Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘cyf’

Please—we do not want to hear these words from YOU…it’s much easier to win the first time around then to re-open your case later.

If you are presently involved in a child custody dispute (or might be involved in one in the future) we have identified information of great importance that you should have.

THIS INFORMATION WILL HELP YOU, AS A MOTHER, MAKE YOUR STRONGEST CASE FOR CUSTODY. It will also directly help protect your children now and in the future. Your children will thank you one day for taking “their best interests” seriously!

First, we would like you to know how we have come to be in possession of so much important information. Over the 30-plus years of our working in the child custody field, we have become increasingly involved in cases that frequently may find their way into court. We have acted as expert witnesses, custody evaluators or consultants for hundreds of parents involved in custody disputes all over the country.

Further, as editors of a national publication on custody matters, as responders to a 24-hour “hotline” where we answer questions from professionals about our tests, and as directors of a national organization of custody experts, we continually hear from judges, attorneys, professional experts and parents who in one way or another have been caught up in custody disputes, some of them simple, but most longstanding, complex and bitter.

As a result of all of these activities, we came to gather a huge amount of information on how various psychological and legal strategies, different kinds of evidence, and types of allegations work (or fail to work), both in the courtroom as well as in out-of-court negotiations.

The following are some of our thoughts on what we have experienced. Everything discussed here is covered in our new Strategies handbook.

We were shocked at how many bright, wise, loving—indeed even “savvy”—mothers did not know the single most important fact that must be true if one is to prevail in a custody dispute. And this must be the best kept secret in the world, because even extremely intelligent, sophisticated professionals fail to make use of it. Indeed, even attorneys, who themselves as parents are caught up in custody disputes, frequently do not know how to make his single most important factor work for them.

We identified fourteen “key behaviors” that differentiate between parents who do well in custody disputes from those who do not. We consider these behaviors to be strategically critical.

We have identified what we see as the single biggest mistake a mother in a custody dispute can make. And the irony here is that our own legal system actually encourages mothers to make this huge mistake.

If you are a mother in a child custody dispute, you must learn to recognize (and deal with) blatantly wrong and immoral strategies that will likely be used against you. To add insult to injury, these strategies can be effective. And in our experience, many attorneys fail to help their clients deal with these tragically effective strategies, because they are more psychological than legal strategies, and attorneys are not often trained either to recognize or deal with them.

Another exceedingly important point is that too many mothers do not fully understand all the important things their attorneys should be doing for them. Simply put, many mothers do not know what they should ask for.

While on the topic of attorneys, we also discovered two important strategies that will literally “force” an attorney to do a better job for a client.

DR. BARRY BRICKLIN
~~Dr. Bricklin is a psychologist in private practice. He is an Adjunct Associate Professor at Widener University and has previously served on the faculty of Jefferson University and of Hahnneman University. He has served as a consultant in psychology to the Walter Reed Army Hospital Research Center, to the United States Army, to the New York Academy of Medicine, and to the Columbia Broadcasting System.
~~He is past president of the Philadelphia Society for Personality Assessment and the Philadelphia Society of Clinical Psychologists. He has authored books and articles on prognosis in schizophrenia, marital compatibility, epilepsy, the psychology of affiliation, predicting violence and aggression, diet techniques, role-play techniques, hypnosis in surgery, the intercultural use of the Rorschach test, and, of course, custody evaluations.
~~Among the results of his cooperative ventures with his wife Dr. Patricia M. Bricklin are numerous articles and three books. Two of their books have been best sellers, Bright Child-Poor Grades: The Psychology of Underachievement, and Strong Family-Strong Child.
~~Dr. Bricklin created the original scoring scheme for the Hand Test, and co-authored, with Dr. Zygmunt A. Pietrowski, several articles on prognostic criteria for persons suffering from schizophrenia.
~~For over 25 years, Dr. Bricklin has developed various data-based approaches to the decisions which must be made when parents divorce.
~~Dr. Bricklin’s book, The Custody Evaluation Handbook is published by Brunner/Mazel and is currently in wide-spread use by mental health professionals in the United States and Canada.
~~Dr. Bricklin is presently Chair of the Executive Operating Committee of the Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators (PACE).

DR. GAIL ELLIOT

~~ Dr. Elliot is Head, Child Development and Family Processes Research, Bricklin Associates, the Vice Chair of the Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators and a psychologist in private practice. She has served as a consultant to public and private schools and coordinated multidisciplinary treatment plans. She was responsible for devising for Bricklin Associates an information-processing oriented educational therapy technique and a comprehensive college entrance service for children with serious motivational problems and low self-esteem problems.
~~Dr. Elliot authored a chapter on post-divorce research for The Custody Evaluation Handbook (Brunner/Mazel) and co-authored Parent Perception of Child Profile (PPCP), a widely used custody evaluation instrument. She was responsible for much of the research behind the Bricklin custody instruments, and is co-author with Dr. Bricklin of ACCESS (A Comprehensive Custody Evaluation Standard System) a start-to-finish procedure for conducting a comprehensive custody evaluation. In late 1997 Dr. Elliot co-authored, with Dr. Bricklin, The Bricklin/Elliot Child Custody Evaluation Home-Vist Booklet and authored Assessment of Parenting Skills: Infant and Preschooler (APSIP)

 This is getting rave reviews, wanted to share with you, when you click on link, make sure you enter the correct site, one for Men, one for Women

http://291be4qvhej8oj390d0krwesez.hop.clickbank.net/

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

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.

