In my honest opinion, which I am allowed to have, and Free Speech which is allowed by all, I have to wonder if a few Public Defenders and a Certain Judge are against Men. They seem to be discriminating against Mens Rights and Assuming the Women, even though they may be drug addicts, bad mothers, and worse, are always right. Is this a pattern in the Court  of Common Pleas ??? We would love to hear from others who have any opinion on this matter, because from what I have just seen, and in my opinion,  Men are not liked by these Women…Will find out the Public Defenders names, but man, in my Opinion, if your a Man, your Screwed Big Time.  Off to research, oh and Let’s Make a Deal….

Judge Streitel in my opinion seems to be very biased too, she doesn’t listen , but forms an opinion very quick, and for the women….OH, and before a Judge makes a decision, shouldn’t she or he hear both sides, LOL, what a circus this Chester County Court is……..No Fair Shake Here, Forget it…..Plead Guilty Now Guys !!!! Men Bashing 101, what ????????

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, will definately be updating this, and researching….Remember, no one is above the law, even though some think they are…..More to come….Definately alot more to come…check back….

Bruce E. Mapes, PhD

Highly regarded Psychologist and Child Custody Evaluator or just another ASS.

You decide!

We have all been reading about the difficulties that parents have experienced with Bruce E. Mapes, Ph.D.   For each of you that has posted information about your experience with Dr. Mapes  thank you and please know that your posts are helping parents and even lawyers combat the trash this man puts forth as “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.  He has perpetrated a major fraud on the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, has misrepresented the truth by taking what parents and children and twisting it to fit his purposes, has ongoing discussions with lawyers associated with your custody matter, and practices from his own version of ethics.

Unfortunately, he continues to hurt people, destroys family relationships and empowers the Courts to make decision based on fabricated information as included in his reports.  It is very clear to me; a person who has suffered through one of his so called child custody evaluations, that Dr. Mapes does not have a clue just how awful he is at the practice of psychology.  This is due in part to his lack of ethical commitment, his not taking seriously the responsibility he has to the Court as an appointed expert and his need to maintain a lifestyle.  Every time he is appointed as an expert to the Court he has a great money making opportunity – he could care less about you or your children.   He is a dangerous person and needs to be forced out as an expert witness for the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

Many of you have talked about how shocked you were when you reviewed Dr. Mapes evaluation report.  You spoke about your words being taken out of context, turned and twisted, information being ignored, omitted or otherwise discounted.  Most have had the shared experience of taking the MMPI test in a common area (kitchen/copy room) and told to leave personal information in an unattended area while Mapes “stepped out”.  For some of you, we have had the opportunity to compare notes about the brevity of the interview process lasting not too much longer than 1 hour; with other we spoke of asinine questions Mapes asked during your interviews; with others we compared notes on the questions he asked and found that the questions that he asked of each of us were the same and in the same order; most of you commented on what a lousy interviewer Dr. Mapes is; most of you commented that you felt that Dr. Mapes did not listen to key information that you presented either in writing or during the cours of the interview.  Some of you have pointed out that Dr. Mapes is not consistent in his recitation of his qualifications and others have presented that Dr. Bruce E. Mapes violated your civil rights by releasing information outside of the court order and without your consent.  As one or the persons stated and many of you have agreed “Dr. Mapes is a HACK”.

In an effort to help parents who have yet to have the pleasure of meeting face to face with Dr. Mapes, I think it is important to post the questions that he asked of me during my interview with him.  It is difficult for me to understand how Dr. Mapes fulfills his obligation to the Court as an “expert” and how he is able to advise the court on a “matter of law” from the very simple questions he asked.  As I review these questions I am struck by the absence of interview content on the parental bond between parent and child, the quality of relationship between parent and child and the total lack of content as to the emotional supports that the child receives from the parent.  It appears to me that the interview process employed by Dr. Mapes is nothing more than a cookie cutter approach to very complex issues and that he is a very poor and unskilled interviewer.

Based on the questions that Dr. Mapes asked during my interview (as listed below) it is very clear that Mapes is biased in his approach, probably highly influenced by an attorney who has filled him in on the issues prior to or during the evaluation process.  In short, Dr. Mapes is nothing more than a hired gun that will craft a report that assures that he gets additional referrals or that he is called as a paid expert to review his report.  He is not objective, unbiased and does not follow the facts as presented in written document or information presented in during the interview.  It is very clear that Dr. Mapes had his mind made up from the initial appointment from the Court.  While many see him as a widely respected “professional” the more accurate view should be as a professional that cashed out ethically many years ago.  The “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” concerning Bruce E. Mapes, PhD will come out and many will be shocked.

The information that follows are the exact questions that Dr. Mapes asked of me during the course of my child custody evaluation and in the exact order in which they were asked.  Names have been changed to protect the innocent.  In some areas I have added a direct quote from his Report an insert to emphasis the point of how Dr. Mapes twists and turns information to the point where it becomes dishonest and false reporting on his part.

Interview questions posed by Bruce E. Mapes, PhD during a child custody evaluation.
  • You live at —- (My Response: No)
    • Lets see, you had indicated that…you are thinking of moving. Did you move? (he wrote me at the new address to schedule this interview)
  • Ok, now Mr. JONES since you originally turned your things in. Since you turned everything in, ah, last year have there been any changes in the custody arrangements or where are they as of today? (My response:  Nothing has changed)
  • OK…let me ask you about the current arrangement as it exists right now…ah…and not knowing what changes may have occurred over the summer, fall or winter, what…ah…um…what about the current arrangement is working or not working?
    • How much time now does JUDY actually spend with her mother?
    • And, ah…JANE.  She is still with the mom, correct?
    • Ah, how often does she see you?
    • Ah, does, is the visitation such that the girls are together?


  • Why do you feel that you and the girl’s mother have not been able to work this out?
    • Yup, that’s what I’m asking for?
    • Don’t go too fast (laugh) (Thought to self:  I want to know why you can’t keep up, it’s all written in the materials I submitted in advance of this interview.  Did you bother to review the papers?)
  • Mr. Jones you had indicated, that, you have given several issues in the relationship, that, such as You had given several issues about the relationship and marriage, Mary wanting to, ah, have a higher lifestyle than you thought you could afford, her wanting to be a stay home mom, ah and I guess some disagreements about finances.
  • Would that be fair to say? (Mapes Report states that I didn’t share anything about the marriage – so how was it that Mapes was able to form this question?)
    • Now, if you were to prioritize those, how would you prioritize those in terms of what went wrong in the relationship?
    • Dr. Mapes, I thought this evaluation was about my parental capacity and my ability to bond with my children.  Is this an evaluation about my past failed relationship?
    • Well, No.
  • What I need, need to thoroughly understand is what it in your relationship with the mother that may need to be addressed or something so that you can try to work together concerning the kids.

  • Do financial disagreements continue today around the care of the kids?

  • Now in general how would you describe your home? (My Response: I have a three bedroom TOWNHOME consisting of a living room, dining room, kitchen, powder room and laundry downstairs and  three bedrooms and a bath upstairs.)
    • What, is it two floors?  (Was he at all listening)


  • Now, now Judy is at SCHOOL NAME, correct?
    • How is she doing academically, right now?
  • Now Jane is at SCHOOL NAME? (My Response: NO)
    • And she is in what grade, again?  (It is interesting that Mapes says in his materials that he review the case materials several times prior to the interview.)
    • How is she doing in school?
  • Now, how do you provide religious training to the children?
  • Where do you take the children for medical care?
    • And what are you medical concerns about either child?


  • Who do they go to for dental care?
    • Do you have dental concerns for either?


  • Ah, Ok now you are currently employed by the Name of employer. (My Response: NO)
    • I have to ask you what is that.
    • What is it that you do for them, I don’t need to know everything single thing, I’m just trying…
    • Do you have to travel?
    • So you work from home?
    • So you have an office?
    • And where is it located?
    • And what hours do you work?
    • And do ah, you, well, are, like when the kids have vacation from school, how do you arrange for child care for them?


  • Ah let’s see here, is Judy still getting up at the same time?
    • Have there been any changes in her routine?
    • What do you do at this point, if anything different concerning discipline when necessary? (Please repeat the question) At this point in time what do you do for discipline if necessary?


  • As of today what would you say Judy’s strengths are?
    • What would you say are her primary weaknesses


  • What are the primary positives of Jane?
    • What are her primary weaknesses?


  • Besides sport what are Judy’s primary interests?
  • And how about Jane?

  • What are the things that you yourself enjoy most with Judy?

  • Ah, what are the things you enjoy doing the most with Jane?


  • Ah, I need to, are you still seeing Dr. Snead?
    • Ok. Ah you had indicated that,  is that for medication management.
    • Ah in the historical materials where you discuss medication management
    • Ok. What are your current medications?
  • Do you currently drink alcohol?

  • Any drugs other than medication?
    • As I recall from the history that you don’t have any concerns about mom in that area.


  • Ah you have no concerns about either girl concerning domestic violence anything of that type, correct?

  • Now, what are the things that arouse anger in you?
  • Ok.  Ah, what are your concerns ah, about the mother’s anger management?
  • Have you ever been arrested for anything?
    • Has the mother?


  • OK.  Are you currently involved in a relationship?
    • Would you see yourself getting into a relationship?
  • OK.  What are the things that you do to support the children’s relationship with their mother?
  • What would be the pros and cons about the girls living with you half time and their mother half time.
  • Ok, What do you do that their mother cannot.

  • Ok, what is it that you can give them that mom can’t?

  • What is it that mom can provide that you can’t.
  • Are you on any medication currently? (My response: it in the materials I submitted prior to this interview)
  • I have to go back. (Shuffle papers), Well you know you can’t find anything when you need it. (What, he could not find it!)
  • Is Judy still in counseling?
  • Oh, Ok (Flip pages), Mr. Jones (long pause more page flipping) there’s mention. What were, there’s reference made, and I’m not sure if it’s relevant or not so I need to understand your perspective.  There’s some conflict between you and Mary’s mother, I need to understand your perspective.
    • Were there any problems between you? (Dr. Mapes I thought this evaluation was about my parental capacity and my ability to bond with my children.  Is this an evaluation about my past failed relationship?)
  • Ok


  • Ok, what I am going to be doing is to take you down stairs to complete the MMPI.
    • My question: DR. Mapes, was the MMPI specifically designed for use in custody evaluations.
  • Mapes: Yes it’s a routine clinical instrument that (I cut off)
    • My question: And there are specific norms that address parental capacity and one’s ability to form and maintain a parental bond with one’s children?
  • Mapes: There are some parts, Yes, yes.  If there are certain kinds of parental issues, then yes.
    • My question:  And you have norms that address age and gender and parental capacity seeking custody of  kids my age?
  • Mapes: Yes we do.
    • My question: So Dr. Mapes – your saying that norms exist for male persons 42 years old seeking custody of two female children aged 9 and 13.
  • Mapes: Yes, it’s a routine clinical instrument.
    • Dr. Mapes – come on do you expect me to believe that.
  • Yes, one of the things I have to address (in child custody evaluations) is current mental health functioning.  I have to answer that on every parent I see.
Dr. Mapes – that’s not what was asked. 

  • Mapes: Look if you don’t want to take it you can leave.  I’ll report to the Court that you refused to take it.


Specific Instructions given by Dr. Mapes for taking the MMPI.  Ok, what you want to be doing is just reading each of these questions and marking it true or false for yourself. For example:  I like mechanics magazine, OK. When you finish one page, go to the next and keep going till you do all the questions.  Now as you can see the instructions are right here.  As you are finished, I’ll ask you to put your information right here. Sometimes, peoples ask what the author means, it how you interpret the question.   Be as candid as you can, I do not look at each individual item, it just produces the overall profile.  OK? 

    • My question:  And when I’m done?
  • You can leave it right here on the table. (unattended)
  • I don’t need to check back with you?  No.
These are the very insightful questions that a highly skilled psychologist and seasoned child custody evaluator put together to assess my parental capacity and to determine if I am capable of forming and maintaining a bond with my two children.  From these interview questions he would advise the Court if I was able to enjoy custody and visitations with my children.  I hope you can see just how bogus Dr. Mapes interview process is and that anything he writes is concerning custody is highly suspect.  His final report was replete with errors of fact (even though the facts were submitted in writing), significant falsifications of what I said, and significant omissions of facts in favor of the other parent.  His recommendations were inconsistent with current clinical literature and dare I say inconsistent with the education that he provided (handouts bear his name) to the members of the Chester County Family Court division. 


What is with the Judges in Chester County Court embarrassing people who are on hard times….what gives them the right to abuse someone who is over there appealing  traffic tickets, who may have other issues or be disabled ????  Who are they to tell that person how to live, or what they can live on, or why they are disabled, is a Judge a Doctor now ?????????????

I thought the appeal process was to appeal ?????????????????????????????????????? I didn’t know the appeal process meant taking  nasty verbal abuse from one of the Chester County Court Of Common Pleas Judges who is also a Medical Doctor in front of everyone was part of the appeal process…..

I am sickened by these Judges who use the bench for ignorance !!!!! They should retire if they are there just showing up to collect their salary when peoples lives are on their sleeve, to be miserable, and crucify everyone, or maybe they had a rough night, no excuse, they are on the bench to think clearly and abide by the laws,and clearly look for what is right or wrong….I am going further, I am going to put a stop to this abuse at the Chester County Courthouse…..Trust Me, it may take a few years, but it begins today…..I am thinking MANY PEOPLES CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THESE JUDGES WHO HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT FOR SO LONG, UNTOUCHABLES…..NO MORE !!!!

 Judges are there to be a Judge, but how dare they now try to be Doctors , this is clearly an abuse of to much power….Time to Stop !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Everyone has to obey by the rules, and NO ONE, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN JUDGES, though so many get away with it until one person brings it out,,,,that may be me……

I saw this posted on here and other places before, but just wanted to add, this crew that works at the Thorndale Goodwill is No Good. Ginger the long haired old looking woman with white hair is no good, she is a thief, she steals the donations, she told my friend she would watch out for certain items that come in, and this Joanne Pacana, she works for another charity and yet steals jewelry. Her friends are Barb, heavy blond haired woman, and Fran a long haired old witchy woman lady, they are all friends and all steal. Please if you must drop off your items somewhere, take them anywhere but Goodwill in Thorndale, they steal, rob and are crooks. Lowlifes who steal donations meant for others.

submitted by Julie Chester County


If you or your family are facing arbitration and you see the name Paul Rubino mentioned anywhere, run the other way.  This Attorney who along with Pitt and Pitt screwed my Mother out of her benefits that were supposed to be paid out by Allstate Insurance.  Paul Rubino Paoli, Albert Sardella , and Pitt and Pitt, all of Chester County, run as fast as you can.  Paul Rubino was so rude to my Mother, he would not let her talk, he is a nobody in my opinion who was lucky enough to pass the State Bar.  Beware of Pitt and Pitt, Rubino, and Sardella all of Chester County.  Who would treat a woman like this over a huge greedy corporation. Beware!!

londonArmy veteran (with top-secret clearance) David London was fired from his supervisory job in Chester County after being told a background check showed him to be a criminal.

David London, an Army veteran, was riding high last October after receiving a big promotion at the Chester County courthouse.

The following day, London claims, he became entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare that resulted in him being fired from his job and kicked off the property for a 30-year-old crime that he didn’t commit.

The lawsuit that London recently filed against the Chester County commissioners, District Attorney Joseph Carroll and other county officials reads like a lost chapter to a Franz Kafka novel:

Last year, London, 44, a former sergeant who served in the Persian Gulf and had “Top Secret” clearance, was about a month into his new job at the courthouse, where he was supervising daytime custodial workers under a contract that the county has with his then-employer, Texas-based ISS Facility Services.

He was promoted on Oct. 6, 2008, to a position supervising day and night shifts. The next day, he was unemployed.

According to the civil-rights suit filed last week in federal court in Philadelphia, London was called into a meeting and told that a criminal-background check showed that a person with his name and birth date was convicted of burglary and sentenced to prison in 1978.

London, however, would have been 13 years old that year and wouldn’t have been eligible to do adult jail time for a felony conviction.

He tried to explain to his boss and a county official that they had the wrong guy, but they “did not even give him any opportunity to be heard,” the lawsuit states.

Instead, London was fired, required to hand over his keys and ID badge, and escorted from the courthouse.

“Imagine having to tell your wife and kids that even though the U.S. military knows you’re trustworthy and safe enough to earn top-secret clearance and supervise a missile site, your company and your local government have announced that you’re actually a dangerous felon and a fraud,” said his attorney, Mark Sereni.

Sereni declined to elaborate on the lawsuit, which seeks in excess of $150,000 for invasion of privacy, retaliation and defamation, among other alleged wrongs. But he said that it’s a clear case of mistaken identity.

State police and FBI background checks done at London’s request did not turn up the burglary case – or any other felony or misdemeanor convictions.

“Imagine after you’ve been fired on the spot on bogus charges, having to struggle in this lousy economy to find a new job to support your family with that stigma tattooed on your forehead,” Sereni said. “No wonder Mr. London has not gotten another custodial supervisor position.”

London, who lives in Downingtown, has tried to clear his name, but he’s finding red tape at every turn. He returned to the courthouse to get fingerprinted to prove that he was not a criminal, but was told the fingerprinting was “inconclusive,” the lawsuit states.

London’s attorneys tried asking the county to retract its statement that he is a felon. No dice.

When they requested records from Chester County, Assistant Solicitor Thomas Abrahamsen cryptically replied that the request “leads us to the opinion that some adverse employment action befell Mr. London.” Abrahamsen wrote that the county’s president judge “has ordered that no one with a felony conviction can work in the Justice Center.”

But when London’s lawyers tried to obtain the judge’s order, which they claim is “patently illegal,” they received a letter from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts saying: “We have been informed that the order you have requested does not exist.”

Legal experts say that a blanket policy banning felons from working in the courthouse, rather than an evaluation of applicants on a case-by-case basis, could be a recipe for more lawsuits.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long held that automatically excluding all potential employees with a criminal record discriminates against blacks and Hispanics because they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population.

“I think it’s certainly problematic, certainly susceptible to a challenge,” Mary Ellen Maatman, a Widener Law professor, said of the county’s purported policy.

Neither Abrahamsen nor President Judge Paula Francisco Ott returned calls from the Daily Newsseeking comment.

