This site covers Northern and Southern California.  However, when it comes to crimes against children,  between the absolute failure of San Diego police, the DA and family court, San Diego as media has profiled, is in a class all by itself.

October, 2009:  San Diego attorney Eric Fagan was arrested for murder in child custody case.

One silver lining. Steven Liss was not a member of the Elkins Task Force.  When family law attorney Steven Liss was arrested on July 20, 2009, in a murder-for-hire plot targeting his wife, (Liss was charged with four solitictation) it was discovered Liss, although practicing law for decades, had the blessings of the State Court,  to return to an active family law practice.

That said, former Los Colinas deputy Lowell Bruce does set a new standard for low, as does DA Bonnie Dumanis for rushing to deliver aid and comfort after he shot his wife in the face, in front of their child.  Given Judge Preckel's ruling in the FARTUNA KHEYRE matter, (D046830) it hardly seems likely he was prejudiced against the murderous deputy.

Unfortunately, as current Grand jury is top heavy with retired law enforcement and police personnel, the selected leader, Victoria Stubblefield - only the third woman selected in San Diego's history, seems a push at best.  Between four retired law enforcement types, (including a police chief), three, former military personnel, and two retired attorneys, the public would be wise not to expect much in the way of San Diego judges who routinely put children at risk, or those who operate outside the law.

San Diego judge, Judge William Howatt in an effort to convince one  litigant he studied the case, mentioned that he took the file over the weekend.  Howatt claimed to have made copies of eleven year old psych reports, (the new ones didn't suit his feelings).  But, hello:

Removing a file from the court is a felony.  

Except in San Diego.

That's just one demonstration of out-of-touch, San Diego judges.  Sadly,  when it comes to family court, the really out-of-touch are generally in charge.

After making a written request for  Judge Lorna Alksne be removed from the Elkins Task Force,  (I have no ill will towards her, it's just that she seems not motivated to clean up the court), I telephoned to request we lunch.  Judge Alksne readily told me she returned all calls, and seemed agreeable until, in an effort to be straightford,  mentioned I'd requested her removal from the Elkins Task Force..  Judge Alksne then said "no lunch" and suggested I write her a letter.  That letter is below.  So far, as of July 12, 2009, Judge Alknse has not responded either by letter or return call.  [Update:  Judge Alknse's response, post-marked July 27, 2009, arrived.  We are responding to the response.]

 

June 25, 2009

 

 

 

Supervising Judge - Family Court

Honorable Lorna A. Alksne

1555 Sixth Avenue

San Diego, CA

 

                                              RE:  Elkins Commission                               

Dear Judge Alksne;

 

Thank you for your call and I’m sorry you decided not to have lunch after I informed you I wrote to Chief Justice Ronald George requesting San Diego be dropped from the Elkins Commission.

 

The primary reason for the Elkins Commission, was because a Contra Costa judge refused to hear testimony in custody matter.  When it comes to testifying, common sense dictates the ‘best interest of the child” is served when the child impacted, is allowed to speak for him or herself.  Unfortunately, San Diego judges have instead, repeatedly chosen to work with fake therapists, and treat reports from “supervised visitation monitors” as a credible replacement for licensed therapists.  Including after one phony therapist in particular was exposed in a San Diego magazine cover story.  Simply put, judges listening to children best defines, the “best interests of the child.”

 

Also, while I appreciated your call, I admit to a fair amount of distress after learning you were not aware of San Diego’s sad history of family murders, beginning with Susan Eubanks. 

 

When Eric Eubanks warned the family court judge his estranged wife threatened their children, the judge responded by shooting the messenger.  She ordered Eric to “supervised visitation.”  Within a month Susan had murdered all four children.  Judicial reaction?  The judge immediately sealed the file for her protection.  I was surprised when you stated, “I can’t talk about pending litigation.”  Susan Eubanks is on death row.  Her family case died with her children in 1997.

