicity about our significant federal grant to fund both trainings and technical assistance (consulting) on custody and abuse litigation, as well as our new contracts with 6 attorney and psychologist experts in that field.

While the federal grant provides seed funding for approximately 2 hours of consulting for about 100 parents, we already know that far more (e.g., 10-20 hours) time is needed for most cases. Because these cases are complicated, and often involve unrepresented litigants facing major law firms on the other side, devotion of significant hours (but still far less than would be required for full representation) can be critical. In one recent case, the consultant’s many hours (mostly unfunded) spent reading documents from the case, assessing the litigation, and explaining strategy and approach to the mother actually helped turn the case around for the protective parent when she returned to court (still unrepresented).

Many protective parents helped by DV LEAP consulting say that this help made a huge difference to them. Our consultants have superb know-how and experience with these cases, and are able to provide unique insight into the claims frequently made by abusers seeking custody, as well as the challenges of combating faulty custody evaluations. In fact, several of our consultants have helped turn around cases that were headed in the wrong direction.

To help keep mothers and children safe, we want to provide sufficient consultation with time for protective parents.

Please make your gift to DV LEAP today so that we can ensure that every one can receive the skilled advice that will lead to safe outcomes.

Veteran attorneys join DV LEAP staff

Please join us in welcoming two new attorneys to DV LEAP. Nirupa Narayan and Michael Bassett are each working part-time with DV LEAP to replace our dear colleague, Elizabeth Liu who worked with DV LEAP for 4 ½ years. Both Ms. Narayan and Mr. Bassett come to DV LEAP with significant experience and we are excited about our ability to expand our reach and assist more survivors through their efforts.

Ms. Narayan was the Managing Immigration Attorney at the Tahirih Justice Center where she managed the organization’s immigration and pro bono programs and represented immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. She previously worked at Boat People SOS providing immigration and family law representation to survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. Prior to joining Boat People SOS, Ms. Narayan was a staff attorney with the Atlanta Legal Aid Society’s family law division and AIDS Legal Project. Ms. Narayan has provided training and technical assistance to domestic violence and immigration service providers, pro bono attorneys, courts, law enforcement agents and community groups. She currently serves as Secretary on the Board of Directors of the Asian/Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project. Ms. Narayan holds an LL.M. degree from American University, Washington College of Law and a J.D. degree from New York Law School. At DV LEAP, as Senior Staff Attorney Nirupa will be focusing on our DC projects, including outreach, partnering with pro bono lawyers on DC appeals, and local trainings.

Mr. Bassett comes to DV LEAP from the private practice of law in Ohio, in which he has focused on advocating for survivors of domestic abuse in complex custody (and other types) of litigation. Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Bassett worked for the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office in Port Clinton, Ohio, where he worked on the creation of the office’s victim’s advocacy program, as well as designing the county’s first domestic violence protocol. Mr. Bassett has served on the Port Clinton Board of Education and the Board of Directors of Ottawa County Transitional Housing. Mr. Bassett received his BA from American University in 2002, and his JD from the University of Toledo in 2005. His focus at DV LEAP will be on consulting on and litigating custody and abuse appeals, and we are confident that his strong record of success in these cases will help survivors and their children around the country.

Joan Meier
Executive Director