Chester County has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit.

It also accuses officials of engaging in a “devious coverup” and “insidious retaliation” when London protested his termination.

courtesy of http://www.philly.com

This is so pathetic and leave it up to the Chester County Court House to screw this up big time and not even have the decency to look into it. Typical in my opinion and many others as noted on this site.  Chester County Court needs an entire overhaul, you complain to the State Bar or Judicial Ethics and they do nothing, they all work together, I have had it, we need to band together and clean this corrupt courthouse up, write to the Whitehouse Civil Rights Division, let’s all do it together. Obama will listen, I believe that. No one, I repeat, No one is above the law.

He tried to explain to his boss and a county official that they had the wrong guy, but they “did not even give him any opportunity to be heard,” but they escorted him out of the courthouse. What a joke. Wow, I bet the sheriffs felt so important.

He returned to the courthouse to get fingerprinted to prove that he was not a criminal, but was told the fingerprinting was “inconclusive,”  what does this mean ?  It does sound fishy. Fingerprints are fingerprints, that is why they obtain them, strange!

This is why Chester County Courthouse is the joke of all other courts, and people believe they can not get a fair trial at this court.  It’s who you know, or how much money you have.

One more thing, why is the Chester County Courthouse using a Texas based firm instead of a local company?????


My Son recently went before Lombardi in family court. Who is this person, why are they in any position of power over custody ? I will be doing my research about this one.  He was not allowed to talk, or say anything.

What kind of system is the Chester County Family Court putting on here????  I will be back after my research, these Masters, Judges, whatever they are have no clue, and they do not care about the kids, if they did they would let parents talk, our poor children count on these people deciding their future ?????  In my opinion they have no clue and they need to get with it and not count this as a everyday humdrum job, ask questions, it may be your line of work and boring, but kids and families are suffering because of your ignorant decisions… Will be back, stay tuned.

submitted by chris of chester county

harry reid



At least one senator in the Democratic caucus is blocking a public option – but we don’t know who.  That’s because Majority Leader Harry Reid is protecting any senator who wants to join a Republican filibuster of health care reform.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s deeply immoral.  If a Democrat wants to filibuster a public option, make them do it in public.

Harry Reid can no longer allow members of the Democratic caucus to block a public option behind the closed doors of the Senate.

Sign our petition to Harry Reid: force the silent filibuster senators out into the open.  It’s time for a public count for the public option.


The Far Right Has No Place in Any School System Around Children Period !!!

This is not sent in from any parent or concerned resident of Chester County, this is straight from the rants, and we are not worried about grammar here daily local dan, we are getting a point across.

We have seen these rants submitted from parents regarding the West Chester School Board Candidates over and over, and we have something to say here, and hopefully we speak for all children, as they are innocent and to young to vote.

No one that has the feelings of hate towards any one group should ever, ever, be in any place where children are involved.  Now, Sean Carpenter who has been seen protesting in public with a person who hates gay people and he himself  who hates gay people, should never, ever , be allowed to be on any school board.  What about the poor innocent child who may be gay?

I am sorry, but you can have your opinions, but you can not be on any board or office where children are involved.  How would a poor child who may be confused, and yes, there will be, and are, young children confused or scared about being gay or not,  however being so afraid to be able to be open about it, knowing the school they attend feels so strongly against it, will likely cause so many more problems.  Even others if they are gay, will hide it, and be afraid because the school they attend, is that what you may want your poor confused child to do instead of talk to you?  Think about it!

Come on parents, you can say or think what you want, but many parents are the last to know. If your child was gay and you did, or did not know, would you want the school board teaching hate against gay people ?  Would you want your child hated and depressed and worse contemplating suicide because you know the school he or she attends hates gays ??  There should never be so much hate against anyone period in school, isn’t that what we teach.

My children are grown as are many of the posters of Chester county rants, this does not affect us, but you as parents really need to think about this.  Your child whatever choice he or she may make in the future, there is no room for hate, period.  You can not have this on any school board or office, let alone any office or job.

Yes, and these protest signs they claim to be so innocent, Obama Bin Laden, they are not innocent, they are calling our President of the United States a terrorist or someone he is not, how many innocent people pay for this hatred?  How many children who know no hate for any race, will form a hatred because of this?

Right now President Obama is our President and you can not have a hate group on any school board against any race, or teaching hate against the President of The United States.

I would not want my grandchildren going to a school that called our President a terrorist, or was taught this hatred or racism as a tool in any school, he is our President, he is not Osama Bin Laden as the right school board candidates are calling him , and I want my grandchildren to know Obama, not Osama.

This is pathetic, I do not even know why the likes of Sean Carpenter and the other candidates would want to be school board members, but this is not the job for them, there are other things they could be doing, what I don’t know, maybe helping out in a soup kitchen over the holidays!!

I am sorry, but this can not be good, never, ever!

YOU CAN LOITER, SELL DRUGS, NO  YARDSALES WITHOUT PERMIT What A Joke!!!!  Coatesville Get It Together!!!

I just want to submit this rant as I can not believe this happened.  I went to Fairview cemetary to visit my fathers grave, for those that do not know where it is located,  it’s on Oak Street in Coatesville.  Upon leaving I saw a yardsale sign.  I pulled over and went into the yard which was right on Oak, the yard was right there, I was not even in the yard for a whole 5 minutes and a white truck with municipal tags pulled up and parked behind me.  This guy comes walking in and asks the two men running the yardsale if they had a permit or sign from city hall all within my hearing range.

They did, but what shocks me the most is right down the street there must have been 20 people hanging out in the street, and one block over about another 25, and one standing in the street talking on a cell phone and would not move, or the two porches that were filled with trash, and not a word is said.

This is why Coatesville will never change.  They are paying a guy, I heard him say his name was Troop, to ride around, pay his gas to  harass people having a yardsale, two older men trying to make a couple honest bucks, but do nothing to stop loitering, houses piled with trash, drug deals in the open, what do they pay this guy, no I mean what do we taxpayers pay this guy, to ride around all day to locate this yardsale, I mean you wouldn’t have just found this yardsale riding down business 30, what a joke.  I mean come on Coatesville, what are you doing here?  You should be thrilled someone is having a yardsale, you should encourage it, you have bigger and meaner fish to fry. Get with it.

As a Coatesville resident I do not want to pay for this man to do nothing but worry about yardsales, what a waste of taxpayer money, and time, your lucky anyone even wants to have a yardsale in the city,  most people will not enter the city for a yardsale or anything else, so why are you worried about stupid s#@# permits with all you need to be worried about???  We need change in the council and need it now.

Lauren Coatesville Chester County


Below is a mention about ChesterCountyRants from WCJIM’s website.

The newest site to make WCJIM’s short list is Chester County Rants. Not to be confused with other crank webpages, this site actually offers people the chance to submit their own rants. They tend to lean towards the left, and the proprietor has some especially strong words for the Republican school board candidates (plus pictures), but the writing is very intelligent and offers more humor than most political websites.

Thank You and We Have Added You As A Link!!! 

A Little Info About WCJIM visit his site soon!

WCJIM is an acronym for “West Chester Jim Jones.” Jim is a history professor at West Chester University, a 16-year resident of the town (actually borough) of West Chester, and an active volunteer for local government and community activities.

Jim grew up in a blue-collar family and was the first member to complete college. He then entered the Peace Corps as a teacher, and afterwards he travelled on his own in Europe and Africa where he supported himself by working on farms while he learned to speak several languages, visited cultural and historical sites, climbed mountains and crossed the Sahara Desert. After returning to the United States, he obtained a commercial driver’s license and eventually became a cross-country tour operator. Meanwhile, he augmented his knowledge of automotive mechanics, acquired the first of nearly a dozen motorcycles and taught himself how to program personal computers. Eventually, he enrolled in graduate school and received a Ph.D. in African history from the University of Delaware in 1995.


It first started with her own Attorney Albert Sardella of Coatesville Chester County, who we blame first off.  Our Father was killed in a hit and run accident and our Mother and Sister had a claim against Allstate Insurance who did everything they could to delay and not pay. They could not have done this without our mothers attorney who screwed her big time,  He had her agree to go to arbitration, he said it would be quicker than waiting to go to trial, she trusted her attorney Albert Sardella. I do not know what quick is, but I thought at least 1 year, they delayed, and delayed and drug this out for over 3 years, and her attorney let them, she would have had a better chance with a jury trial since she waited over 3 years anyway, what was quick about this?  

He worked with them instead of our mother,  he allowed the delays and okayed them and went along with everything Allstate wanted and their crooked attorneys, pathetic. Then they finally go to arbitration and my mother who had no clue sat there, her attorney did nothing, Thomas Pitt Jr. , Paul Rubino, and Daniel Doyle arbitrators and attorneys for Allstate would not let her talk, everytime she asked a question, they practically yelled at her and told her you can’t say that now, you can’t talk about that now, that’s WHY MY MOTHER PAID AN ATTORNEY TO HELP HER IF SHE COULD HAVE DONE HERSELF SHE WOULD HAVE.   After this circus where these corrupt attorneys talked and wouldn’t let anyone else talk, and my mothers trusted attorney did nothing, they said they would mail their decision, well it didn’t even take them a day, they decided for Allstate and against her, within a day, what crooks, honestly people avoid them, they are out for them only and THEIR POCKETS  from what I have seen, you need to avoid all the above ATTORNEYS  at all cost, and if they tell you your going to arbitration with Pitt and Pitt, tell them NO.  

They in my eyes and from what they did to my mother are crooks and corrupt, they worked for the insurance company, and if you ask me, probably all got nice kickbacks or paychecks for the delay and denial of this claim.  Thomas Pitt who walked with a cane said my father who was 58 when killed probably didn’t have much of a life, and basically his life didn’t matter, yet he walked with a cane, should we say his life has no meaning?   They were all corrupt, unfair, and avoid them at all cost, and Allstate, if you need them, they will not be there, trust us!  If you must go to Arbitration or have an accident or insurance claim, avoid all of the above, and in fact, I would avoid in any situation.  Pitt and Pitt went against a 58-year-old woman in the hit and run death of her husband for a measly $25,000-$55,000, which would have helped her and meant alot to her, and voted for the billion dollar crook Allstate Insurance. Please avoid them, and if you have stories to share, please comment, save someone else. Also see Twitter and Facebook and other blogs as we try to save others from the above.

submitted by Tina Cheryl Chester County

west chester
What do Congressman Joe Pitts and the West Chester Republican school board candidates have in common? They are connected to religious right groups that are more concerned with turning this country into a theocracy and promoting hate. In previous posts we have documented Joe Pitt’s right wing connections to C Street and Sean Carpenter’s connections to Chester County Action. Both groups are designed to promote right wing hate by promoting candidates that are solely pro-life, pro-Christian, pro-Intelligent Design, and anti-gay. So it makes perfect sense that Congressman Joe Pitt’s endorsed Heidi Adsett, Sean Carpenter, Maria Pimley, and John Wingerter for school board.
We know that the four Republican candidates were coached by the Gwenne Alexander, the Executive Director of Chester County Action. “All four candidates were recruited and coached by Gwenne and her group, and it is only with her group’s guidance that we succeeded.  We have a tremendous partner in Chester County Action”, wrote Sean Carpenter. Gwenne Alexander is also the on the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School (PALCS). This cyber charter school is run by a right wing minister Jim Hanak and Chief Academic Advisor John Wingerter. This school receives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in taxpayer money every year. If Wingerter is elected he will truly present a conflict of interest.
Gwenne Alexander, Jim Hanak, Heidi Adsett, Sean Carpenter, Maria Pimley, and John Wingerter are right wing extremists that want to destroy our public school system. Chester County Action, PALCS, and C Street are known as the Christian Mafia set out to incorporate their values in your childrens classroom. Let’s not forget Congressman Joe Pitts is a member of C Street who believe they are the chosen ones, it’s okay to lie, steal, cheat, have affairs, rape little girls, as their founder teaches, they are chosen and it’s okay!!!  Disturbing!!!


Congressman Joe Pitts Member Christian Mafia C Street

Congressman Joe Pitts Member Christian Mafia C Street


Joe Pitts Republican Congressman Pa

Below is right from Joe Pitts website, he chooses to side with the extreme right wing lies and fear that are hurting the hope for real healthcare reform. These are out and out lies Mr. Pitts

There is no doubt about it, we need healthcare reform in the United States.  But we need the right kind of reform.  Plans being put forward by Democrats in Congress would put government bureaucrats in between you and your doctor.  These plans would be massively expensive, requiring tax increases, adding to the deficit, or both. What we cannot have is a bureaucrat-run system imposed by politicians in Washington that takes away your power to decide healthcare treatment and denies you the treatments you need, when you need them.

 In countries where the government runs a single, one-size-fits all system, people often wait weeks or even months for tests when they are sick.  Then they wait weeks or months more for treatment.  In these countries, politicians and bureaucrats decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old.  This is rationed healthcare.  The very sad case of actress Natasha Richardson is a tragic example of someone who did not receive the treatment she could have because of the government-run health system in Canada.  This is unacceptable.

 No Congressman Pitts, you are unacceptable and so are the lies you are spreading. Your right wing extreme views are unacceptable. First off, you know there will be no rationed care, this is not in the plan the Democrats are proposing, you and your right wing crazies keep spreading these lies and spreading fear, the plan would not deny people treatment regardless of age or condition, another lie Mr. Pitts.  Maybe your confused, I think you’re talking about the private health care insurance companies we have now. Let me tell you how many people I know who have waited months to see a specialist after a referral from their Doctor, than many more months waiting for surgery, you have got to be kidding Mr. Pitts. How many parents with very ill children who need care throughout their life are capped off by the time the child reaches 8 yrs old, if that is not rationed care, or denial of treatment I do not know what is ?  Cherry picking the healthiest, looking for reasons to drop you, deny coverage, raise premiums, while they turn a huge profit.  Mr. Pitts, you have it backwards, your talking about the private insurance companies in the United States, the crooks that get paid for a service many do not perform, not only should they be shut down the ones that practice this daily, they should be in jail with every other criminal.

Then to be so pathetic as to use the death of Natasha Richardson after a tragic fall and head injury to justify your claim about Canada’s health care system is just typical of the Republican tactics and what lies they will spread to win at any and all cost. Natasha Richardson refused treatment, she was very wealthy, her family could have flown her anywhere if it was a case of waiting, Mr. Pitts not to mention this is right from a Republican Extreme Hate Site you obviously follow.  You Mr. Pitts should be ashamed, you and the rest of the Republican party.

It amazes me how the Republicans put these guys out like they are saints and we should all worry about them, they are not small business, they are crooks. It is beyond me why the Republicans want to protect crooks such as Stephen Hemsley CEO of United Health Care who is paid $107,000 per hour to deny claims, and let people die, these are facts Mr. Pitts, not made up fear propaganda you and the likes of the other extreme Republican party members and Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox news and the other hate groups.  You are supposed to be working for the people who elected you, not spreading fear and lies which will benefit the pockets of the corrupt GOP presently in office, who are now in fear of losing huge contributions and kickbacks. I also see the Republican party doesn’t want to give up their health care which is a public option, that we the taxpayers pay for, enough is enough Mr. Pitts, clean up your act and your website.  Quit spreading lies, while your at it, talk the rest of the Gop Crooks to give up their health care public option we pay for,  if it is not good enough for the Republican party and the people in the United States, you should give up at once, find your own, pay for it, no help from the taxpayers.


Let’s not forget Congressman Joe Pitts is a member of C Street who believe they are the chosen ones, it’s okay to lie, steal, cheat, have affairs, rape little girls, as their founder teaches, they are chosen and it’s okay!!!  Disturbing!!!


Now they are accusing him of spreading socialism and getting the school kids to follow him. When will it end?  The Gop and right wing extremist really need to give it a break.  There was no problem when both George Bush Sr. and Jr. or Ronald Reagan spoke to school children.  The GOP is stirring this up amongst parents who already do not like Obama, this is just pathetic.  He is our President and he gets not an ounce of respect, what is wrong today?  We are so divided, and is the Republican party just a party of white, because that what it seems like to me.  Why is it they are stirring this huge controversy over our President talking to the children.  I know why, you can think what you want, but this has never happened before.  The right wing hate groups that hate President Obama because of the color of his skin are using any agenda to get to him and preach their hate,  first health care, now school speeches, what will it be next?

Maybe the schools and teachers and others in States that are so against it should not be allowed any funding for programs, I mean they want to keep their kids home so they do not hear our President of the United States,  C’mon people.  My god, the West Chester Area School Board has extreme right wing radicals running for the school board and that’s okay, yet parents do not want the President to speak to children to stay in school and work hard.  I don’t get it, well actually I do, and I rest my case.

See video http://www.chestercountypost.com/2009/09/president-obama-and-concerns-over-his.html








Officials in Coatesville say they’ve signed an agreement with a developer to build a 125-room Courtyard by Marriott Hotel.
The project has been delayed and scaled back since it first was discussed in 2004. Officials said Monday that the agreement will allow the developer to start infrastructure work for the $31 million project.

This would be great for the city of Coatesville if all goes as planned.  However I can not see with the way the city is now anyone staying at that hotel.  People are not dumb, business class usually know and research an area before staying there.  I mean if a person goes to Atlantic city to gamble, they usually want the casino hotels, not the ones on the side streets for safety reasons.  People know.  Sadsbury and Valley townships are building and cleaning up, Thorndale is filled with stores now we need to clean up the eyesore in the middle, the center streets on 30 in the middle of Coatesville city. 

Lay down the law, stop the loitering, and start fining the people that litter the streets, I am sorry, but I ride through Coatesville on a daily basis and see people just walking and dropping trash, they finish a can of soda and just drop it,  littering is a against the law,  fine them $300.00 each time they do it. Get on the landlords, to get on their tenants, many houses on 8th  ave. and business 30 have the rooftops littered with trash, sneakers, they need to see who is on the lease and how many people live there.  The code office needs to do a better job or find someone who can.  Instead of harassing the people about  putting a new roof on to make their places look better, do inspections of these homes and tenant leases.  You can not have 25 people sharing one house.  Get on them, the police have plenty to do, hire a street patrol to go after and fine the people that litter and loiter, get the codes office to start checking out these leases and fine them for code violations, it can be done.  There is no excuse for any of the above, the people in the city of Coatesville pay enough taxes.