 

In 2003, Evan Nash was killed by his father within twenty-four hours of being served with a restraining order, I believe as a direct result of the courts siding with Evan’s mother, and not allowing the father his constitutional right to parent.  My guess is continued litigation drove Mr. Nash over the edge, just as it did Betty Broderick.  But that’s a separate issue. 

 

Two basic problems remain: judges enjoying too cozy relationships with attorneys and so called advocates and the therapeutic industry; (San Diego judges continued ordering litigants to Hannah’s House after the State fined Susan Griffin for practicing therapy without a license.  This ensures the public pays her fines) and parents with no criminal history are being deprived their right to parent.  Not considered?  Intact families don’t parent perfectly.  Both Columbine shooters came from “intact” homes.

 

However, enter therapists and lobbyists from the Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and voila; SB 1031 which would have mandated every divorce involving children parents must first go through four hours worth of “educational counseling.” Although the bill died in committee, suddenly and with no criminal record, the right to parent became dependent on a therapist.  This is an area especially problematic, given the history of San Diego judges using therapists who graduated from Email University, including in the case of Susan Griffin after she was exposed in cover story articles in magazines as occurs daily in San Diego.

 

The opposite problem is also true.  Supervised visitation form FL-341(A) includes as a reason for “visitation” sexual abuse, physical violence, kidnapping and others.  But, family court judges should not be adjudicating criminal court cases.  The problem with this in San Diego is police response is quite often,  “take it to family court.”  Thus two branches of government utterly fail.

 

So my hope is the court might jettison efforts of lobbyists for the therapy industry, hand off criminal cases to the criminal courts, and squarely address the too cozy relationships with therapists – (real and imagined), and minor’s or other counsel.  Thus parents with a “bad” evaluation but no criminal record, would be free to live their life, including a constitutional right to parent free from governmental interference.   Pragmatically speaking, doing so would reduce a make-work, workload.

 

In the first instance, just as litigants were unaware Judge Thomas Ashworth owned the building in which litigants were unaware attorneys appearing before him rented space, the public is likewise unaware of the players in family court’s therapeutic industry.  Attorney Jeff Fritz learned in deposition Marc Gotbaum, a mediator for family court, falsified his educational background, (Gotbaum is another imagined therapist) Fritz reported this to Judge Randa Trapp during the hearing.  Trapp’s response was it wasn’t a matter “before the court at this time.”  I believe Breffni Barrett owns significant rental real estate for ‘therapists” and my guess is none of them offer reports counter to his recommendation if he’s on the other side of a case.

 

Considering the above, please consider the below recommendations to improve the courts.

 

1. Begin a bailiff training and education program: 

Although deputies provide court security for judges and court personnel, this doesn’t seem to apply to litigants.  Unfortunately all too often judges view bailiffs as their own private security force – and bailiffs are not drawing appropriate boundaries.  Training could emphasis Court security doesn’t mean violating the rights of the public for judicial whim - as was the case with Judge Lisa Guy, who had a woman not in the courtroom, arrested and jailed for five days, for contempt.  Why the bailiff didn’t refuse remains a mystery.

http://cjp.ca.gov/userfiles/file/Public_Admon/Guy-Schall_99.pdf

 

Lacking any training and common sense, the bailiff, i.e. law enforcement, instead became the instrument for violating the woman’s civil rights.  Had the bailiff been trained, he or she could have interceded when Judge Schall lost control resulting in one less disciplinary action from the Commission on Judicial Performance.

 

2. Address judicial impairment:

The July-August 2006, issue of Judicature Magazine was devoted to addressing resources for judges in distress.   A review of various actions by the Commission on Judicial Performance suggests San Diego might benefit from attention in this area.  I suggest using CLE approved intervention specialist, Mick Meagher, who has thirty odd years in the field, http://mick-intervention.blogspot.com/ and as a support group, the “Other Bar” an organization to devoted to assisting those in the legal field who suffer from alcohol and/or drug addiction.