Very concerned parents in Chester County would like an answer Dr. Bruce Mapes.

Read Full Post »

A grandmother alleges in this civil rights action that she was deprived of the custody of her granddaughter for five years in violation of rights secured by the Constitution. The defendants are Chester County Children & Youth Services (“CYS”), individual CYS caseworkers, and an attorney retained by CYS to represent it in the judicial proceedings that transferred custody to the state. We are called upon to decide whether and to what extent child welfare workers and attorneys who represent child welfare agencies are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in connection with dependency proceedings in state court. This is an issue of first impression in this circuit. Like the other courts of appeals that have addressed the issue, we hold that child welfare workers and attorneys who prosecute dependency proceedings on behalf of the state are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for all of their actions in preparing for and prosecuting such dependency proceedings.

This is what is wrong here to begin with, when the actions of  State workers are entitled to absolute immunity from suit is just a way for them to do whatever they want and know they will not be held accountable.  This gives free reign for abuse of the Children and Youth System which is designed to protect the children and doesn’t. I blame all of the above for the suicide of this poor teenage girl and I hope you all sleep well at night and have the perfect teens and may they never fight with you or get depressed.  Because in real life , this happens , If  Cys is helping watch out. By the way this is fact, not slander, facts that can be proven.

courtesy www.chestercountypost.com

 

Sylvia Ernst (“Ernst”) was the sole guardian of her minor granddaughter Susanne from infancy until the child was nine years old.2At about that time, during the 1987-88 school year, a number of people in the Downingtown, Pennsylvania area where Ernst and Susanne lived became concerned about Susanne’s well-being. A mover who had moved Ernstand Susanne into an apartment in Downingtown contacted police and expressed concern that there was something wrong in the relationship between Ernst and Susanne. He reported that Susanne looked unwell and appeared too young to be Ernst’s daughter.

Sylvia Ernst (“Ernst”) was the sole guardian of her minor granddaughter Susanne from infancy until the child was nine years old.  At about that time, during the 1987-88 school year, a number of people in the Downingtown, Pennsylvania area where Ernst and Susanne lived became concerned about Susanne’s well-being. A mover who had moved Ernstand Susanne into an apartment in Downingtown contacted police and expressed concern that there was something wrong in the relationship between Ernst and Susanne. He reported that Susanne looked unwell and appeared too young to be Ernst’s daughter.

Here you have nosy neighbors in Downingtown who instead of maybe asking if  the child was hers, just assumed she was to old to have a daughter this age.  They thought the relationship was strange, did they see abuse, did they see bruises?   Do not get me wrong, I will be the first one to call the police if I see or know of abuse, but to assume is another ballgame.  A bunch of holier than thou nosy neighbors assuming. They helped to take this girls life.

School officials at several schools Susanne attended became concerned about Susanne’s frequent tardiness, poor attendance, and inability to separate from Ernstat the start of the school day. The days would often begin with a scene outside Susanne’s classroom during which Susanne would cry and scream and refuse to let go of her grandmother. On May 3, 1988, after another morning tantrum, officials at the East Ward School in Downingtown contacted CYS and requested immediate intervention. CYS believed Susanne’s attachment to Ernstwas sufficiently extreme to be unhealthy and filed a petition that same day seeking an adjudication of dependency and emergency custody of Susanne. After an immediate detention hearing, Judge Stively of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas found that a prima facie case of dependency had been presented, and ordered Susanne placed in a psychiatric institution for a complete evaluation.

Again untrained teachers and unknowing and uncaring, if they had any sense at the time maybe they would have sat down with Sylvia and her Granddaughter and talked to them before calling CYS.  So you see a teenager clinging to her Grandmother, well obviously you wouldn’t cling or not want to leave someone who abuses you.  Maybe she had other issues as many teens do, these teachers need to know the difference if there going to be in such a position to make such a call.  Teachers should know and be aware of many issues facing teens today, from drug abuse, depression, bullying, before making such a harsh decision, again no bruises, just calling CYS because the poor teen didn’t want to separate from her Grandmother, one who was taking care of her because her Parents weren’t.  Why and What information did Judge Stively have to make such a quick rash decision?

At a subsequent hearing on May 18, 1988, the parties stipulated to an adjudication of dependency, which resulted in temporary legal custody remaining with CYS. The stipulation provided that CYS’s goal was the reunification of the family and that Ernst could receive counseling and treatment at the institution at which Susanne was being treated.