Get it together Coatesville, the hotel might help, but not with the streets the way they are. Get tough, fine heavily and clean up Coatesville.


missing woman
Toni Lee Sharpless, 29, went to a Gladwyne party Saturday night, but never returned home to West Brandywine. She was driving a black 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix GT, with plate number DND-7772.
click link to read full story 

Sean Carpenter and Rich Davis Right Wing Extremist

Sean Carpenter and Rich Davis Right Wing Extremist

School Board Candidate Sean Carpenter supports attack on gay students

The American Sheepdogs, a local right-wing group, issued a call last week for people to come to the Feb. 23 West Chester School Board meeting to speak out against the “Day of Silence” the West Chester East Gay-Straight Alliance plans to observe on April 17.

While the school board meeting attracted a larger than usual audience, no one spoke about the Day of Silence.

A number of audience members did applaud after a woman from West Chester requested that her home-schooled son be allowed to participate in the Henderson High School band. I’m not sure that there’s a connection. Some local Republicans and Democrats, however, believe that conservative activists from the school district are beginning a push to promote home schooling and charter schools, the eventual goal being to greatly shrink the role of traditional public education.

In any case, the American Sheepdogs’ call to protest contained some rather strong wording. Before I take a look at it, I should explain what the “Day of Silence” is.

It’s a day, observed nationally, during which participants keep silent in order to protest discrimination and violence against gays, lesbians, and the transgendered. The West Chester East Gay-Straight Alliance plans to end its observation of the day with a coffeehouse-style open-mic event.. This event will symbolically “break the silence,” according to a press release the from Alliance.

The Sheepdogs argued that while bullying is bad, the it’s also bad for students to take day-long vows of silence. This seems reasonable. If I were a teacher (and I have taught in the past) I would be irritated if several of my students refused to answer questions or verbally participate in class. But the Sheepdogs’ criticism was rooted in something other than a desire for effective teaching.

According to the call to protest, which first appeared at http://americansheepdogs.com/?p=1588,

“[T]he real mission of this movement [the Day of Silence] is to indoctrinate public school students with the radical agenda of the left by teaching that being gay is an acceptable behavior. What’s worse is that all of this is done on school time in taxpayer funded school buildings. Make no mistake that bullying is wrong and kids who bully other kids should be punished accordingly, but clearly the leftists are hiding behind the bullying idea to push their radical agenda through the public schools across America. It’s time to take a stand for core conservative Christian values by demanding that schools teach our children, not indoctrinate them.”

Other criticisms aside, I don’t think it’s only the radical left that believes “being gay is acceptable behavior.”

Ask yourself this question, do you want your child to be attacked for being who they are?

Adsett, Carpenter, Pimley, and Wingerter are so Right Wing, So Wrong for our schools!

 (DailyLocal.com, Daily Local News blog: Tuesday, February 24, 2009)

submitted by very concerned Resident and Parent West Chester, Chester County

Led By Bobby Jindal Louisiana
Led By Bobby Jindal Louisiana

Dear Friend,
The country is in real trouble right now, with unemployment spiraling
out of control. President Obama’s stimulus plan provides money to
expand unemployment assistance. But a group of Republican governors,
led by Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, is trying to score political points
by blocking that assistance from reaching the people who need it. It’s
cynical and disgusting.

These governors are playing with people’s lives. They’re trying to
further their political ambitions while showing they could care less
about the fate of everyday folks–even in their own state.

Please join me in calling them out and forcing the media spotlight on
them. I just signed ColorOfChange.org’s open letter demanding they do
the right thing.  Together, we can help make sure that in times of
hardship folks get the assistance they need. It only takes a moment:

It’s incredible. President Obama’s stimulus package provides money for
states to extend unemployment benefits for people in dire need of
help, but a handful of Republican governors–Bob Riley of Alabama,
Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Rick Perry of Texas,  Haley Barbour of Mississippi, and Bobby Jindal of
Louisiana–are putting politics over people.

All six governors have threatened to turn down these funds. Four are
2012 presidential contenders, and they all have a vested interest in
seeing Obama fail. They’re attacking the President’s policies to
increase their own profile and cozy up to the most die-hard
conservatives. They also claim that taking the stimulus money would
leave their states in debt when it runs out in three years. But that
argument rings hollow–state legislatures could reduce benefits to
pre-stimulus levels at that point.

While these governors posture, Black folks suffer the most. In all of
these states, Black unemployment is at least twice that of Whites–and
in Louisiana and Mississippi, the two Blackest states in the Union,
the unemployment rate among Black people approaches three times that of
their White neighbors.

Please join me in telling these Republican governors to stop putting
their personal and political interests above the good of all their
states’ citizens. Demand that they accept all of the stimulus money
designated for unemployment benefits. And please ask your friends and
family to do the same by passing this message on.




gun obama town hallAbout a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

 Gun-rights advocates say they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house/

I am sorry, but this is just sick and crazy.  So what you have the  constitutional right,  if that is the case then why can’t we all carry loaded guns as long as their in the open and legal  into Court Houses ?  It’s so pathetic what these disturbed right wing gun toting people have come to.  I mean they couldn’t stand up for the war, or the tax cut for the wealthy, but yet these idiots have so much to say now, and off all things, about health care, this is a scary disturbed bunch and they need to be called on it.

A town hall meeting regarding health care where children may be is no place for guns, how many of you wack jobs would like a man entering your childs school because he has that right, its just sick and twisted, and in my book you are losing the cause here, your showing just how much mental help you people on the right need!!!!

One more thing, how would Newt Gingrich, or John Boehner feel if a dozen black men showed up with guns because they are legal and it’s their constitutional right, yeah, they would do everything in their power to have them arrested, and they probaly would be!!!!!


Dear Friend, This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies a

  Dear Friend,This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that’s actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.


David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we’ve just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

  1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
  2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
  3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
  4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
  5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
  6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
  7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
  8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

  1. Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a “government takeover” of health care or lead to “rationing.” To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
  2. We can’t afford reform: It’s the status quo we can’t afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
  3. Reform would encourage “euthanasia”: It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
  4. Vets’ health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans’ access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President’s budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
  5. Reform will benefit small business – not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
  6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare “doughnut” hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
  7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
  8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts.  Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose.  Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

  1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
  2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job.  Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
  3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
  4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
  5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
  6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
  7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people – one in every three Americans under the age of 65 – were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
  8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance – projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Visit WhiteHouse.gov




I am sorry, will try to post some pictures of this house which has been falling apart for the last 10 years, and the zoning and codes, and borough seem to take a blind eye to it…We don’t . Pictures coming soon….

For every homeowner in Parkesburg, and for everyone who has been fined, one for having siding not meeting siding by so many inches…This is for you…This Mans ( who was on the zoning board for awhile, maybe still is, is allowed to leave half his house blowing in the wind why others are fined, and some were struggling and in foreclosure……The borough was quick to issue fines to them….What about Wayne Thomas on First Ave. in Parkesburg….We want answers…..More info and pics coming soon. Want to investigate, we know this house was like this for at least 10 yrs, will get exact date if possible..Also checking on status of zoning officer, when and how long and ?

Lot’s more info and pics coming soon, stay tuned.

Does Chester County Family Court Send  A Guaranteed Paycheck to Bruce Mapes at the sake of  Children?  What is Going On in Chester County Family Court???

We have been overwhelmed by the comments and posts regarding our Own Chester County Family Court. Maybe a overhaul is needed, maybe certain people are being promised jobs and the people most suffering are the children?   These Family Court Judges are not God and far from perfect. Maybe something needs to be done ASAP, for what is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN, AS THE FAMILY COURT IS SUPPOSED TO DO, NOT IN WHO IS GETTING PAID BY THE JUDGES!!!!!!  What is going on in our Family Court at the Sake of the Children? And who is guaranteed a paycheck??? Something needs to be done NOW!!!!!

These are just a few comments,  to see more, search Bruce Mapes and Family Court.

Remember People, No One is Above the Law, Not even these Masters or Family Court Judges, if you have a complaint, that involves children, you need to keep speaking out, keep bringing it out, Never Stop.  Remember the Family Court Judges in Luzerne County who were so corrupt and taking money to jail kids, no it happens everywhere, and it only takes one person to bring it out, keep bringing it out. Do not let innocent children suffer at the hands of corrupt or unqualified Family Court Masters, Judges, and who they guarantee a paycheck to.

The following are comment recently submitted :

  • Dr. Mapes was horrible in evaluating our family… he lacks sound judgement.

  • Anonymous // January 23, 2010 at 6:50 pm | Reply

    Thats because he’s a hack without morals or ethics.

  • Anonymous,

    He included the MMPI even though you never gave it to him? He did leave me in the downstairs copy room and stepped out, someone else posted their check was deposited at the same time he stepped out. I’m not sure but I think the MMPI is the only thing that is impartial during this evaluation process. His testimony included a satement that was not included in his report. If the guy has been feeding off family court for years, maybe it’s time for new blood. I read another post that said a custody evaluation should take 26 hours, I doubt he spent a totoal of 10 including preparing this report. Taking emotion out of the situation which is impossiable I have several questions for him. If I write him a letter does he have to respond. I read 1 post that said he has done 700 to 800 custody evaluations, in court he said 200. The lawyers, judges and Dr. Mapes get their money reguardless of outcome. The children suffer.

  • Anonymous // January 21, 2010 at 8:26 pm | Reply

    Sounds like a turn bull shi* story to me. On the record he informed the court that he has completed about 700 to 800 of these evaluations. Its very clearly noted in the trial transcript that he has done 700 to 800 of these child custody evaluations. Guess telling the truth between cases does not really matter.

    Clearly looks like a problem to me but then again I don’t make the determination whats truth verses just plain BS…thats up to our judges and DA to determine…

    Is the MMPI impartial? Does it really have anything to do with you capacity to parent, to form a bond with your child. Not at all. Was a valid profile obtained? This is a very vital part of the test – if a valid profile was not obtained – one has to question why the results would be reported.

    Are there specific norms in the MMPI-2 that address the specific parental capacity of say white males between the ages of 30 -45. The answer is a resounding NO. The MMPI was not designed or normed to assess parental capacity or ones ability to form a bond with their child. Thats what these evaluations are to look at and thats what Mapes says in his introductory letter.

    Seems to me that it would be much more important to have a look see at the home the child will live in, what the conditions are in that home, mqke some specific observations of parent and child doing homework together or engaging in some form of activity. To this point one needs to ask Can someone with a “personality” be a fine parent. You bet they can – so the point here is what does the MMPI really report as related to parental capacity? NOT MUCH.

  • Bruce Smith // January 21, 2010 at 11:08 pm | Reply

    Anonymous ,

    I still can’t get over the fact that his reasons for me not getting 50/50 custody or more visitation cantained in the report did not match his testimony. Then sying My ex had more of a plan after he questioned her honesty? Is this a contradiction or what. He did not at all question the bonds I have with my children. My ex wife paid his fees, unbiased?

  • Anonymous // January 22, 2010 at 8:16 am | Reply

    More than likely this happens all the time. So Bruce Smith what are you going to do? Do you have the trial transcript – if he lied on the stand and it is reflected in the trial transcript that he lied under oath discuss your concerns with the DA or your attorney.

    You can file a complaint with the Office of Professional Compliance around his compliance with his professional standards. Its a freeby to file. IF you are going to file a complaint it takes lots of time to work through the process. The PA Department of State web site is a good place to start. If the sort of claims you are making are violations of the professional standards it can cost him lots of $ to defend and perhaps his ability to practice.

    This fellow need to retire or the County needs to remove him from the list of approved providers.

  • A Very Concerned Parent in Chester County // June 12, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Reply

    Yes, please feel free to add this information on your other site.

    As residents of Chester County we should all be very concerned about the practices of Bruce E. Mapes, PhD. Dr. Mapes, according to his OWN COUNT, HAS DONE 700 to 800 of these evaluations.

    If your like me, YOU SHOULD BE ASKING how MANY OF THESE 700 to 800 CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS were based a TRUE reflection of the FACTS.

    LETS JUST SAY THAT HE FUDGED 20 % of the 700-800 cases. This represents 140 to 160 children who were placed at risk or potentially experienced a negative custody change based on his inacurate reporting.

    NOW lets consider that each of the children had 2 parents and 1 sibling. Add to that grandparents, stepparents, step siblings. THE NUMBERS GROW RATHER QUICKLY.

    If anyone has had a similar experiences with BRUCE E. MAPES, PhD, they should be encouraged to post a comment and join the CAUSE to ELIMINATE BRUCE E. MAPES, PhD from the panel of expert WITNESSES in child custody cases.

    Yes, please post this on your other site.

    Very Concerned Parent in Chester County PA

  • Anonymous // June 13, 2009 at 9:30 am | Reply

    Here is what Dr. Mapes wrote as the REASON for REFERRAL.

    “[MY NAME] did not provide information concerning how he and [HER NAME] met, nor about the marriage, as he did not believe this to be relevant to the current evaluation”.

    REALLY, Dr. Mapes? Here is what you asked during our interview : “Mr. Name you had indicated, that, you have given several issues in the relationship, that, such as… ”

    In your report you directly quoted me re: the relationship. So here a question:

    IF I DID NOT provide information about the marriage HOW IS IT THAT DR. MAPES QUOTE ME on the MARRIAGE in his REPORT? Did he just MAKE UP these quotes?

    IF I provided information about the relationship to DR. MAPES (such that he could quote me) why did DR. MAPES say that I didn’t provide this information? DID he just ths MAKE UP too?

    Accuracy counts when it comes to child custody. DiD Dr. Mapes make a MISTAKE or should his creditability as an EXPERT be question?

  • Anonymous // June 15, 2009 at 8:03 am | Reply

    Dr. Mapes made an unlawful disclosure of my HIPAA protected health care information to opposing counsel. During the course of his testimony Dr. Mapes exhibited selective amnesia:

    DR. MAPES: “I did not recall doing that” (related to an unlawful release of
    protected health information).

    Discussion: Dr. Mapes made this unlawful release of personal health information and attempted to conceal this disclosure through selective recall. In May, Dr. Mapes unlawfully released the name of a confidential health care provider to opposing counsel in correspondence without my written authorization, and made outside of the scope of the Honorable Judge Hall’s court order. The facts related to this unauthorized release are well document by the United States Department of Health and Human Service, Office of Civil Rights.

    Clearly, Dr. Mapes wrote the letter with the knowledge that he was releasing the names of a confidential treatment provider. He demonstrated a command of the content of that specific document in which the disclosure was made when opposing counsel questioned him and often referring to a copy of the document when he “did not recall doing that”.

    Hyper technical violation or BLATANT violation of the oath he took to tell the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH? What do you think?

  • moe.jack.manny // June 15, 2009 at 1:56 pm | Reply

    It is interesting, Bruce MAPES wrote a book in 1995 entitled Child eyewitness testimony in sexual abuse investigations. Despite his recognition of the necessity for neutrality, Mapes seems to identify more with victims than with the falsely accused. MANY OF THE REFERENCES AT THE END OF THE BOOK ARE NOT USED IN THE TEXT AND THE BOOK OFTEN APPEARS UNBALANCED.

    In short, at least one reviewer back in 1995 questioned Mapes neutrality.

    NOT CONCERNED YET? Hold on there is more…

    Chester County Children and Youth Services has Bruce E. Mapes, PhD in their 2009 operational budget for $80,000 for consultation services. Are you at all CONFORTABLE with this expenditure of TAX PAYER money? Are we getting what WE as tax payers PAY FOR?

    There is still more to consider:

    Dr. Mapes has provided in-service training to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (Judges) in the past. Specifically referencing CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION. I have a copy of his handouts. Are you CONFORTABLE with the Chester County Bench receiving in-service training FROM Dr. MAPES, who by the way makes what appears to be a very comfortable living on the referrals he receives from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

    I for one think that a complete investigation of Dr. MAPES MUST be conducted by authorities outside of Chester County. It is clear that the County has a very biased view of MAPES as they continue to feed him cases through the Family Court, and Children and Youth-systems. We should call for a Special Investigator to be appointed, or an independent panel of professionals and parents to review his work. It would not be hard to evaluate if he followed the rules by a simple record review of his work.

    If your concerned, I urge you to call the County and voice your concern. Call or write your County Commissioners, the Director of Children and Youth, Administrator of Family Court, and/or the President Judge.

    With your help we can put an end to Chester County using Dr. Bruce Mapes in child custory matters on in providing consultation services involving Chester County’s social service agencies.

    I AM SURE THAT Chestercountyrants will be mort than happy to post a link (or contact information) to all of the people/Agency’s mentioned above.

  • GM // June 16, 2009 at 9:45 am | Reply

    Master Lombardi aligned himself with a perpetrator’s viewpoint (in this case a father) to deny my child a Psychiatric evaluation despite the fact there were three Medical Doctors who requested in writing that she been seen. Sighting that Dr Mapes, a Psychologist, did not mention that it was needed in his custody evaluation.

    This is when I had to step up and say “But the Psychiatric referral does not fall into the scope of Dr Mapes’ Evaluation.” He still denied my plea.

    So Master Richard Lombardi, took the word of the perpetrator’s atty who stated that the reunification therapist, Randy Hess felt it necessary to force the victim/my child to see the perpetrator/father two times a week outside of the therapy session with supervision. So there it was ordered, without proof.

    Lombardi also refused to meet with my daughter, even though Rose Anderson said that she would definitely meet with her to hear my daughter’s opinion. When asked why Lombardi did not want to speak with my child, he replied, “It’s not like she’s 16.”

    The reunification therapist, Mr Randy Hess, decided that it would be in my child’s best interest to reunify them despite her intense fear of her father and his abusive history and the inability to control his anger and aggression.

    Last week he assaulted her again during a supervised visit.

    He had already been under house arrest and probation for violating the PFA.

    And even though my daughter wanted desperately to speak with the Master, why was he allowed to dismiss her so easily?

  • moe.jack.manny // June 16, 2009 at 6:24 pm | Reply

    I know that there are 100’s of people in Chester County that have be court ordered to see Dr. BRUCE E. MAPES. Were you shocked when you read his report only to find that he twisted beyond recognition what was discussed in the interview, left inportant facts our or taken statements out of context.

    Share you experience. Leave a message or send a text to the Mapes On Exhibit (MOE) hotline. The number is (610) 295-5405.

    Please no names, no obsenties, just your comments about your experience with Dr. Mapes.