 

3. Request Judge Susan Huguenor resign from the Children, Youth and Families Commission.  Her husband is a father’s rights attorney with a long association with POPS.  Also, some board member are themselves problematic.  http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/04/1n4first523276-deeper-conflicts-emerge-first-5-fun/?uniontrib

Another problem is some so called “non-profits” are minus salary caps for their Executive Directors.  To wit:  Sharon Lawrence and her Voices for Children.  In 1999, Lawrence’s salary was 72k.  As of her last 990 from 2007, it was 121k.  Sharon Lawerence sits on the Children, Youth and Families Commission.  I believe it’s time she step aside.

 

4. Enforce the “Meet and Confer” requirement before hearings.

Currently, this requirement exists on paper, only.  Enforcing the meet and confer requirement might include a written report of the meetings, and how long they lasted.  Thus litigation might be reduced.

 

5. A new broom sweeps clean.  Fire Wesley Mason, the current head of FCS and conduct an audit of FCS personnel.  I have Wesley Mason on tape stuttering through an attempt to recover after promising to interview a child in one case, but didn’t.  Caught red-handed, Mason eventually finally weakly offered,  “I changed my mind.”  As this was a case involving police documented child abuse, there’s simply no reason to have someone like that heading FCS.  I also discovered Marc Gotbaum, Family Court mediator who claimed to be a psychologist wasn’t.  (In deposition Gotbaum said he made the claim because of his ego).  This was reported to Judge Randa Trapp during the proceedings, and ignored.

 

6. Forego assigning minor’s counsel.  Currently there are two schools of thought regarding Minor’s counsel.  Attorneys in the minority act on behalf of the child’s expressed wishes.  Attorneys in the majority do not, and cause the most damage by insisting, (no formal psychological background training), they can better   “interpret” the best interests of the child.  Sadly, in most cases, the very children who were under the impression the attorney would speak for them, learn instead the opposite occurs.  Also, the most damaging, longest litigated cases involve minor’s counsel sides with the more financially solvent parent, who is then better able to brainwash the child against the other parent.  In San Diego abuse of this type remains fairly routine.

 

7. As it is not uncommon for the abuser to be awarded custody, judges speaking to children directly eliminates this problem, including children of tender years.  If four year olds have the presence of mind to dial 9-1-1 in emergencies, they can speak for themselves without the needless expense of an “evaluator.”   I can’t emphasis enough judges and children benefit from direct interaction.  A child wants to be heard, and being heard is good for their self-esteem.   An additional benefit being it would reduce instances of parental alienation.  Last, doing so just might jolt parents to consider the needs of the children, first.

 

8. Video tape the proceedings.  Currently judges control the appeals process in part, by acting as bill collectors for individual court reporters.  Individuals cannot purchase a transcript of a court hearing unless and until they have first paid for a longer, prior hearing.  The court should not involve itself in the transcription business of the court reporter.  Both Tennessee and Nevada conduct hearings on video, which significantly reduces court costs.

 

9. Access to Justice?  The not-terribly-subtle forms of discrimination exhibited by judges is growing.  The primary example being those representing themselves lose longer amounts of time from work because judges routinely allow represented litigants to be heard before pro pers.  When their cases are heard last the public and other attorneys remain unaware when rights are violated.  Naturally these are the very litigants who can’t appeal as some judges, notably Judge William Howatt, former supervising judge of Family Court, and Judge Ashworth before him, view as part of their judicial  “duty’ to assist court reporters boost their income.

 

 

 While the above won’t completely erase the lack of faith the public has in government in general and family court in particular; it will go a long way to convince the public the court is serious about restoring public confidence.

 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

 

The history of San Diego includes no less than four Bar Associations funding the Dan Broderick Award for Integrity after Betty Broderick, who was driven financially and emotionally, over-the-edge, killed her former "rainmaker" husband and his new bride (and previously extra-marital girlfriend), Linda.