CYS retained custody of Susanne for the next five years. During that time, Ernst and CYS waged an intense legal battle over Susanne’s dependency status and custody. They also developed an extremely contentious relationship. CYS caseworkers found Ernst to be uncooperative, antagonizing, and unwilling to acknowledge her parenting problems. They also complained that she frequently made negative comments about CYS and Susanne’s foster families during visits with Susanne. As CYS caseworkers became increasingly frustrated with Ernst, they sought and obtained restrictions on her visits with Susanne. Ultimately, with the approval of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, they changed CYS’s goal for Susanne from family reunification to long-term foster placement. Meanwhile, Susanne occupied eight different placements at various foster homes and institutions. Ultimately, her emotional and intellectual development deteriorated significantly.

Oh that’s got to be good for a teen troubled with depression who only wanted to be with her Grandmother who loved her and was taking care of her because her parents could not. 8 count them 8 different foster homes in 5 years? Something is seriously wrong with the Court System here!!!  Ultimately, her emotional and intellectual development deteriorated significantly.  Cys and Rita Borzillo should feel great about what they did to this depressed teenager.

Finally, in April 1993, a new judge assigned to review Susanne’s placement recognized that “[t]he adversarial air of the proceeding [concerning Susanne’s dependency] … at times … captured the focus of many of those involved in this case instead of focusing on Susanne.” Juvenile No. 83 CS 88, Order of April 26, 1993, Op. at 2. Concluding that “[w]e have come to the point where state intervention in Susanne’s life is now doing more harm than good,” the court ordered that physical custody of Susanne be returned to Ernst, with legal custody remaining with CYS. Ernst was granted legal custody on November 17, 1993.

5 long years Cys and Rita Borzillo should sleep well at nights for their witch hunt and vindictiveness. Rita, I hope your perfect, your life and children or grandchildren or perfect and I hope you can sleep at night knowing your a vindictive $%%^^ who would make a child suffer for your own personal gain.

Borzillo’s removal from Susanne’s case arose from an exchange she had with the court during a November 20, 1991 hearing before Judge Melody, who was then newly assigned to the case. During the hearing, but outside the presence of CYSor its attorney, Judge Melody spoke with Susanne about her desire to have an unmonitored weekend home visit with her grandmother. Upon learning that the court was considering granting a home visit, Borzillo returned to the courtroom to “object strenuously.” In the apparent belief that Judge Melody was on the verge of granting the home visit, Borzillo commented, “Your Honor, I find it interesting that you are making a decision without reading the file of this case.” App. at 2075a-76a. The following exchange ensued:

Rita Borzillo had it out for Sylvia Ernst and many other families during her tenor with Children and Youth Services, for her to be so upset at the thought of an unsupervised visit for one hour between a Grandmother and her Granddaughter speaks clearly about her spite and vindictive nature toward the Ernsts.  She clearly was not working in the best interest of the child, she was on a mission to hurt and out for blood in my opinion. Rita Borzillo, have any grandchildren, are they perfect, are you, are your kids, your pathetic, I do not know how someone like you sleeps at night, you probaly think you have the perfect life, but believe me, you don’t.

THE COURT: Ms. Borzillo, I observed the way you acted. You did not act as a professional attorney. You came in with an obvious bent and chip on your shoulder with your face … red as a beet, red as a tomato, mad, distraught, upset. You did not act as a responsible attorney, in my humble opinion. I do not think that you can possibly be objective with regard to this case and the attorney involved for CYS has to be objective and because you cannot be objective and because of what you demonstrated to me, you cannot help us with regard to this case, and by that I mean, you cannot help the Court and I don’t believe that you can help in the best interest of this child. So in the best interest of this child, you are going to be removed from this case and someone else is going to have to become involved in the case.

Judge Melody I applaud you, you saw what was wrong with Rita Borzillo in taking an honest look at and for the best interest of the child. 

This was a personal witch hunt in my opinion by Rita Borzillo, she put her own spite and wanting to win instead of the best interest of the child. The child/teenager was already depressed from what may have happened with her real parents, but the constant harassment and attacks by Cys and Borzillo led to Susannes Suicide. Susanne wanted so bad to go to Fla. for a trip with her Grandmother and when was denied she hung herself. Obviously she needed her Grandmother and the people who were supposed to protect her, helped to drive her to suicide.  We were talking with Sylvia Ernst and following her and many other cases, Susanne hung herself.  This instance happened in the late 1980s and 1990s, but do not think it’s still not happening today.  The Court and the Laws need to change and hold the State accountable for this type of witch hunt.  I attended at the time several hearings held by Rita Borzillo, let me tell you, she did nothing for the children, she read from a paper, made a 2 minute reccomendation for placement.  I wonder if CYS and Rita Borzillo made money off of the children the placed????

Rita, how does it feel to know you screwed so many innocent kids and messed with their lives in order to win your cases, or prove your point or just be vindictive????  You did this to my nephew too, and the entire Chester County Family Court gave you free reign to do it.  I hope your doing well, hope you have your family with you, since you were so intent on destroying everyone elses, God will never forgive you for what you did to the innocent kids….. Hope your going to church……

to read more go to www.chestercountypost.com for more and links to other sites.

Read Full Post »