  • Great Mom // June 17, 2009 at 10:43 am | Reply

    I think there should be a class action suit against the Court System in Chester County. Can we bring it to the PA Superior Court? I feel sick that Mapes is playing with the lives of children to earn a living.

  • moe.jack.manny // June 17, 2009 at 12:20 pm | Reply

    I think that any parent that has NOT received a fair and objective evaluation by Dr. Mapes and can document this should file a complaint with the State Board of Psychology, the DA or let the Court know.

    If you or I filed an inaccurate report with the Court or gave inacurate information while under OATH we would most likely be charged with perjury. Should ther be any different treatment of Dr. Bruce E. Mapes.

    Experts like Bruce MApes have an obligation (morally and legally) to accurately report the facts and defend how they arrived at their recommendation. If his facts are inaccurate he also has an obligation to issue a corrected report.

    Parents have the right to have this information corrected and MUST DEMAND that it be corrected.

    Lets say your custody arrangement is acceptable for the moment. 12 months down the road circumstances change and you wish to make a change. On review of Dr. Mapes report you recall that he twisted and manipulated the truth to make the other parent look better than she actually was, that he had reported on things that were not true, and totally misrepresented your position re: custody.

    Do you think that you will have any chance to get a custody modification with DR. MAPES report sitting on top of the file.

    Chances are that the report, will be looked on as “pearls of wisdom”.

    His “hit and run” report with all its errors of fact, misquotes and inaccuracies of what was said during the interview will never be corrected. YOU WON’T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO CONFRONT DR. MAPES UNDER OATH, yet his report will have a lasting impact.

    Parents should and must demand that Dr. Mapes be held accountable. If his reports are ture and accurate he has nothing to fear.

    Share you experience. Leave a message or send a text to the Mapes On Exhibit (MOE) hotline. The number is (610) 295-5405.

  • chestercountyrants // June 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Reply

    Please check our new post updated Bruce Mapes very concerned parents update. http://www.chestercountypost.com

  • Anonymous // June 25, 2009 at 6:16 pm | Reply

    So here is the question folks, we have parents that have posted comments here and several that left messages on the MOE hot-line. What are we going to do about Dr. Bruce E. Mapes?

    He has not responded to any of these facts, he continues to do his verison of a “child custody evaluation” albeit incompleted and of questionable valuet to the courts. Families continuing to get hurt by his lack of objective practices.

    I wrote the President Judge of Chester County Court of Common Pleas (Judge Ott) outlining my concerns about the continued use of the evaluator and my request for a judicial review of Dr. Bruce E. Mapes. In October 2008, I received a telephone call Judge Ott’s legal clerk. She indicated that my letter was being taken seriously.

    Any parent that has experienced first hand a Mapes evaluation and been subject to the truth being twisted should DEMAND his removal and should DEMAND that their money be returned. We did not get way we paid for!

    A MORNING protest of Dr. Mapes office (60 Boot Road, West Chester, PA) may help bring some free advertising to Dr. Mapes and this cause. If you want this guy to stop his unfair evaluation practice we need to organize.

    We could assemble at WAWA and walk up to his office. Someone suggest a DATE AND TIME.

  • chestercountyrants // June 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Reply
  • twisted by mapes // August 11, 2009 at 9:57 pm | Reply

    Dr Mapes also twisted many facts in my case, and then punted me and my ex off to individual counselling since he made no decision (maybe that was a good thing). All the time and money wasted going to sessions with him were wasted. He did nothing more than complicate our case and then sent us off to someone else. He probably was laughing all the way to the bank with the fees we had to pay to him

  • Anonymous // August 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm | Reply

    I’m sure he went he laughing all the way to the bank. He is nothing more than a hired hand who will sell his BS story to the highest bidder.

    Ethics be damned, truth be damned.

    Did you have the same experience where he put you in a downstares location to complete the MMPI? Did he also tell you to leave the MMPI test form (with your name on it) unattended in that location?

    Can you verify that he lied in your report? If so we should talk. See the MOE hot line in an earlier post.

  • M. STU // August 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Reply


  • GM // August 24, 2009 at 6:37 pm | Reply

    Dr. Mapes did not take enough time to truly evaluate everything. He saw us, for what felt like, a nano second, and placed my child in a position to be physically abused by her father again.

    Albeit the physical altercation happened 3 months after the evaluation took place, but he is a psychologist, he is suppose to understand human nature and to evaluate the parents to see if there is a propensity to harm the child. And in my case he did not see it. In fact, his written evaluation was incomprehensible in some places and was filled with half truths and flat out lies against me.

    Too much of what he says is held in high regard within the courts system in Chester County. He needs to start taking more time to evaluate each case, and he should charge a lot less.
    I feel robbed for not getting a fair evaluation and it seems to me that the courts do not care about how much things cost to hard working people.

  • M. STU // August 24, 2009 at 9:11 pm | Reply

    I understand you lost custody so you are mad. I understand that and I am sorry for your loss. I dont think any human being is perfect and I dont think any human being can know everything. I only know that in this position it is difficult to be correct 100% of the time. If you want to bash the guy then thats your business. I think you should be less critical of this mans job and findings until you walk a mile in his shoes. He has a tough position and he is never going to please both parties and thats just a fact he has to deal with. I understand your feelings but I dont understand you method of dealing with it.

  • GM // August 24, 2009 at 9:43 pm | Reply

    I have sole physical custody, and I am not mad. My daughter and myself have a restraining order against her father because he is an abuser. He had abused her in the past and is unable to control himself.
    Mapes and Hess placed my daughter in a supervised setting with a psychopath who happens to be her father. Her father has rights, but luckily Hess has realized her father’s true colors, but Mapes had not spent enough time to see the real person behind the facade.
    This is frightening because he is making life decisions about people he hardly takes time to understand.

    In June the father backed off after a physical altercation that he pleaded guilty to. The therapist told my 12 year old that her father wants to have no contact with her for “years”… and she is very happy about that.. although we will need to go back to conciliation next month. I think it is sad, that she wants nothing to do with him, but she had seen him perpetrate violence against me and her little 12 lb dog… and had experienced injuries herself.. that I completely understand her reasoning for not wanting to be anywhere near him.
    Getting back on topic…. when a mile in Mapes , shoes places a child in the hands of a perpetrator, or he makes a life decision based on the notes of a third party, I think he needs a new pair of shoes, maybe take a break and recharge himself.

  • Timothy J. Trott // August 24, 2009 at 9:47 pm | Reply

    The fundamental problem with the custody evaluation process is that it is inherently flawed. The law requires that custody decisions be based on the best interests of the child. There is no psychological diagnostic tool that can predict who is the better parent. Yet when it comes to child custody cases the courts defer almost exclusively to the report and testimony of the evaluating psychologist. The so-called expert opinion is based on tests that prove nothing and interviews that are so short as to be worthless. The custody decision is ultimately based on the rather unscientific game of he said-she said. And the children are caught in the middle.

  • GM // August 24, 2009 at 9:55 pm | Reply

    I am with you on that. Custody evaluations are worthless. The best interest of any child is to have both loving parents in their life. But when one of the parents isn’t loving and the child is scared to the point of becoming suicidal, then there is a huge problem. And chester county courts will not talk to children.

  • Anonymous // August 27, 2009 at 8:23 am | Reply

    Custody evaluations are a crock! Bruce E. Mapes may be viewed by some as a “professional” BUT, those of us that have seen and experienced his form of professionalism know that he is simply a BS artist who simply sells his story to the highest bidder or the attorney that has the greatest referral potential.

    Experts are unbiased – Mapes is not unbiased. Mapes as a “professional” has long ago forgot about professional ethics! It is clear that releasing confidential information to attorneys without consent and outside of the court order is an unethical practice.

    Custody evaluations completed by Bruce E. Mapes have no value other than helping Mapes make a good living.

    The Chester County Court system needs to ditch Mapes and the attorneys in Chester County need to step up and stop tolerating the twisting of the truth, and other abuses that occur in the context of a child custody evaluation as completed by Bruce Mapes.

    Just to clarify, I am not at all unhappy wth my custody arrangements. I am, however, appalled with the way Mapes conducts his interview and his lack of committment to the truth as put forth in his report.

  • Anonymous // August 27, 2009 at 8:50 am | Reply

    An interesting note here is that Timothy J. Trott (if it is the same Timothy J. Trott) is a well respected attorney in West Chester, PA.

    Mr. Trott, I think you know first hand the abuses that happen in custody evaluations especially those conducted by Bruce Mapes.

    Why dont you take on the cause to end these abuses in Chester County? Help those who have suffered by the hand of this “professional”.

    Please help those parents that can prove that Mapes twisted and turned the turth into an unrecognizable mess. You would be doing the right thing for the Chester County community (parents and children).

    Its about the law not justice! We are entitled to a fair and unbiased evaluation of the facts and to have this ACCURATELY reflected back to the court so that the needs and best interest of our children can be met.

  • GM // August 27, 2009 at 10:04 am | Reply

    When Mapes can condone that an abusive sex addicted violent perpetrator should have a week long unsupervised visit with his 11 year old daughter, who is suicidal because of him.. there is something VERY wrong.. this violent sex addict ended up physically harming my 80 lb daughter in front of 2 supervisors leaving bruises on her for a week.

    Not to mention the mental abuse and FORCED reunification with her perpetrator.

    What does that tell you about Dr. Mapes?

    I told Mapes that I had to pick up my daughter from her father’s house while he hosted a sex party.. come to find out that she was there many times during these parties and she was only 11 at the time…..

    Tell me there isn’t something wrong with Chester County Family Court!

    Mapes is gullible… he cannot identify a sociopath when he sees one.
    This is very scary for the children in Chester County.

    When will the CHILDREN have a VOICE?

  • Anonymous // August 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Reply

    Wake up folks. Power is in numbers.

    You need to take action if you have had one of Dr. Mapes so called child custody evaluations and witnessed first hand his inability it be unbiased, experienced the way in which he twists and turns the truth or the inaccuracy reflected in his reporting and his lack of professionalism (including his standard “I need to run to the bank, post office etc.,” just leave that highly sensitive MMPI form in a commonly used copy room).

    Protest at his office, protest at the court house on custody hearing days – he must be forced out of his “expert role” and it can not happen on a case-by-case basis.

    Mr. Trott will you be willing to help? GM can we talk? Anyone else out there willing to help please leave a comment on this site.

  • GM // August 27, 2009 at 8:31 pm | Reply

    I will certainly state my case. I would like to talk to the media, or an attorney who can make a difference in the way custody cases are handled in Chester County.

    Children need a voice, and they should not be reserved for people who can afford high priced lawyers.

    Children need advocates.

    The courts should be held liable if a parent commits violence against any child. If they are forcing children to be with dangerous parents they need to rethink their process and change the way cases are handled.

    If a judges daughter was hurt during one of these “court ordered abuse” visits~ they would do something about it.

    But since it is not and it’s just any girl from any town they do not care and it shows.

    The courts are so afraid of being sued over parental “rights” being violated that it totally obscures the rights of the child.

    Children have rights, the right to live in a home without the fear of being abused.

    Lombardi refused to speak with my child AFTER Rose Anderson said that she would. NOW why isn’t there any consistency?

    I have no choice but to fight for full custody, my 12 year old daughter said she’d kill herself if she has to be with her father.
    So tell me what is a mother to do?

  • Anonymous // August 28, 2009 at 9:01 am | Reply

    GM, many would argue that Bruce E. Mapes is the voice for the children caught up in custody matters. His role as a Court appointed “expert” is to represent to the Court “the best interest” of our children.

    I think that those of us who have experienced Bruce E. Mapes know that the only thing he represents is his own twisted form of reality and his only motive is tomake a living.

    If you think for one minute that Bruce E. Mapes cares about your child or the best outcome…think again.

    His primary object is to make a good living. He is professionally lazy and really does not care about anything but his own self serving interests. His expert opinions are not based on the facts, but rather how many cases he can receive from the Chester County legal community.

    Wake up people. If you want the truth represented in your child custody evaluation either seek another professional or have your attorney present during the evaluation.

  • GM // August 28, 2009 at 9:21 am | Reply

    I had no choice, he was appointed by the court. The Domestic Violence Center of Chester County said he was excellent and was highly recommended.

    Boy, were they wrong. I’ll contact them later today and let them know that he is not as great as they make him out to be.

  • Anonymous // August 29, 2009 at 9:33 am | Reply

    GM and anyone else reading this post,

    Read carefully the APA Guidelines. APA gives you 10 years to file an ethics complaint. If you think there has been a violation of the APA ethical guidelines – consider filing a complaint.

    It costs nothing for you to file a complaint however it can cost Bruce E. Mapes real $ to defend. Here is the address:

    American Psychological Association
    Ethics Office
    750 First Street, NE
    Washington, DC
    Phone: 202-336-5930

    You can also file a complaint with the State of PA against Mapes if you think that he acted in ways that go against the PA professional psychology practice act.

    You have the right in this state to be protected from unethical professionals.

    Again, there are no costs to you but for Mapes it can be a very costly to defend. No license, no practice = problem solved!

    All matter presented in you complaint should be related to the practice act. Send in copies of all documents, letters, etc. to support your claim. Here is the address:

    Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs
    Department of State,
    Professional Compliance Office,
    PO Box 2649, 2601
    North Third Street
    Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649
    Here is the web site: http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bpoa/cwp/view.asp?a=1104&Q=432617&bpoaNav=|

  • Anonymous // August 30, 2009 at 11:47 am | Reply


    Any other parent that took the MMPI as part of your child custody evaluation AND where shuffled off to the copy room AND were given the story by Dr. Bruce E. Mapes that he “needed to step out” – lets all join forces.

    In an eariler post I indicated that the Mapes’ non standard administration of the MMPI represents unsound testing procedures.

    Here is what the American Psychological Association Monitor and the APA’s Ethics Committee say about this practice

    1. Nonmonitored administration of the MMPI does not represent sound testing practice and may result in an invalid assessment.
    2. Test security cannot be guaranteed when the MMPI is allowed outside of the clinical setting [such as an unmonitored first floor copy room or left unattended for God knows how long].
    3. There is debate as to whether there is even any circumstance in which it might be reasonable or appropriate to allow the MMPI to be completed outside of the clinical setting (Is a crappy little room used by the many non psychologist office occupants considered a “clinical setting”).

    Here is what I am suggesting:

    1) We all file a complaint withthe APA on some very specific grounds, i.e., improper test administration, failure to safeguard testing security, failure to safeguard personal and confidential information (ie unattended completed testing materials with your name on it).
    2) We should work together on a coordinated filing date in order that our case against Mapes has more impact.
    3) The date to submit the complaints to the APA should be posted on this page so that other who want to get behind this cause can do so.
    4) We should also consider filing multiple complaints with the State of PA. It would be important that these be filed after the APA complaints AND for different issues (ie., NOT the MMPI issue).
    5) Again, we should coordinate the submission date of the complaints.
    6) Other wishing to get on board should read very carefully this post and reflect back on their dealings with Bruce E. Mapes and join this cause.

    I trust that Chester County Rants will continue to support this very important cause by getting the word around to the loyal readers.


  • GM // August 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Reply

    The copy room was a dump. I had assumed that the room was monitored remotely. But by the looks of his office it was evident that he did not put much money back into the business.

    After all his “Packet” included that the money was supposed to be paid prior to any appointments being scheduled.

    In Chester County Parental rights trump child safety, and they should not.

    No one wants to understand the reason why my daughter feels unsafe, suicidal and afraid to be with her dad.I feel that she was a paycheck for Mapes.. and that her blatant abuse by the courts and Mapes disgusts me.

    After all she went through at the hands of her father to be subjected to mental torture at the hands of the courts and Mapes is horrific.

  • Anonymous // August 30, 2009 at 9:50 pm | Reply

    GM and any other interested parties, lets work together to bring his professional conduct under review by the APA and the his liciencing group. You can leave a message on the MOE hotline.

    If Mapes monitored anything via any electronic method including the interview without your expressed and written consent it is both a violation of PA law and against the APA code of ethics. I would not be surprised if he didn’t have his office wired to tape record these child custody evaluations.

    If you review his written report iyou will find very long passages, often running 4-5 lines, that have quotes around them. This would indicate that it is a complete and verbatim statement you made during the interview.

    Mapes is a 63 year old man, who likes to “drink matinies and smoke cigerettes”. It would not be too much of a stretch to assume that his memory is failing either by age or other circumstances. No way he could remember all that he puts in quotes and his chicken scratch notes are a complete mess.

    He’s lazy professionally, and sure I think Mapes taped my interview as well without my consent or that of my children. It would not surprise me if he didn’t tape all of his interviews.

    You can leave a message on the MOE hotline.


  • Anonymous // September 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Reply

    Is Dr Bruce Mapes practicing child custody evaluation from a scientific basis or is he just engaged in some form of junk science? Many suggest it is nothing but junk science.

    excerpts from Family Court Review, April, 2009

    Unfortunately, there is little scientific research on custody evaluations.

    A substantial and important literature on custody evaluations does exist, but it is primarily directed at the performance or practice of evaluations. Much of this published work centers on the issue of best-practices standards for mental health professionals and tends to focus on micro, case-level issues related to how a responsible evaluator should conduct an assessment (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1996; American Psychological Association [APA], 1994; Bow & Quinnell, 2001; Gould, 2006; Martindale & Gould, 2004; Stahl, 1994).

    There also is a research literature on the appropriateness and scientific validity of various psychological tests used in custody evaluations (Erard, 2007; Erickson, Lilienfield, & Vitacco, 2007a, b; Martindale & Gould, 2004; Quinnell & Bow, 2001). Addressing issues of measurement validity by identifying best practices and appropriate instruments is essential to all good science, but measurement validity is only the beginning. The scientific method also requires that testable hypotheses be formulated about the anticipated effects of practices such as custody evaluations and that these hypotheses be rigorously and empirically tested. Unfortunately, there is virtually no reported empirical research on custody evaluations that tests for hypothesized systemic effects. (Pruett, 2008).