Some years later the Probate Court ruled Betty's accusations were correct.   Dan had been looting their community property.

However, this being San Diego,  the Dan Broderick Award, honoring a man who looted community property,  continues each year, funded by various bar associations. 

In going for the gold, Dan got what he wanted.  Dan Broderick's name is now lettered in gold on a downtown courthouse wall.  Betty's walls remain prison walls.   The California Lawyer article on the Broderick case quoted many sources saying Betty had been driven insane by the piling on of the downtown San Diego legal community.  We agree.  No one considered Betty Broderick was not stable enough to deal with defeat.
 

In the area of "no accountability" the hope is Justice George tasks the Elkins Task Force with an explanation why San Diego judges continue year-after-year,  using the very same "experts" and so-called mental health "professionals" after media and the State of California has previously exposed as not possessing the educational degrees long claimed.

ABC News outs Stephen Doyne.

Prior to the Stephen Doyne debacle, Family Court Judge Lisa Foster ended the six year saga of Joyce Murphy.

Prior to that however, Joyce had been subjected to "supervised visitation" and threats from her therapist, and the abject failure of Lee Lawless, as Guardian Ad Litem, to rescue this child.
 
The police, and others charged with protecting the public, utterly and completely, failed.  It took the parents of two little girls - not the police, to restore sanity to Joyce's life.


But we also want to add when Joyce first contacted her church, her priest would only agree with her privately.  Eventually the church told Joyce they wouldn't respond to her pleas, without a lawyer.

Shortly after Joyce's story broke, another news organization profiled the same type of case, overseen by Judge Alksne, who is content to let the case drag on, much like the Murphy case.  Judge Alksne did not appreciate the press taking an interest in the Dumas case.

The San Diego Bench Repeatedly Demonstrates San Diego is simply not a safe place to raise a child             



Beginning in 2001, San Diego Magazine outed Hannah's House supervised visitation monitor, Susan Griffin.  Missing from the North County Times article detailing the State fining Griffin for practicing therapy without a license?

That at no time did San Diego judges stop ordering family court litigants to Griffin's facility, Hannah's House - so the public is essentially, paying her fines. 

This means the court continues to rely on supervised visitation reports from someone who misrepresented her educational background, and whose facility to protect children, the County deemed both unsafe and unsanitary.


Thus, San Diego's Ice Building best signifies official reaction to the plight of children in San Diego family court.

This includes the State Bar for not addressing the moral turpitude of San Diego attorney Richard Candor towards his own children.

Later, a San Diego judge allowed Candor to have the opinion in which Candor admitted to molesting all five of his daughters be de-published.

Still think it's a good idea for San Diego to be on the Elkins Commission?

As far as the highly trilled, Family Justice Center?   They have their own credibility problems  and scarier still, officials not having a problems with a faith-based organization operating as a quasi-governmental agency. 

If that wasn't quite enough, the Family Justice Center trills it's  a "One stop shop."   The reality it's the "one stop shop" aspect that translates into a denial of due process.

Also, for all it's wonder, San Diego isn't big on nature.




Come to vacation - but if you want your kids to be safe, remember:  aside from police departments who flatly refuse to act in family crimes, and judges who ignore problems with the so-called mental health experts, remember San Diego is simply not a safe place for children; and that San Diego sends its judges to prison in pairs, after their bribery convictions.

So if you value your family, you just might want to live some place else.

Especially after reading of San Diego ties to the largest child porn ring, ever.


One last point.  In a move that begs the question, why bother hiring attorneys and other "experts" - in 2001, the Court of Appeal ruled San Diego Judges didn't have to read pleadings before ruling.  This move was duly noted in the San Francisco Recorder in an article titled, "Another Bad Day In Family Court."

There was no press about the decision in San Diego.

Those in the know were not surprised.