    Discouragingly, this assessment of the research on custody evaluations is not a new insight. Grisso (2005) indicates that “[t]he complaint that clinicians often exceed their scientific basis for child custody testimony was first heard about thirty years ago. . . .” Turket (2005) noted that, while custody evaluations are generally considered to be very important in processes related to resolving custody disputes, there is no research showing actual impact. Further, he notes that this assessment is unchanged from one based on his 1993 review of the same literature. Bala (2004) states the same overall conclusion: “This is not an area of professional practice that is guided by science, nor do many assessors engage in meaningful research to determine the validity of their individual analysis, predictions, or recommendations” and others have reached similar conclusions (Krauss & Sales, 2000; O’Donohue & Bradley, 1999). Because of the absence of rigorous scientific studies assessing the accuracy and impact of custody evaluations, it is not possible to determine whether custody evaluations have no overall effect, significant overall negative effects, significant overall positive effects, or some combination of positive and negative effects. This is distressing in light of the fact that courts consider the evaluations, often recognize evaluators as experts, and it is recommended that forensic child custody evaluations be scientifically informed (Gould & Martindale, 2007).

  • GM // September 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Reply

    I am curious if there were follow up studies done in reference to the children who were subjected to custody evaluations in their past.

    One these children turn into adults they should be able to go back and sue the courts and officers of the courts who placed them in harms way.

    If a terrorist threatens the United states we put them away , if a parent threatens to hurt a child, the most vulnerable of our society, the courts hand them over to their terrorist. This does NOT make sense.

    Like that 17 year old that fled to Florida, in her case both parents want to kill her…. and she has to “FIGHT’ to be kept safe? Does anyone see a problem with how things are for children?

    We need a severe change in the way children are being treated in courts.

  • Anonymous // September 4, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Reply


    You’re not likening Bruce E. Mapes to a terrorist are you?

    I will do some research on child custody evaluation outcomes. I’m sort of thinking that there is not much information out there about the long term impact. As noted above there is a general LACK of scientific data on these sort of evaluations. Its sort of a big black hole that these so call professionals want to keep secret. Remember were talking their meal ticket.

    Perhaps Dr. Mapes could address this question. How about it Dr. Mapes?

    Its sort of interesting that Mapes has not made a single comment to defend himself. I’m thinking he knows hes been caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

    Lots of people have read this post and I’m sure that many lawyers are moving away from using this guy based on this post.

  • GM // September 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Reply

    I made no correlation between Mapes and a terrorist.

    But I believe that he can sleep at night completely free from guilt, even if he feels that he may be placing a child in a dangerous situation.

    I believe that any person who instills fear in a child, by threats or harming them physically emotionally or mentally, are terrorists. The absolute worst type.

    And when the victims are their own children, I see no difference between a parent who threatens a child, and a terrorist who threatens or attacks a country.

    Mapes is just the enabler, I liken him to the Airport security guard who looks the other way.

    Someone that we rely on to keep us safe, yet refuses to accept responsibility when his actions allow a perpetrator to get away with a crime.

    Mape’s Custody Evaluation was based on lies, and while my ex does not have access to our daughter at the present time, his evaluation leaves open the door for week long visits in the future. And it was never amended after the physical altercation in front of two supervisors where she was left bruised for a week.

    There is something VERY wrong in Chester County Family Court.

  • Anonymous // September 8, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Reply

    Hey GM,

    Everyone who has ever had a child custody evaluation completed by Bruce E. Mapes has complained that they only received 45 mins to 1 hour as part of the evaluation process. Hardly enough time understand the facts, let alone the biopsychosocial issues.

    Whats interesting is that it discusses the “average time a competent psychologist spends on conducting a child custody evaluation.

    The title of the article is Child Custody Evaluation Practices: A Survey of Experienced Professionals (Revisited). By Marc J. Ackerman, and Melissa C. Ackerman. They are prolific writers on child custody evaluations.

    It was published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1997, Vol. 28, No. 2, 137-145 – © 1997 by the American Psychological Association Inc. THATS RIGHT THE APA.

    “The average child custody evaluation, with report writing, takes 26.4 hours, which is 7.6 hours greater than it was in Keilin and Bloom’s (1986) study. However, almost all of this difference comes from the increased
    amount of time spent reviewing materials and report writing.”

    OK lets review Mapes evaluation time. Im being overly generous:

    2 adult visits @ 45 min each = 1.5
    2 child visits @ 45 min each = 1.5
    2 adult/child visits @ 45 min each = 1.5

    Grand total of time Bruce E. Mapes spends in direct face to face contact with parents and children in a “Mapes style” child custody evaluation is less than 6 hours.

    So lets be generous lets give him 2 hours to reviw records, 1 hour to score the MMPI and 3 hours to dictate the report. Thats 12 hours.

    Seems like a far cry from the average of 26.4 hours. Is it any wonder that he makes mistakes, fill in the missing information with his own version, or frankly just makes things up?

    Dr. Mapes, its time for you to retire.

  • GM // September 9, 2009 at 7:35 am | Reply

    There was not enough time to do a complete investigation , in my case.

    I am certain that many people ,even Mapes may believe that as long as he is “keeping the family together” he is doing his job.

    Keeping the family intact at all cost despite the fear and suicidal ideation of a child, is not only wrong, it is a placing the most vulnerable of our citizens in the hands of their perpetrators.

    When will the children have the basic human right to live in peace? Or have a home without domestic violence?

    There is a long history of Domestic violence with this guy, so why are they treating this as if we are dealing with a normal dad who misses his daughter?

    For 6 LONG months they tried to reunify them. It did not work.
    I drove her and forced her to go every week, and somehow he blames me for it not working.

    Reunification therapy was a joke. All he did was scream and yell at her telling her how rotten I am and how my family is evil…. in front of the therapist. And when she would stand up for her family, he would blow up and yell at her, ultimately leaving a session to violate the PFA by coming outside to scream obscenities at me, within earshot of my daughter and the therapist.

    Even still, supervised visits were in order, and by the 4th one he hurt her, leaving her bruised for a week.

    CY&F said that he needs to break a bone for it to rise to the level of abuse.
    I must say if it rises to that level, she would be dead, because he is unable to control himself. He wouldn’t stop.

    CYF .. that is another story

    There is no protocol to prevent violence, just to treat it once it has occurred.Placing victims in the hands of their pertpetrators, to “see what happens”. Sorry neither I nor my daughter are not going to be a part of some social experiment.

    Do what you have to do, I will try to do what I can right now without compromising my case.

    Take Care,

  • Anonymous // September 9, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Reply

    Hello GM,

    I had a chance to review my notes made immediately after my interview with Dr. Bruce E. Mapes. To my surprise (not really) I can only account for 20 (twenty) original questions he asked. The rest of the questions were in follow up to the original question or corrections to his original guestion. That number was in the neighborhood of 25 give of take. So in 50 or so questions spanning 52 mins Mapes is able to determine the best interest of my children.

    Much of his questioning was just stupid rephrasing of the same closed ended questions.

    Here is an example:

    Have there been any changes in her routine? Answered NO
    His very next question:

    Is (child) getting up at about the same time?
    Answered YES

    Seems impossible that you can determining the best interest of two children with approximately 50 questions. My interview was eactly 52 mins long. On average that about 1 question (and response) per min.

    With the rapid fire questioning is it any wonder her gets things all goofed up? During my interview he made many errors in his questions that lead me to beleive that he did not spend much time reviewing his records and causes me to question if he even could find the records.

    When I told him the answer to one of his question was in the documents I submitted prior to the interview, He started paging through is records for a min ot two and then concluded: …well you know you can’t find anything when you need it…

    He referred to my employer as that of my former spouse – Again phrased in a closed question format.

    You work for the XYZ Group?
    Answered NO. This again prompted him to tear through his records.

    Your youngest goes to ABC School?
    Answered NO. Again he had to tear through the record to get the correct information.

    Way back in my very first undergraduate interviewing course we learned that you need to prepare for an interview. We also learned that if you ask closed ended questions you only going to get simple responses. Bruce Mapes clinical interviewing skills leaves a lot to be desired.

    What Mapes does is worse than looking the other way (to follow your airport security guard anology). What he does is punch in to work and then professionally falls asleep.

  • chestercountyrants // September 15, 2009 at 5:02 pm | Reply


    Great Info From what we are heaing! Powerful!

  • Anonymous // September 18, 2009 at 3:48 pm | Reply

    GM, Here is a great article about domestic violence. It is the current state of the art in understanding family violence from a psychology point of view. There are many, many references. Bruce Mapes should have een aware of some of these articles and studies since family violence is a major issue in child custody related matters. ut they again if he’s on coast he’d not other to keep up with current research.

    Good luck on your case.

    FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 46 No. 3, July 2008 476 –499
    © 2008 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
    1FBOX©Ma57ClrX amaA34iRglcX14dsiikEl-sney12wona 46cCel, 14ilAUoal57 turPSitrouAitcn bRl leoiesfvh Fiieanwmg iIlnyc and Conciliation Courts, 2008
    Joan B. Kelly
    Michael P. Johnson
    A growing body of empirical research has demonstrated that intimate partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon
    and that types of domestic violence can be differentiated with respect to partner dynamics, context, and consequences.
    Four patterns of violence are described: Coercive Controlling Violence, Violent Resistance, Situational
    Couple Violence, and Separation-Instigated Violence. The controversial matter of gender symmetry and
    asymmetry in intimate partner violence is discussed in terms of sampling differences and methodological
    limitations. Implications of differentiation among types of domestic violence include the need for improved
    screening measures and procedures in civil, family, and criminal court and the possibility of better decision making,
    appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the characteristics of different types of
    partner violence. In family court, reliable differentiation should provide the basis for determining what safeguards
    are necessary and what types of parenting plans are appropriate to ensure healthy outcomes for children and
    parent–child relationships.
    domestic violence
    differentiation among types of intimate partner violence
    coercive controlling
    situational couple violence
    gender and violence
    implications for interventions and
    family court
    When violence between intimate partners emerged as a recognizable issue in our society
    in the mid-1970s (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1981; Walker, 1979), empirical knowledge
    of this social, psychological, and legal phenomenon was very limited. As advocates for
    women organized shelters across the nation to provide safety and assistance for abused
    women, clinical information emerged that described patterns of severe physical and
    emotional abuse. The victims were most notably described by Walker (1979) and others as
    “battered women,” and the male perpetrators were labeled “batterers.” This early and
    important recognition and conceptualization of intimate partner violence has guided policy,
    law, education, and interventions to date. The term “domestic violence” was adopted by
    women’s advocates to emphasize the risk to women within their own family and household,
    and over time the term became synonymous with battering. Family sociologists also studied
    violence in families and between intimate partners in the 1970s and 1980s, typically in
    large nationally representative samples, and this information diverged significantly from
    shelter, hospital, and police data with respect to incidence, perpetrators, severity, and
    Correspondence: jbkellyphd@mindspring.com; mpj@psu.edu
    context. In particular, large-scale studies seemed to indicate that women were as violent as
    men in intimate relationships (Archer, 2000). Domestic violence advocates and service
    providers largely ignored or strongly rejected these studies because they were so at odds
    with their experiences in the shelters, hospitals, and courts. Advocates also feared that what
    they viewed as misinformation (that women were as violent as men) would dilute society’s
    focus on and funding of services and education for battered women (Pleck, Pleck, Grossman,
    & Bart, 1978). Thus, until recently, the two groups most concerned with intimate partner
    violence, feminist activists/practitioners and family sociologists, have rarely intersected,
    and misunderstanding and acrimonious debate have interfered with a more constructive and
    unified approach to what remains a serious societal problem for intimate partners and
    their children.
    Over the past decade, a growing body of empirical research has convincingly demonstrated
    the existence of different types or patterns of intimate partner violence (Graham-Kevan &
    Archer, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Johnson, 1995,
    2006; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Leone, Johnson, Cohan, Lloyd,
    2004). This information has far-reaching implications for court processes, treatment,
    educational programs for professionals, and for social and legal policy. Among some social
    scientists, it is no longer considered scientifically or ethically acceptable to speak of domestic
    violence without specifying the type of partner violence to which one refers (Johnson,
    2005a). Among women’s advocates, as well, there are those who recognize that longterm
    adherence to the conviction that all domestic violence is battering has hindered the
    development of more sophisticated assessment protocols and treatment programs that may
    identify and address problems of violence for both men and women more effectively (Pence
    & Dasgupta, 2006).
    This article first discusses the value of differentiation among types of intimate partner
    violence, concerns raised by advocates about such differentiation, and the various
    terminologies used under the canopy of domestic violence. It then describes the underlying
    reasons for the confusion and heated controversy regarding gender and violence and
    focuses on empirical research that supports differentiation among four types of intimate
    partner violence (Coercive Controlling Violence, Violent Resistance, Situational Couple
    Violence, and Separation-Instigated Violence). The ongoing controversy regarding the
    prevalence of female violence will be considered in these contexts. A fifth type of violence,
    Mutual Violent Control (between two coercive controlling violent partners), has been
    described by Johnson (2006), but little is known about its frequency, features, and consequences,
    and it will not be described here. Implications of the overall body of knowledge
    are discussed, in particular the need to rethink current one-size-fits-all policies, and the
    need for more sophisticated assessment and treatment interventions utilized by criminal,
    civil, and family courts. There is consideration as well of the meaning of violence differentiation
    research for custody and access disputes, parenting plans, and parent–child
    relationships, and whether violence is likely to continue or cease after parents separate
    and divorce.
    The value of differentiating among types of domestic violence is that appropriate screening
    instruments and processes can be developed that more accurately describe the central
    dynamics of the partner violence, the context, and the consequences. This can lead to better
    decision making, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to
    the different characteristics of partner violence. In family court, reliable differentiation of
    intimate partner violence is expected to provide a firmer foundation for determining
    whether parent–child contact is appropriate, what safeguards are necessary, and what
    type of parenting plans are likely to promote healthy outcomes for children and parent–
    child relationships (Jaffe, Johnston, Crookes, & Bala, 2008). It is possible, as well, that
    increased understanding and acceptance of differentiation among types of domestic
    violence by the broad spectrum of service providers, evaluators, academics, and policy
    makers will diminish the current turf and gender wars and lead to more effective partnerships
    and policies that share the common goal of reducing violence and its destructive effects
    on families.
    Although social scientists understand that humans and their circumstances are inherently
    messy and that there will always be individuals, couples, and situations that do not fit into
    major identified patterns, this fundamental understanding can sometimes be lost in the
    translation to practice. Thus, a central concern of women’s advocates is that research
    differentiating among types of intimate partner violence will lead to the reification or
    misapplication of typologies and that battering will, as a result, be missed—with
    potentially lethal results. Advocates also fear that typical information available to the court
    for decision making is too limited to make effective distinctions and that effective screening
    processes and appropriate assessment tools are not available or in place.
    When practitioners, researchers, and policy makers gather together, the term domestic
    violence has been observed to mean different things to different participants. On the one
    hand, gender-neutral laws have been enacted that identify any act of violence by one partner
    against another as domestic violence and, for many social scientists as well, the term refers
    to any violence between intimate partners. On the other hand, for many in the field, domestic
    violence describes a coercive pattern of men’s physical violence, intimidation, and control
    of their female partners (i.e., battering). The terms domestic violence and battering have
    been used interchangeably by women’s advocates, domestic violence educators, and service
    providers for three decades, based on their belief that all incidents of domestic violence
    involve male battering.
    We will use the term Coercive Controlling Violence for such a pattern of emotionally
    abusive intimidation, coercion, and control coupled with physical violence against partners.
    This pattern is familiar to many readers through the Power and Control Wheel (Pence &
    Paymar, 1993) (see Figure 1), a model that is used extensively in women’s shelters and
    support groups. Many women’s advocates use the term domestic violence for this pattern.
    For example, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (USA) defines domestic violence as
    follows: “Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship
    that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner” (http://
    http://www.ndvh.org/educate/what_is_dv.html). This is probably the pattern that comes to mind
    for most people when they hear terms such as wife beating, battering, spousal abuse, or
    domestic violence. In one of the early typologies of intimate partner violence, Johnson
    (1995) used the term Patriarchal Terrorism for this pattern. This label was later changed to
    “Intimate Terrorism” in recognition that not all coercive control was rooted in patriarchal
    structures and attitudes, nor perpetrated exclusively by men (see Johnson, 2006, p. 1015,
    note 2, for larger discussion). In a discussion of domestic violence terminology at the
    Wingspread Conference (2007)
    , some participants expressed reluctance to adopt or use the
    term Intimate Terrorism in courts, and in this and a companion article, the term Coercive
    Controlling Violence has been adopted (Jaffe et al., 2008).
    Violent Resistance (to a violent, coercively controlling partner) has been described
    elsewhere as Female Resistance, Resistive/Reactive Violence, and, of course, Self-Defense
    (Pence & Dasgupta, 2006). Until recently, many women’s advocates and clinical researchers
    have characterized all violence perpetrated by women in intimate relationships as female
    resistance (e.g., Walker, 1984; Yllö & Bograd, 1988). They have been reluctant to acknowledge
    that some women’s violence occurs in the context of nonviolent partners or in mutual
    violence that does not have coercive control as a central dynamic. The term Violent Resistance
    posits the reality that both women and men may, in attempts to get the violence to stop or
    to stand up for themselves, react violently to their partners who have a pattern of Coercive
    Controlling Violence.
    Johnson’s term, Situational Couple Violence, is used here to identify the type of partner
    violence that does not have its basis in the dynamic of power and control (Johnson &
    Leone, 2005). Johnson (1995) originally used the term Common Couple Violence, but
    abandoned it because many readers reacted to it as minimizing the dangers of such
    violence. This violence is similar to Male-Controlling Interactive Violence (described by
    Johnston & Campbell, 1993) and Conflict Motivated Violence (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996;
    Ellis, Stuckless, & Wight, 2006).
    To describe violence that first occurs in the relationship at separation, the term Separation-
    Instigated Violence is used. Johnston and Campbell (1993) called it Separation-Engendered
    Violence, but some participants in the Wingspread Conference felt that “engendered” might
    Figure 1 The Power and Control Wheel.
    be confusing in an area in which the role of gender is central to some explanations of
    intimate partner violence. It is important to differentiate this type of violence from
    violence that occurs in the context of a separation. It is often the case that Situational
    Couple Violence continues through the separation process and that Coercive Controlling
    Violence may continue or even escalate to homicidal levels when the perpetrator feels his
    control is threatened by separation.
    Until recently, regardless of the label used, the majority of research on domestic violence
    has focused on male violence and the women victims of this violence. The results of large
    survey studies were used to point to the prevalence and consequences of intimate partner
    violence. However, research methodologies have not, by and large, asked the questions that
    might distinguish among types of intimate partner violence. The original and revised
    Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman,
    1996) have been the most common research measures of domestic violence, and the 1996
    version includes separate measures of psychological dimensions (cursing, demeaning,
    isolating, coercion, threats, stalking, etc.), physical violence (slapping, shoving, kicking,
    biting, choking, mutilation, etc.), sexual violence (raped, forced unwanted sexual behaviors),
    and financial control (controlling purchases, withholding funds, etc.). The most common
    use of these scales, however, has been to identify specific violent acts rather than more
    general patterns of behavior, and the physical violence items of the CTS are still the most
    widely used approach to assessing levels of domestic violence.
    For over two decades, considerable controversy has centered on whether it is primarily
    men who are violent in intimate relationships or whether there is gender symmetry in
    perpetrating violence. Proponents of both viewpoints cite multiple empirical studies to
    support their views and argue from different perspectives (e.g., see Archer, 2000; Dutton,
    2005; Holtzworth-Munroe, 2005; Johnson, 2001, 2005a, 2006; Kline, 2003; Straus, 1999).
    More recently, efforts have been made to build bridges between the research and interpretations
    of the feminist sociologists and the family violence researchers, including family
    sociologists (e.g., Anderson, 1997). These two viewpoints can be reconciled largely by an
    examination of the samples and measures used to collect the contradictory data and the
    recognition that different types of intimate partner violence exist in our society and are
    represented in these different samples. Johnston and Campbell (1993) and Johnson (1995)
    argued that domestic violence was not a unitary phenomenon and that different types of
    partner violence were apparent in different contexts, samples, and methodologies. This
    observation was also made by Straus (1993, 1999), who asserted that researchers were
    studying different populations and that most likely these different forms of violence had
    different etiologies and gender patterns. Other researchers (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe &
    Stuart, 1994; Babcock, Green, Webb, & Yerington, 2005) have come to a similar conclusion.
    Based on hundreds of studies, it is quite apparent that both men and women are violent
    in intimate partner relationships. There is gender symmetry in some types of intimate
    partner violence, and in some relationships women are more frequently the aggressors than
    their partners, including with their nonviolent partners. It is also the case that men and
    women are injured and experience fear in situations where the violence is frequent and
    severe, although the extent of symmetry in severity of injuries and fear is disputed based
    on different studies.
    Data in samples obtained primarily from women’s shelters, court-mandated treatment
    programs, police reports, and emergency rooms are more likely to report the type of physical
    and emotional violence that we are calling Coercive Controlling Violence. It is characterized
    by power and control and more often results in injuries to women. In these samples, the
    violence is asymmetric and perpetrated largely by men against their partners, although
    critics argue that coercively controlling violent women are either ignored, not recognized,
    infrequently arrested, or not ordered to treatment programs (Dutton, 2005).
    In contrast, large-scale survey research, using community or national samples, reports
    gender symmetry in the initiation and participation of men and women in partner violence.
    This violence is not based on a relationship dynamic of coercion and control, is less severe,
    and mostly arises from conflicts and arguments between the partners (Johnson, 2006).
    These partners are most likely involved in Situational Couple Violence; are less likely to
    need the services of hospitals, police, and shelters; and therefore are a relatively small
    minority of individuals in studies using shelter and agency samples. However, Situational
    Couple Violence is generally more common than Coercive Controlling Violence and
    therefore dominates the violence in large survey samples. Incidence of Coercive Controlling
    Violence may be further lowered in surveys due to a high refusal rate among such partners,
    because both perpetrator and victim are reluctant to admit the violence for fear of discovery
    or retribution (for a larger discussion of this sampling issue, see Johnson, 2006).
    Using a 1970s data set and a control tactics scale to distinguish controlling violence
    from noncontrolling violence, Johnson (2006) found that 89% of the violence in a survey
    sample was Situational Couple Violence and 11% was Coercive Controlling Violence. The
    Situational Couple Violence was roughly gender symmetric. In contrast, in the court
    sample, only 29% of the violence was Situational Couple Violence, and 68% was Coercive
    Controlling Violence which was largely male perpetrated. Similarly, in the shelter sample,
    19% of the violence was Situational Couple Violence and 79% was Coercive Controlling
    Violence, which again was largely male perpetrated.
    Thus, when family sociologists and/or advocates for men claim that domestic violence
    is perpetrated equally by men and women, referring to the data from large survey studies,
    they are describing Situational Couple Violence, not Coercive Controlling Violence. As will
    be discussed, these two types of violence differ in significant ways, including causes,
    participation, consequences to participants, and forms of intervention required.
    Researchers identify Coercive Controlling Violence by the pattern of power and control
    in which it is embedded (Johnson, 2008; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003). The Power and
    Control Wheel (see Figure 1) provides a useful graphical representation of the major forms
    of control that constitute Coercive Controlling Violence: intimidation; emotional abuse;
    isolation; minimizing, denying, and blaming; use of children; asserting male privilege;
    economic abuse; and coercion and threats (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Abusers do not
    necessarily use all of these tactics, but they do use a combination of the ones that they feel
    are most likely to work for them. Because these nonviolent control tactics may be effective
    without the use of violence (especially if there has been a history of violence in the past),
    Coercive Controlling Violence does not necessarily manifest itself in high levels of
    violence. In fact, Johnson (2008) has recently argued for the recognition of “incipient”
    Coercive Controlling Violence (cases in which there is a clear pattern of power and control
    but not yet any physical violence), and Stark (2007) has argued, even more dramatically,
    that the focus in the law should shift from the violence itself to the coercive control as
    a “liberty crime.”
    Coercive Controlling Violence is the type of intimate partner violence encountered most
    frequently in agency settings, such as law enforcement, the courts (criminal, civil, and
    family), shelters, and hospitals. Johnson, using Frieze’s Pittsburgh data, found that 68% of
    women who filed for Protection from Abuse orders and 79% of women who contacted
    shelters were experiencing Coercive Controlling Violence (Frieze & Browne, 1989; Johnson,
    2006). This predominance of Coercive Controlling Violence in agencies probably accounts
    for the tendency of agency-based women’s advocates to see all domestic violence as
    Coercive Controlling Violence, but it is important to note that a great many cases even in
    these agency contexts involve Situational Couple Violence (29% and 19% in the courts and
    shelters, respectively, for the Pittsburgh data).
    In heterosexual relationships, Coercive Controlling Violence is perpetrated primarily by
    men. For example, Johnson (2006) found that 97% of the Coercive Controlling Violence in
    the Pittsburgh sample was male-perpetrated. Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) report that
    87% of the Coercive Controlling Violence in their British sample was male-perpetrated.
    The combination of this gender pattern in Coercive Controlling Violence with the predominance
    of Coercive Controlling Violence in agency settings accounts for the consistent
    finding in law enforcement, shelter, and hospital data that intimate partner violence is
    primarily male-perpetrated (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992). However, it is important
    not to ignore female-perpetrated Coercive Controlling Violence. Although it may represent
    only one-seventh or so of such violence (if you accept Graham-Kevan and Archer’s
    numbers, or 3% if you accept Johnson’s numbers), it is necessary that we recognize it for
    what it is when we make decisions about interventions.
    While there is very little systematic research on women’s Coercive Controlling Violence,
    there are a few qualitative studies that clearly identify it in both same-sex (Renzetti, 1992)
    and heterosexual relationships (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007; Migliaccio, 2002). For
    example, Hines et al. (2007) found that 95% of the men calling the Domestic Abuse
    Helpline for Men reported that their partners tried to control them. And the tactics used by
    these women included all of the tactics identified in the Power and Control Wheel (with
    “use of the system” substituted for “assertion of male privilege”). Renzetti’s (1992) findings
    for lesbian relationships are similar, with the addition of some control tactics that are
    unique to same-sex relationships, such as threats of outing. Because of the paucity of
    research on women’s Coercive Controlling Violence, the quantitative data reviewed next
    will focus on men.
    Although Coercive Controlling Violence does not
    involve frequent and/or severe
    violence, on average its violence is more frequent and severe than other types of intimate
    partner violence. For example, for the male perpetrators in the Pittsburgh data, the median
    number of violent incidents was 18. In 76% of the cases of Coercive Controlling Violence the
    violence had escalated over time, and 76% of the cases involved severe violence (Johnson,
    2006). The combination of these higher levels of violence with the pattern of coercive control
    that defines Coercive Controlling Violence produces a highly negative impact on victims.
    A number of recent studies considering injuries resulting from different types of partner
    violence show a high likelihood that a victim will be injured or even severely injured by
    men’s Coercive Controlling Violence (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Leone, 2000; Leone,
    Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). For example, Johnson (2008) reports that 88% of women
    experiencing Coercive Controlling Violence in the Pittsburgh study had been injured in the
    most violent incident and 67% had been severely injured. Using data on only one incident
    (the most recent), Johnson and Leone (2000) found that 32% of women experiencing Coercive
    Controlling Violence in the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) had
    been injured, 5% severely. Campbell and Soeken (1999) report in their literature review that
    nearly half of physically abused women also report forced sex and others report abusive
    sex. In addition to the injuries produced directly by abusive and violent sex, there is
    increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and abused women who have
    been sexually assaulted report higher incidence of gynecological problems (Campbell &
    Soeken, 1999).
    It is well established that homicide rates are higher for women who have separated from
    their partners than for women in intact relationships (Hotton, 2001; Wilson & Daly, 1993),
    and this heightened risk of homicide following a separation is not found for men (Johnson
    & Hotton, 2003). Thus, in the family courts, one major concern is the potential for further
    injury—or death.
    Research on dangerousness and lethality has established that for violent male partners
    control issues are an important predictor of continued or increased violence. The question
    addressed in this research is: Given the fact that a woman has already been attacked by her
    intimate partner, what predicts the likelihood that she will be attacked again or even killed?
    One of the major predictors of continued violence is the presence of the controlling
    behaviors that define Coercive Controlling Violence. For example, one study comparing
    victims of intimate partner femicide with a control group of nonlethally abused women
    found that 66% of the femicide victims had high scores on a scale of partner’s controlling
    behaviors, compared with 24% of the abused control group (Campbell et al., 2003). A
    qualitative study of 30 women who had survived an attempted intimate femicide found
    that 83% “described examples of their partners using stalking, extreme jealousy, social
    isolation, physical limitations, or threats of violence” as a means of controlling them
    (Nicolaidis et al., 2003, p. 790). It is also important to note that, although 10 of these
    women had no history of repeated physical abuse by their partners, 8 of those 10 did have
    partners who
    been controlling. It is clear that coercive control must be considered a
    major risk factor for continued or increased violence.
    It is not unusual for victims of Coercive Controlling Violence to report that the psychological
    impact of their experience is worse than the physical effects. The major psychological
    effects of Coercive Controlling Violence are fear and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, depression,
    and posttraumatic stress. The fear and anxiety are well documented in many qualitative
    studies of Coercive Controlling Violence (e.g., Kirkwood, 1993; Dobash & Dobash, 1979;
    Ferraro, 2006), and quantitative studies confirm that fear and anxiety are frequent
    consequences of intimate partner violence (Sackett & Saunders, 1999; Sutherland, Bybee,
    & Sullivan, 1998).
    There is considerable evidence establishing the effects of Coercive Controlling Violence
    on self-esteem, much of it derived from the qualitative data collected from women using
    the services of shelters. Kirkwood devotes large parts of her research report to issues of
    self-esteem, reporting that “all of the women expressed the view that their self-esteem
    was eroded as a result of the continual physical and emotional abuse by their partners”
    (Kirkwood, 1993, p. 68). Chang (1996) saw this loss of self-esteem as so central to the
    experience of psychological abuse that she used a quote from one of her respondents as the
    title of her book,
    I Just Lost Myself
    Depression is considered by many to be the most prevalent psychological effect of
    Coercive Controlling Violence. Golding’s (1999) analysis of the results from 18 studies of
    battering and depression found that the average prevalence of depression among battered
    women was 48%. However, because none of these studies distinguished between Coercive
    Controlling Violence and other types of partner violence, this number most certainly
    understates the effects of Coercive Controlling Violence. When Golding separated out
    studies done with shelter samples (likely to be dominated by Coercive Controlling Violence),
    the average prevalence of depression was 61%.
    Nightmares, flashbacks, avoidance of reminders of the event, and hyperarousal (i.e., the
    major symptoms of posttraumatic stress syndrome) have more recently been recognized as
    consequences of domestic violence. In a study of survivors of domestic violence who were
    receiving services from shelters or other agencies, 60% of the women met criteria for a
    diagnosis of posttraumatic stress syndrome (Saunders, 1994). Johnson and Leone (2000),
    using the NVAWS data, found that victims of Coercive Controlling Violence were twice as
    likely as victims of Situational Couple Violence to score above the median on a scale of
    posttraumatic stress symptoms.
    The research on intimate partner violence has clearly indicated that many women resist
    Coercive Controlling Violence with violence of their own. For example, Pagelow’s (1981)
    early study of women who had sought help in shelters in Florida and California found that
    71% had responded to abuse with violence of their own. Although in the early literature
    such violence was generally referred to as “self-defense,” we prefer the term Violent
    Resistance because self-defense is a legal concept that has very specific meanings that are
    subject to change as the law changes and because there are varieties of violent resistance
    that have little to do with these legal meanings of self-defense (Johnson, 2008).
    Nevertheless, much Violent Resistance does meet at least the common-sense definition
    of self-defense: violence that takes place as an immediate reaction to an assault and that is
    intended primarily to protect oneself or others from injury. This was the largest category of
    violence identified by Miller (2005) in a qualitative study of 95 women who had been court
    mandated into a female offenders program after arrest for domestic violence. Miller
    classified an incident as “defensive behavior,” which constituted 65% of her cases, if the
    woman had been responding to an initial harm or a threat to her or her children.
    Much of women’s Violent Resistance does not lead to encounters with law enforcement
    because it is so short-lived. For many violent resistors, the resort to self-protective violence
    may be almost automatic and surfaces almost as soon as the coercively controlling and
    violent partner begins to use physical violence himself. But in heterosexual relationships,
    most women find out quickly that responding with violence is ineffective and may even
    make matters worse (Pagelow, 1981, p. 67). National Crime Victimization Survey data
    indicate that women who defend themselves against attacks from their intimate partners are
    twice as likely to sustain injury as those who do not (Bachman & Carmody, 1994).
    Although there is little data on men’s Violent Resistance, one study substantiated its possible
    existence. In that study of men calling an abuse hotline, the following comment was reported:
    “I tried to fight her off, but she was too strong” (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007, p. 66).
    The Violent Resistance that gets the most media attention is that of women who murder
    their abusive partners. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that, in 2004, 385 women
    murdered their intimate partners (Fox & Zawitz, 2006). Although some of these murders
    may have involved Situational Couple Violence that escalated to a homicide, most are
    committed by women who feel trapped in a relationship with a coercively controlling and
    violent partner. In comparing women who killed their partners with a sample of other
    women who were in abusive relationships, Browne (1987) found that there was little
    the women
    that distinguished them from those who had not murdered their partners. What
    distinguished the two groups was found in the behavior of the abuser. Women who killed
    their abusers were more likely to have experienced frequent attacks, severe injuries, sexual
    abuse, and death threats against themselves or others. They were caught in a web of abuse
    that seemed to be out of control. Seventy-six percent of Browne’s homicide group reported
    having been raped, 40% often. Sixty-two percent reported being forced or urged to engage
    in other sexual acts that they found abusive or unnatural, one-fifth saying this was a frequent
    occurrence. For many of these women, the most severe incidents took place when they
    threatened or tried to leave their partner. Another major factor that distinguished the
    homicide group from women who had not killed their abusive partners is that many of them
    had either attempted or seriously considered suicide. These women felt that they could
    no longer survive in this relationship and that leaving safely was also impossible. These
    findings are confirmed in a recent study of women on trial for, or convicted of, attacking
    their intimate partners (Ferraro, 2006).
    The dominant image of women who kill their partners presented by the media is one in
    which a desperate woman plans the murder of a brutal husband in his sleep or at some other
    time when she can catch him unawares. In reality, most of these homicides take place while
    a violent or threatening incident is occurring (Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1999, p. 158).
    Although a few of Browne’s (1987) cases involve a plot to murder the abuser, or a wait
    following an assault for an opportunity to attack safely, the vast majority took place in the
    midst of yet another brutal attack (see also Ferraro, 2006). A few were women using lethal
    violence in reaction to a direct threat to their child.
    Situational Couple Violence is the most common type of physical aggression in the
    general population of married spouses and cohabiting partners, and is perpetrated by both
    men and women. It is not a more minor version of Coercive Controlling Violence; rather,
    it is a different type of intimate partner violence with different causes and consequences.
    Situational Couple Violence is not embedded in a relationship-wide pattern of power,
    coercion, and control (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Generally, Situational Couple Violence
    results from situations or arguments between partners that escalate on occasion into physical
    violence. One or both partners appear to have poor ability to manage their conflicts and/or
    poor control of anger (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Johnson, 1995, 2006; Johnston & Campbell,
    1993). Most often, Situational Couple Violence has a lower per-couple frequency of occurrence
    (Johnson & Leone, 2005) and more often involves minor forms of violence (pushing,
    shoving, grabbing, etc.) when compared to Coercive Controlling Violence. Fear of the
    partner is not characteristic of women or men in Situational Couple Violence, whether
    perpetrator, mutual combatant, or victim. Unlike the misogynistic attitudes toward women
    characteristic of men who use Coercive Controlling Violence, men who are involved in
    Situational Couple Violence do not differ from nonviolent men on measures of misogyny
    (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000).
    Some verbally aggressive behaviors (cursing, yelling, and name calling) reported in
    Situational Couple Violence are similar to the emotional abuse of Coercive Controlling
    Violence, and jealousy may also exist as a recurrent theme in Situational Couple Violence,
    with accusations of infidelity expressed in conflicts. However, the violence and emotional
    abuse of Situational Couple Violence are not accompanied by a chronic pattern of controlling,
    intimidating, or stalking behaviors (Leone et al., 2004). Babcock et al. (2004) identified one
    group of men in batterer treatment groups and a community sample that appears to be men
    involved in Situational Couple Violence (the “family-only” group). These men had low
    scores on a scale that assessed violence to control, violence out of jealousy, and violence
    following verbal abuse compared to two other groups that appeared to be involved in
    Coercive Controlling Violence. Their reported violence was less severe and less frequent
    compared to the other two groups. Significantly, the men engaged in Situational Couple
    Violence did not differ from the nonviolent control group on measures of borderline and
    antisocial personalities or general violence outside of the family.
    Situational Couple Violence is initiated at similar rates by men and women, as measured
    by large survey studies and community samples. Using the Conflict Tactics Scales, Straus
    and Gelles (1992) found male rates of violence toward a partner of 12.2% and female rates
    of 12.4%. In a Canadian survey of cohabiting and married respondents, males reported
    1-year rates of husband-to-wife violence of 12.9% and female respondents reported wifeto-
    husband violence of 12.5% (Kwong, Bartholomew, & Dutton, 1999).
    In the Canadian survey, men’s and women’s rates for each of nine specific types of
    violence were similar except for “slapping” and “kicked/bit/hit,” where significantly more
    women than men reported perpetrating these acts. More than half of those reporting any
    violence in the past year reported violence perpetrated by both partners (62% men, 52%
    women). Eighteen percent of men and 35% of women reported female-only violence, and
    20% of men and 13% of women reported male-only violence. The majority of violence
    reported did not result in injury to either men or women. The incidence of severe husbandto-
    wife violence reported by males and females was 2.2% and 2.8%, and wife-to-husband
    severe violence was 4.8% as reported by males and 4.5% as reported by females. Injuries
    were reported by a small number of both men and women (Kwong et al., 1999).
    In samples of teenagers and young adults (dating, cohabiting, married), rates of physical
    violence toward partners are considerably higher than in general survey populations, and
    several studies find females more frequently violent than males. Magdol et al. (1997)
    reported that women perpetrated violence 37.2% of the time toward their partners and men
    21.8% in a community-representative sample of young adults. In a sample of antisocial
    aggressive teenagers and young adults, women acknowledged higher rates of perpetration
    of violence than men (43% vs. 34%) (Capaldi & Owen, 2001). Douglas and Straus (2006)
    found that, among dating couples in 17 countries, females assaulted their partners more
    often than did males (30.0% vs. 24.2%).
    Situational Couple Violence is less likely to escalate over time than Coercive Controlling
    Violence, sometimes stops altogether, and is more likely to stop after separation (Babcock
    et al., 2004; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell,
    1993). It may involve one isolated incident, be sporadic, or be regularly occurring. The time
    frame can involve the past only, throughout the relationship, or only currently (e.g., in the
    several months prior to separation). Using the NVAWS data, 99% of the women experiencing
    Situational Couple Violence reported no violence in the past 12 months (vs. 78% of the
    Coercive Controlling Violence group) (Johnson & Leone (2005). While more minor forms
    of violence are typical of Situational Couple Violence, it can escalate into more severe
    assaults with serious injuries. Thirty-two percent of perpetrators (men in the NVAWS data
    set) had committed at least one act of severe violence (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Comparable
    data were not available for women. Severe violence in Situational Couple Violence is
    particularly likely when violence occurs more frequently (daily or weekly). With a community
    sample of at-risk teenagers or young adults, frequent and bidirectional physical
    aggression was associated with higher scores on antisocial behavior by both men and
    women, and women were at much greater risk for injuries than the men (Capaldi & Owen,
    2001). When violence was frequent and injuries were sustained, both men and women were
    more likely to be fearful of each other. However, this study lacked dyadic measures
    of power and control, so it is not possible to determine if this was Situational or Coercive
    Controlling Violence, or a combination of both.
    Situational Couple Violence results for women in fewer health problems, physician
    visits, and psychological symptoms, less missed work, and less use of painkillers, compared
    to women who are victims of Coercive Controlling Violence (Johnson & Leone, 2005). A
    large representative study in New Zealand found that depression and suicidal ideation were
    related to higher levels of partner violence victimization in both men and women. Thus one
    would expect to see more severe health and psychological symptoms in Situational Couple
    Violence that is very frequent (Magdol et al., 1997).
    Overall, these and other survey data support claims that women both initiate violence
    and participate in mutual violence and that, particularly in teenage and young adult
    samples, women perpetrate violence against their partners more frequently than do the
    men. Based on knowledge available, this gender symmetry is associated primarily with
    Situational Couple Violence and not Coercive Controlling Violence. It is hoped that future
    research will enable clearer distinctions between violence that arises primarily from partner
    conflicts in contrast to violence that is embedded in patterns of coercion and control.
    Of special relevance to those working with separating and divorcing families is violence
    instigated by the separation where there was no prior history of violence in the intimate
    partner relationship or in other settings (Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kelly, 1982; Wallerstein
    & Kelly, 1980). Seen symmetrically in both men and women, these are unexpected and
    uncharacteristic acts of violence perpetrated by a partner with a history of civilized and
    contained behavior. Therefore, this is not Coercive Controlling Violence as neither partner
    reported being intimidated, fearful, or controlled by the other during the marriage.
    Separation-Instigated Violence is triggered by experiences such as a traumatic separation
    (e.g., the home emptied and the children taken when the parent is at work), public
    humiliation of a prominent professional or political figure by a process server, allegations
    of child or sexual abuse, or the discovery of a lover in the partner’s bed. The violence
    represents an atypical and serious loss of psychological control (sometimes described as
    “just going nuts”), is typically limited to one or two episodes at the beginning of or during
    the separation period, and ranges from mild to more severe forms of violence.
    Separation-Instigated Violence is more likely to be perpetrated by the partner who is
    being left and is shocked by the divorce action. Incidents include sudden lashing out,
    throwing objects at the partner, destroying property (cherished pictures/heirlooms, throwing
    clothes into the street), brandishing a weapon, and sideswiping or ramming the partner’s car
    or that of his/her lover. Separation-Instigated Violence is unlikely to occur again and
    protection orders result in compliance. In Johnston and Campbell’s (1993) sample of 140
    high-conflict custody-disputing parents, 21% of the parents reported Separation-Instigated
    Violence. Another study (not restricted to custody-disputing families) indicated that
    14% of violence reported began only after separation, although there was no assessment
    of whether violence with coercion and control had characterized the prior intimate partner
    relationship (Statistics Canada, 2001).
    For professionals in family court or the private sector, it is critical to use assessment
    instruments that ask discerning questions to distinguish Separation-Instigated Violence
    from the chronic patterns of emotional abuse and intimidation of Coercive Controlling
    Violence. A partner’s decision to leave may unleash potentially lethal rage, harassment, and
    stalking in borderline/dysphoric men with a history of Coercive Controlling Violence,
    where jealousy, impulsivity, and high dependence on the partner are central (Babcock et al.,
    2004; Dutton, 2007; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998). Unlike
    perpetrators of Coercive Controlling Violence, men and women perpetrating Separation-
    Instigated Violence are more likely to acknowledge their violence rather than use denial
    and are often embarrassed and ashamed of their behaviors. Some have been caring,
    involved parents during the marital relationship, with good parent–child relationships. Their
    partners (and often the children) are stunned and frightened by the unaccustomed violence,
    which sometimes leads to a new image of the former partner as scary or dangerous. Trust
    and cooperation regarding the children become very difficult, at least in the shorter term
    (Johnston & Campbell, 1993).
    The research discussed above has not focused specifically on intimate partner violence
    reported by parents with custody and access disputes. Because there is little research
    regarding this population, it is not known if the frequency, severity, context, or type of
    violence observed in custody-disputing parents is more similar to that seen in large-scale
    surveys (i.e., Situational Couple Violence) or the Coercive Controlling Violence more
    characteristic of shelter and police samples. However, the number of family law cases in
    which domestic violence allegations are made is quite high, and multiple and mutual
    allegations (e.g., substance abuse, child abuse, neglect) are common. In a California Family
    Court study of cases with custody and access disputes entering mandated (and early)
    custody mediation, intimate partner violence was reported by at least one parent in 76% of
    the 2,500 cases (Center for Families, Children, and Courts, 2002). Most of the violence did
    not occur in the prior 6 months. In 47% of the cases, neither parent had raised the issue of
    violence before or during mediation (either in separate screening interviews or separate sessions),
    suggesting that Situation Couple Violence was characteristic of some partners, may
    have occurred only in the past or episodically during the relationships, may have been
    mutual, and was not deemed important enough to be an issue in their mediated discussions
    about the children. It is also possible that victims of Coercive Controlling Violence were
    fearful of raising the history of violence, even in a separate session (it should be noted that
    parents are mandated to attend one session, and those unable to reach agreement then move
    into litigated and judicial processes). Further research will be needed to clarify what types
    of violence are characteristic or predominant in child custody disputes.
    In two Australian samples of parents with custody or access disputes, 48–55% of
    cases (general litigants sample) and 63–79% (judicial determination sample) contained
    allegations of partner violence. Approximately half of the allegations in the general litigants
    sample and 60% of the judicially determined sample were of a particularly serious nature.
    Allegations of child abuse were less than half that number, but allegations of child abuse
    were almost always accompanied by allegations of spousal violence (Moloney, Smyth,
    Weston, Richardson, Ou, & Gray, 2007). In a California sample of parents disputing
    custody or access who were undergoing child custody evaluations, domestic violence was
    substantiated for 74% of the mothers’ allegations against fathers and 50% of fathers’
    allegations against mothers. More child abuse allegations by fathers against mothers were
    substantiated (46%) than allegations by mothers substantiated against fathers (26%), and in
    24% of cases, child abuse allegations were substantiated for both mother and father within
    the same family (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005). Interpretation of research
    findings to date is confounded by different samples, measures, and legal definitions of
    domestic violence and child abuse, but it is clear that the percentage of parents reporting
    intimate partner violence and child abuse is higher among separating and divorcing parents
    than in the general population.
    Only one study (comprising two samples) to date has differentiated among types of
    intimate partner violence in custody and access disputes (Johnston & Campbell, 1993). In
    this extremely high-conflict group of parents who were chronically relitigating parenting
    and access disputes, three fourths of the separating/divorcing couples had a history of
    violence. Twenty-six percent were not violent, 10% involved minor violence, 23% moderate,
    and 41% severe violence. Men and women were mostly in agreement about who perpetrated
    minor acts of violence and women’s moderate acts of violence, but substantial
    gender disagreement existed about severe violence perpetrated by men, with women
    reporting substantially more severe violence from their partners than the men reported.
    Except for cuts sustained by both genders, women’s injuries were more frequent and severe
    than men’s. Johnston and Campbell (1993) identified five categories of intimate partner
    violence: male battering (what we are calling Coercive Controlling Violence), female
    initiated violence, male-controlling interactive violence (similar to Situational Couple
    Violence), separation-engendered violence, and violence that arises from mental illness, in
    particular, the disordered thinking of psychotic and paranoid disorders. In this small group
    (5%) are individuals who often do not repeat their violence if they are treated with
    medication. Situational Couple Violence (20% of all couples) and Separation-Instigated
    Violence with no prior history of violence (21% of all couples) were most common and
    generally involved less serious violence. Johnston notes that these findings should not be
    generalized to the larger divorcing population of parents or even parents disputing custody
    because of the chronic history of repeated litigation and continuing high conflict between
    these parents and the size of the sample.
    The effects of intimate partner violence on children’s adjustment have also been
    well documented (Bancroft & Silverman, 2004; Graham-Bermann & Edleson, 2001;
    Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997; Jaffe, Baker, &
    Cunningham, 2004; Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998). Violence has an independent effect on
    children’s adjustment and is significantly more potent than high levels of marital conflict
    (McNeal & Amato, 1998). Much of this research has not differentiated among types of
    partner violence when describing the outcomes for children and has been conducted in
    samples of children whose mothers were in shelters where Coercive Controlling Violence
    was more likely to predominate. Behavioral, cognitive, and emotional problems include
    aggression, conduct disorders, delinquency, truancy, school failure, anger, depression,
    anxiety, and low self-esteem. Interpersonal problems include poor social skills, peer rejection,
    problems with authority figures and parents, and an inability to empathize with others.
    Preschool children traumatized by the earlier battering of their mothers had pervasive
    negative effects on their development, including significant delays and insecure or
    disorganized attachments (Lieberman & Van Horn, 1998). School-age children repeatedly
    exposed to violence are more likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorders, particularly
    when combined with other risk factors of child abuse, poverty, and the psychiatric illness
    of one or both parents (Ayoub, Deutsch, & Maraganore, 1999; Kilpatrick & Williams,
    1997). Threats to use or use of guns and knives is associated with more behavioral
    symptoms in 8–12-year-olds, when compared to youngsters where there was intimate
    partner violence without knives and guns (Jouriles et al., 1998). There are also higher rates
    of both child abuse and sibling violence in violent, compared to nonviolent, high-conflict
    Further research that differentiates among types of violence is likely to demonstrate that
    children’s exposure to Coercive Controlling Violence, as compared to Situational Couple
    Violence or Separation-Instigated Violence, is associated with the most severe and extensive
    adjustment problems in children. Early support for this was provided by Johnston (1995)
    who reported that boys experiencing Coercive Controlling Violence were significantly more
    symptomatic than boys in families with Situational Couple Violence, and boys in families
    with Separation-Instigated Violence, or no violence, were least symptomatic.
    Batterer programs come in many forms but the general experience with them is that
    they have minimal success. For example, one recent review of experimental and quasiexperimental
    studies of the effectiveness of such programs estimates that with treatment
    40% of participants are successfully nonviolent; without treatment 35% are nonviolent
    (Babcock et al., 2004). Unfortunately, studies of program effectiveness do not, in general,
    make any distinctions among types of violence or types of so-called batterers. It is possible
    that treatment programs are generally effective with some participants (such as those
    involved in Situational Couple Violence), but not with others (such as those involved in
    Coercive Controlling Violence). Another possibility is that different types of intervention
    work for different types of violent men or women. Although very little research has been
    done on this issue to date, there is already some evidence for differential effectiveness. For
    example, one recent study of almost 200 men court mandated to an intervention program
    found that men involved in Situational Couple Violence were the most likely (77%) to
    complete the program, with two groups involving Coercive Controlling Violence falling far
    behind them at 38% and 9% completion (Eckhardt, Holtzworth-Munroe, Norlander, Sibley,
    & Cahill, in press). Another study found that, in a 15-month follow-up, only 21% of men
    involved in Situational Couple Violence were reported by their partners to have committed
    further abuse, compared with 42% and 44% of the two groups of Coercive Controlling
    Violence (Clements et al., 2002).
    This research suggests that tailoring interventions to the type of violence in which the
    participants are engaged may greatly improve the effectiveness of interventions. In fact,
    existing versions of so-called batterer intervention programs are already well-suited to
    differentiating among types of intimate partner violence. The feminist psycho-educational
    model that is the most common approach is quite clearly based on an understanding of
    intimate partner violence as Coercive Controlling Violence (Pence & Paymar, 1993). The
    approach involves group sessions in which facilitators conduct consciousness-raising
    exercises that explicate the Power and Control Wheel, explore the destructiveness of such
    authoritarian relationships, and challenge men’s assumptions that they have the right to
    control their partners. Participants are then encouraged to approach their relationships in a
    more egalitarian frame of mind.
    Some men report that they are insulted by these feminist programs that assume that they
    are determined to completely control their partner’s life (Raab, 2000). If, in fact, they are
    involved in Situational Couple Violence and not Coercive Controlling Violence, then the
    second major type of batterer program, cognitive behavioral groups, may be what they
    need. Cognitive behavioral groups focus on interpersonal skills needed to prevent
    arguments from escalating to verbal aggression and ultimately to violence. These groups
    teach anger management techniques, some of which are interpersonal (such as timeouts),
    others cognitive (such as avoiding negative attributions about their partner’s behavior). They
    also do exercises designed to develop their members’ communication skills and ability to
    assert themselves without becoming aggressive. Although these are techniques that are also
    used by marriage counselors in the context of couples counseling, couple approaches are
    almost never recommended for batterer programs because of the threat they might pose to
    victims of Coercive Controlling Violence. Thus, these techniques are typically used with
    groups composed only of violent men or women, without their partners.
    One relatively new development in intervention is a consequence of dramatic increases
    in the number of arrests of women for intimate partner violence in jurisdictions that have
    implemented mandated arrest policies. Although on the surface many of these groups
    appear to function much like the groups for men, research into how they actually function
    suggests that at least some of them assume that many of their participants are involved in
    Violent Resistance (Miller, 2005). They function much like the support groups for victims
    of Coercive Controlling Violence that are found in shelters, encouraging the development
    of safety plans and providing skills for coping with their partners’ violence within the
    relationship. This focus does not address those women who have perpetrated Situational
    Couple Violence, where cognitive behavioral approaches might be more effective.
    Given that these different approaches appear to be targeted to the major types of intimate
    partner violence, it seems reasonable to develop an effective triage system by which different
    types of violent men and women would be provided different types of interventions. It may
    be useful to differentiate even more finely. For example, for some men and women involved
    in Situational Couple Violence, the problem is poor communication skills, impulsivity, and
    high levels of anger, while for others it may be alcohol abuse. Similarly, for some involved
    in Coercive Controlling Violence the problem is rooted in severe personality disorders or
    mental illness and may call for the inclusion of a more psychodynamic approach to
    treatment. For others the problem is one of a deeply ingrained antisocial or misogynistic
    attitude that would be more responsive to a feminist psycho-educational approach. In all
    cases, of course, holding violent men and women accountable for their violent behavior in
    the criminal justice system and family courts provides essential motivation for change.
    Many perpetrators and victims would benefit if all courts mandated and implemented
    reporting requirements regarding attendance and completion of violence and substance
    abuse treatment programs.
    Advocates for abused women have long been opposed to the use of custody and divorce
    mediation, whether voluntary or mandated. Their criticism is based on the view that power
    imbalances created by violence cannot be remedied regardless of the skill of the mediator
    and that abused women will not be able to speak to their own or their children’s interests
    out of fear, intimidation, and low self-esteem (Grillo, 1991; Schulman & Woods, 1983).
    Despite this opposition, many jurisdictions in the United States have implemented custody
    mediation programs and mandates. In contrast, others have passed legislation automatically
    excluding mediation for custody disputes where domestic violence occurred at any point
    in the marriage or separation.
    Court-based mediation programs have become increasingly responsive to the legitimate
    challenges and questions raised by women’s advocates and incorporated a variety of new
    screening and service procedures to protect the victims of partner violence, including
    separate sessions, different arrival and departure times, metal detectors, referrals to
    appropriate treatment agencies, presence of support persons, and monitoring of no-contact
    orders. Empirical research indicates that mediation has certain advantages for women when
    compared to the adversarial process (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996), and women report high
    levels of satisfaction with mediation where there was physical or emotional abuse during
    marriage or separation (Davies, Ralph, Hawton, & Craig, 1995; Depner, Cannata, & Ricci,
    1994). It has been noted that the adversarial system often fails to protect victims of
    Coercive Controlling Violence and that, when mediation is provided in safe settings, victims
    of intimate partner violence may have more opportunities to be heard and feel empowered
    with respect to addressing the needs of their children (see Newmark, Harrell, & Salem, 1995).
    The research that supports differentiation among types of domestic violence provides
    valuable indicators for the use of mediation in custody and access disputes. In order to
    benefit from the identification of different patterns of partner violence, it is imperative that
    screening instruments have questions that identify not only intensity of conflict, frequency,
    recency, severity, and perpetrator(s) of violence, but also patterns of control, emotional
    abuse and intimidation, context of violence, extent of injuries, criminal records, and assessment
    of fear. Screening instruments should be focused on risk assessment (e.g., DOVE scale;
    Ellis, Stuckless, & Wight, 2006), be gender neutral in choice of language, and include
    questions about both partners’ violence to be answered by both partners.
    Based on the research descriptions of different types of partner violence (and the
    reported experiences of many mediators in family courts), it is likely that the majority of
    parents who have a history of Situational Couple Violence are not only capable of
    mediating, but can do so safely and productively with appropriate safeguards. These
    men and women appear to be quite willing to express their opinions, differences, and
    entitlements, often vigorously (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Johnston & Campbell, 1993). It is
    also likely that parents with Separation-Instigated Violence will benefit from mediation,
    again, with appropriate safeguards and referrals to counseling for the violent partner to help
    restabilize psychological equilibrium. What is needed, in addition to appropriate screening,
    are mediators whose domestic violence training has included attention to differentiation

  • Michael elder // October 5, 2009 at 11:48 pm | Reply

    Mapes is an ass.

  • GM // October 6, 2009 at 9:12 am | Reply

    I think the entire system is shattered.
    The courts make money off of people’s inability to make rational choices.

    When you factor in the criminal conduct of some people ( which is unbelievably kept separate from family court) it can get WAY out of hand.

    You have the “Court Whores”
    making life and death decisions about children.

    Normally, the best interest of the child would be two loving parents. BUT when one of these parents has in fact,INJURED a child during these court ordered supervised visits there is a BIG HUGE problem with this system as a whole.

    Does anyone want to talk about Immersion Therapy? It is when a person has an irrational fear of something that CAN”T harm them. Like butterflies.. they are immersed in a room full of butterflies, until their fear subsides.

    Do you know what they are proposing to do to my daughter? Place her in the hands of her perpetrator (her father) for one entire month. He has HURT her THREATENED her and yet this is what they are proposing to do to MY child..

    She is NOT an EXPERIMENT!!!!

    If ANYTHING happens to MY DAUGHTER I will personally hold the courts of CHESTER COUNTY responsible, including MAPES, HESS, LOMBARDI and whichever judge presides over the hearing.

    She is all I have…I cannot have anymore children.. On the other hand her father can have as many more children as he wants. He has an adult daughter that he neglected as a child and tried to connect with for 3 months but now she wants NOTHING to do with him and she is afraid of him. Does anyone see a pattern here?

  • Anonymous // October 7, 2009 at 9:58 am | Reply

    Immersion Therapy??

    GM are you kidding me. No self respecting behavioral health professional would recommend immersion therapy in a situation where it is known that a person could in fact be harmed – i.e., physical harm or there is some basis in reality that this person is at risk of harm.

    Ask yourself and any professional who recommends Immersion Theray if there is any research that demonstrates that this therapy works in stuations where there is a clear and present danger of REAL harm.

    Ask if there is any peer reviewed research that shows that immersion therapy works in abuse situations with children/adults in abuse situations.

    As parents we would be hauled in to court if we knowingly put our kids in harms way or exposing them to un-necessary risk.

    Sounds like a BS plan, GM.

  • GM // October 7, 2009 at 10:33 am | Reply

    We will see what happens when it goes to trial in March 2010.

    I agree that NO Psychologist will condone this type of “Pseudo-therapy”.


  • Anonymous // October 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm | Reply

    Gm if you think I can lend support to case by impuning the integrity of mapes let me know. He has zero creditability and needs to be caught lying on the stand. MOE

  • aa // October 28, 2009 at 10:52 pm | Reply

    dr mapes screwed over as well. gave me the same test in that downstairs room and said he would be back and he went to wawa. He to told me to leave the test booklet down there.Needless to say he gave me a bad report .He also asked me a seris of jepordey qustions to determine my memory. Ex like what temp does water boil, who wrote hamlet. This guy is a ….ing wacko

  • Anonymous // October 29, 2009 at 11:12 am | Reply

    Hello AA, Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with Bruce E. Mapes, but most people do. He is a very crafty and sneaky manipulator of the truth whose only interest is getting more cases.

    I am less concerned about the qustions he asked than the testing in the little room and leaving the completed test booklet in an unsecure room.

    The questions he asked are not really about memory, but rather, your general fund of knowledge. These sort of questions comprise a SUBTEST on the Verbal IQ measure called Information. It is similar to “Trivial Pursuit,” this subtest measures fund of factual information. It is strongly influenced by culture. An American education and intact long-term memory will contribute to a higher score. Questions like: “Who discovered the NorthPole; What is the population of the United States. While this is a sub-test on a larger test it gives a general feel for the persons fund of knowledge. Should it be reported as a single item and used to make a case that some one is either smart or no so smart? If it was the only test used and reported as a test that determined general knowledge then this is what the professionals call a MISUSE or ABUSE of the testing and should be report to the state board of psychology. Their address is listed in elsewhere in this post.

    The administration of the MMPI-2 in a copy room and instructions to leave your test score sheet in an unsecure location is considered to be poor practice but is also a potential ethical violation of test security, qnd will contibute to a violation of test protocal. This is a very serios matter when the test resuts are used in a court matter. Again if you think that Mapes violated his ethical obligations by way of licience or professional ethics, consider reporting him to the Commonwealth of PA Office of Professional Compliance or the American Psychological Association, Ethics Office. Issues related to how to file these complaints are listed in eariler posts.

    By the way, check the date that your check was cashed. You’ll find it was cashed on the day of the evaluation and if your bank time stamps the check you’ll find it to be during the time he had to “run out” Is he interested in test security or getting his money?

    The guy needs to be stopped. If you know of other that have been harmed by this so called “professional” please encourage them to make a post and also encourage them to file complaints. The more people that file complaints with the State Office of Professional Compliance the better chance someone will listen.

    Ethical conduct is a very serious matter in these sort of evaluations since your under a court order. If Mapes can not carry out these evaluation in an ethical and unbiased way he should and must be held accountable by the Court that ordered his involvement. It is that simple – it is the LAW in this Commonwealth.

    You may also consider filing a complaint against Mapes with the President Judge in Chester County. That person is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the court appointed experts in Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The more legimate concerns that are presented to the President Judge the better our chances of getting Mapes removed from the “expert” list.

    If I can be of further assistance let me know.

  • Anonymous // November 2, 2009 at 10:59 am | Reply

    Here is another area that any parent undergoing a child custory evaluation MUST be aware of.

    A few years ago there were some changes made to the domestic relations rules that make it impossible for you to bring a complaint against a licienced psychologist (or other mental health professional) to the attention of of the Office of Professional Compliance during a child custody evaluation or 90 days following the pending matter.

    If you feel that the evaluator is playing games, failing to keep up his ethical and professional responsibilities then the matter must be taken to the Court for intervention. You are unable to make a licience complaint against the professional until 90 days after the matter has been resolved.

    You are in effect being denied access to the system that the State set up to protect you from unethical and unprofessional licienced professionals. This is an OUTRAGE. Is it any wonder the psychologists in this state supported this measure?

    Do Judges know that they MUST step up and be the first line of defense when parents are suject to unethical or unprofessional conduct during a child custody matter. Do they want to get involved, do they even care?

    These are important matters. If you have been harmed by a child custody evaluator, if what you said during the evaluation was twisted and turned beyond recognition, if you feel thay the evaluator has not complied with the exsting ethical and professional standards you MUST let the Judge know.

    Its your right and it is their responsibilty to take action. Don’t wait until its too late – take action NOW.

  • GM // November 2, 2009 at 11:36 am | Reply

    Yes you are completely right in that regards. I had filed a complaint against an attorney who was spreading lies about me, saying that I was a drug addict to my daughter’s school secretary. Also that I did not supply them the correct PFA order that allows my daughter’s biological father access to her during school hours( which is a blatant lie) and could have given a violent man access to my daughter. Meanwhile he had violated the order 4 times in a three month period and they extended it another year. There was NOTHING unethical according to the Supreme Court of PA Disciplinary Board. these people oversee the conduct of lawyers in the entire state of Pennsylvania.

    I am outraged, It’s time we get the media involved.

    There is no other legal way to get the justice that all of these children deserve.


  • Anonymous // November 2, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Reply

    GM, I am ready when you are. Use the MOE hotline.

    We need as many people as possible to join in. ALL PARENTS should be outraged. It could easily happen to you, your sister, brother, son or daughter. This is a community issue that must be addressed.

  • Anonymous // January 9, 2010 at 3:02 am | Reply

    Wow..I have heard many rumors about Dr.Mapes also. I have just decided to go with him because I trust the Judges and Rose Anderson, they have been fair . Rose Anderson has been a Master for years, she should never leave that position, the kids in chester county need her, she truly cares about the child. You as the parent should be your childs advocate, Rose listens, to Mom and to Dad. She is very thorough, sharp and wise. She knows how to pull the truth out, she is very good at it. This is a gift as anyone can be a lawyer, not everyone is gifted at it. She hears both parents and tries to problem solve. I feel she should do all custody matters. Judge Reiley, Griffin and MacElree are very caring Judges about the children. I dont know who you are having problems with but get with one of these Judges and see how much they care for our childen, I trust them completly Remember,itis hard to accept that it is better for a child to see both parents no matter what. The courts know what they are doing.Im hopeful Dr.Mapes will make a good recomendation for my son,Ican only really trust God for the outcome.

  • Anonymous // January 9, 2010 at 3:08 am | Reply

    Here is my advise, if you have a father or mother who is difficult, get with a counseling agency like Southeastern Pa, Counseling Services or Family Services. Co-Parenting I think the courts should make mandatory in every case where there is high levels of conflict and make the inflicter attend until every problem is corrected. Then if they will not correct the problems the court should enter a very detailed order. The person being difficult wilol learn or go broke doing so.

  • Anonymous // January 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm | Reply

    “Im hopeful Dr.Mapes will make a good recomendation for my son.”

    After reading all of this your still hopeful that this “professional” will come up with a good recommendation? Good luck – this might be wishful thinking.

    Ask that your attorney be present during the interview or seek a court reporter to transcribe the interview so that you can assure that what you say is accurately reported (and in the correct context).

    Be on your toes, be alert, this professional can not be trusted. He sees things as he calls ‘em. Confabulation on his part will fill in the blanks and he’ll never correct any mis-infomation and will swear on the stand that thats how he sees things. That is if you get that far.

    Being a trustworth communicator of information is not a strong suite.

  • Bruce Smith // January 16, 2010 at 10:12 pm | Reply

    Dr. Mapes is a hack, he charges $1800 to do an evaluation then meets with people for an hour and a half, also he on Chester County payroll and turns out a report full of errors and even misspelled several words including having my child’s name wrong at least 3 times. Say my ex spouse “Tends to present herself in a more positive light” also says that she seemed to have more of a plan, sounds like a contradiction. When most people do a report and it has errors you tend not to put much weight into it. My advice: from the parent that was “open and candid”, devise a story to paint the other parent as unfit, make false allegations, get people to lie for you and lie (don’t worry even if you are caught under oath doesn’t matter it’s family court in Chester County PA). These masters are a joke one master recommended a co-parenting counselor who after I brought up many issues about my ex-spouses parenting short comings made ridiculous comments including the following; My ex-spouse told my then 5 year old to lie to me “That’s okay because we had not discuss travel plans” so have a 5 year old lie for the parent? Also my ex-spouse was “Allowed” to take my 5 year old around her 45 year old pot head brother in law, “why would you have a problem with that pot heads are non violent; it’s illegal but they are non-violent”

  • Anonymous // January 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm | Reply

    I am confused and scared…It is in my court order that I use Dr. Mapes…my family therapist said it may be rumors unfortunatly for the doctor, I simply cannot take the chance…this person could make a decision that would be detrimental to my sons whole life. Does anyone know of any other evaluators that have a good reputation?

  • Anonymous // January 19, 2010 at 10:36 pm | Reply

    You should have a discussion with your attorney about your concerns. Tell your therapist to do more homework on Mapes.

    Its not just rumor…facts are facts. If your therapist is a psychologist ask about admistration on the MMPI in unsupervised settings, ask if it is an ok thing to leave testimg materials (with your name on it) in an open and un secure area within 3 steps from an open door? Ask your therapist if its an okay thing to release medical information to the other side without your ok. Ask your therapist if its ok to make recommendations to terminate a parents rights based entirely on a review of records. Ask you therapist if its ok to suggest that a telephone conversation is sufficient to determine if a person has a mental illness, and then suggest that to the court that neither part has a mental health problem. Ask your therapist if its ok to engage in converations with the other sides attorney and deny it when confronted. Ask your therapist if its ok to use other professionals records as the entire basis of your clinical decision making.

    This “professional” is a hack that has no ethics.

    I’d be fearful too.

  • Bruce Smith // January 20, 2010 at 2:18 pm | Reply

    Afetr I had psychologist who has custody evaluation experience read his report, the psychologist called him a hack.

  • Anonymous // January 21, 2010 at 8:16 am | Reply

    Hey Bruce Smith,

    Did he give you the MMPI? Did he leave you in the copy room to finish the test? Did he give you the instructions to leave the completeted test materials in the copy room? Did he tell you he had to step out? Did he state in his report that a “valid MMPI profile was obtained” by the MMPI?

    I refused to leave my confidential MMPI answer sheet unattended while he “stepped out”. I took the MMPI answer sheet home with me. Funny thing – he made a report of the MMPI with pure BS.

    You can’t report something you never had, now can you? Hack, I think its worse than that.

  • Bruce Smith // January 21, 2010 at 10:15 am | Reply


    He included the MMPI even though you never gave it to him? He did leave me in the downstairs copy room and stepped out, someone else posted their check was deposited at the same time he stepped out. I’m not sure but I think the MMPI is the only thing that is impartial during this evaluation process. His testimony included a satement that was not included in his report. If the guy has been feeding off family court for years, maybe it’s time for new blood. I read another post that said a custody evaluation should take 26 hours, I doubt he spent a totoal of 10 including preparing this report. Taking emotion out of the situation which is impossiable I have several questions for him. If I write him a letter does he have to respond. I read 1 post that said he has done 700 to 800 custody evaluations, in court he said 200. The lawyers, judges and Dr. Mapes get their money reguardless of outcome. The children suffer.

  • Anonymous // January 21, 2010 at 8:26 pm | Reply

    Sounds like a turn bull shi* story to me. On the record he informed the court that he has completed about 700 to 800 of these evaluations. Its very clearly noted in the trial transcript that he has done 700 to 800 of these child custody evaluations. Guess telling the truth between cases does not really matter.

    Clearly looks like a problem to me but then again I don’t make the determination whats truth verses just plain BS…thats up to our judges and DA to determine…

    Is the MMPI impartial? Does it really have anything to do with you capacity to parent, to form a bond with your child. Not at all. Was a valid profile obtained? This is a very vital part of the test – if a valid profile was not obtained – one has to question why the results would be reported.

    Are there specific norms in the MMPI-2 that address the specific parental capacity of say white males between the ages of 30 -45. The answer is a resounding NO. The MMPI was not designed or normed to assess parental capacity or ones ability to form a bond with their child. Thats what these evaluations are to look at and thats what Mapes says in his introductory letter.

    Seems to me that it would be much more important to have a look see at the home the child will live in, what the conditions are in that home, mqke some specific observations of parent and child doing homework together or engaging in some form of activity. To this point one needs to ask Can someone with a “personality” be a fine parent. You bet they can – so the point here is what does the MMPI really report as related to parental capacity? NOT MUCH.

  • Bruce Smith // January 21, 2010 at 11:08 pm | Reply

    Anonymous ,

    I still can’t get over the fact that his reasons for me not getting 50/50 custody or more visitation cantained in the report did not match his testimony. Then sying My ex had more of a plan after he questioned her honesty? Is this a contradiction or what. He did not at all question the bonds I have with my children. My ex wife paid his fees, unbiased?

  • Anonymous // January 22, 2010 at 8:16 am | Reply

    More than likely this happens all the time. So Bruce Smith what are you going to do? Do you have the trial transcript – if he lied on the stand and it is reflected in the trial transcript that he lied under oath discuss your concerns with the DA or your attorney.

    You can file a complaint with the Office of Professional Compliance around his compliance with his professional standards. Its a freeby to file. IF you are going to file a complaint it takes lots of time to work through the process. The PA Department of State web site is a good place to start. If the sort of claims you are making are violations of the professional standards it can cost him lots of $ to defend and perhaps his ability to practice.

    This fellow need to retire or the County needs to remove him from the list of approved providers.

Parkesburgs Street During SnowStorm of 2009 December

Parkesburg, what are you thinking, glad I moved to civilization, and where my tax dollars are at least paying for what they are supposed to.  Sorry, but there is no excuse, I felt like I was on back roads. I went through Parkesburg Knoll to get to my Mothers house, the roads were coated over with snow and ice. Why wasn’t this plowed, than cindered??????  We are talking about a little town here, not back roads in the middle of the country. I am sorry, but there is no excuse for this.  This was the next day, no excuse, they were layers of ice, get your plows out when it storms, plow the roads, then salt them. There should never be layers of ice without salt in a small little area that is greatly traveled.

Tina formerly from Parkesburg, Mother Still There Paying Outrageous Taxes for What??????