Provided on November 14, 2010
(Ms. Goodwin is scheduled to appear before the Dallas County Commissioners Court this Tuesday Morning)
_____________________________________________________
Written By Lisa Goodwin
Lisa Goodwin
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214) 240.1091
Preface
Below is a detailed summary of what the Dallas Family and Criminal
Court has done to the life of a child. Currently, the child is
essentially being held hostage by the Dallas Family Court and the
State of Texas. The courts realize that if the child were to be
allowed to have therapy, or be with the mother,
that the child would more than likely talk about what has happened to
her and also talk about what is currently happening to her. I look
forward to discussing with you the details of fraud and misconduct by
the court appointed professionals and also the school and school
professionals involving the child. The child was sexually abused by
her father and the criminal trial was in June 2007. I am just now
learning about the widespread fraud regarding misuse of government
programs for custody and related family dispute litigation.
Father’s Rights Leaders
The courts work with Father's Rights Leaders and essentially run a
litigation racketeering scheme funded by the federal government. There
is extensive documentation which proves most of this government and
organized fraud. Many women's child custody cases in Dallas and all
Page 2
over have been rigged. The judges set up a secret system to rig cases
for men.
Father's rights groups coach men on stalking, harassment and sabotage
tactics. Judge Tena Callahan in the 302 District Court in this case
volunteers for Fathers for Equal Rights. Men and their co-conspiring
court professionals are running custody mills to deliberately fuel
high-conflict litigation to justify billings to HHS-Texas Equal Access
to Justice Foundation (TEAJF)-Access and Visitation Grant. The A/V
grant through the Legal Aid of Northwest Texas must be used to
increase contact between noncustodial parents and their children. The
program was intended to resolve problems with non-litigious counseling
and mediation and not for paying for custody evaluators and father's
attorneys.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is committed to Texas families and
children through a grant to Legal Aid of Northwest Texas. He states
the program helps the parent without custody, usually the father, to
take an active role in raising the child.
Legal aid of Northwest Texas is meant to be used to provide legal aid
to people who cannot afford to pay legal fees. On the surface this
appears to be a wonderful program to many people. State governments
provide matching funds to these grants going to their states, in
addition to the public donations solicited by lawyers. It is being
proposed to Congress to lift restrictions on how lawyers may use
these funds. The government oversight program has 50 pages on their
website as to how difficult it is to oversee how these funds are being
used.
Widespread Fraud in Fund Use
We are just now becoming aware of the widespread fraud in the use of
these funds. The Richard Gardner (Pro-Pedophile) Parental Alienation
Syndrome Scam was the beginning of these funds being used for the
Father's Rights movement, using symposiums to instruct lawyers,
judges, psychologists and social workers on how to use the legal
system to scam the public (tax payers) and parents in child custody
Page 3
issues. For many years lawyers and judges used the Parental
Alienation Syndrome (PAS) against mothers trying to protect their
children from abusive fathers. PAS has been proven to be bogus science
and in courts that are not corrupt, any case that tries to use it is
immediately thrown out.
The state of Texas is a recipient of the largest number of dollars
from these funds. The city of Dallas, Texas is known as one of the hot
spots for misuse of these funds. Lawyers and judges continue to use
these PAS tactics and continually place children in harms way by
removing the child from its mother for no reason and placing it with
the abusive father. They do not allow any of the proven, documented
facts to be presented in court. Their mission is to place the child
with the molester/abuser at any cost. (They will have proven success
in giving the father access to the child which means that they have
met their goal in documentation to HHS/Legal Aid of Northwest Texas).
Legal Aid of Northwest Texas is a supporter of the Father's Rights
movement.
Jonathan Vickery, a President/CEO of Legal Aid of Northwest Texas
has been investigated for fraud in misrepresenting the numbers of
cases served. Because of the lack of transparency and restrictions in
the use of these funds, which he uses to defend himself, he was not
prosecuted.I am sending you information on a case in which he is involved from the very beginning. He can now be found on Utube soliciting donations
for these precious (in his words) funds.
Jonathon Vickery was the Magistrate Judge of Dallas County, Texas on
the arrest of the child's father for INDECENCY W/CHILD SEXUAL CONTACT.
This was the initial charge in this case. The charge, just before the
trial, was changed to AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSUALT/CHILD which makes a
conviction more difficult. The case was also changed from judge to
jury trial.
This case summary is just one example of many similar cases. The same
language, as was used in PAS cases, is used almost verbatim in this
case as with other similar cases. This is considered a "high
conflict" case and court officials did not want it resolved, even
after both father and mother wanted it resolved. This kept the money
Page 4
flowing into the pockets of the lawyers, judges, psychologists, and
the social worker for two years or more, just on this case. Now they
are planning a trial beginning next month seeking TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS of the mother. This trial will put even more money
into their pockets.
It is an outrage that grants that are supposedly meant to protect
children are being used to legally abuse and put children in harm's
way. This is a perfect example of how many government funded aid
programs CREATE CORRUPTION AND ABUSE. Court officials are under the
assumption that because they have gotten away with this fraud and
abuse for so long, they will never be found out. They know that those
being abused by the system are wise to what they are doing, but almost
"flaunt" the attitude of, "Yes, we know you do not agree with our
biased and unjust decisions, but we are the ones in power and there is
nothing you can do about it."
Something has to be done to stop these program misuses. Several judges
have been forced to resign over gross misuse of these programs to
enable custody switches to fathers accused of abuse and child support
delinquencies.
Fathers rights activists do have a lot to be scared about. Their
scheme is unwinding and some of them will be prosecuted for what they
have been doing for many years.
Alleged Criminal Pedophile Facilitator Conspirators
The following family court professionals in Dallas have taken part in
a scheme that will have lasting psychological effects on this sweet
child:
1-Jonathan Vickery, Magistrate/Judge at the time of the father's
arrest who signed arraignment.
2-Jason Hermus, DA
3-Rachel Clark, DA
4-Amy Derrick, DA
5-Alexandria Doyle, Psychologist for the child
6-Nancy Stark, Social Worker/Supervisor for Visitation
Page 5
7-Judge Tena Callahan, 302 District Court
8-Patricia Rochelle, Amicus Attorney for the child
9-Susan Rankin, ex-judge and law partner of Patty Rochelle
10-Laura Shockley, Attorney for the father
11-Sally Bybee, Lee Motley, Michael Goodman-Attorneys for the child's mother
12-Jeffrey Seigel, Forensic Psychologist
13-Mark Otis, Psychologist
The following is a letter from the grandmother of the child in this
particular case, which gives a good, overall, undetailed summary of what has taken place:
“The mother suffered years of physical and emotional abuse from the
childs father before she divorced him in 2005. After the divorce I
was with my granddaughter nearly every day while my daughter was at
work as a Speech Pathologist. We both worked very hard to work with
the father on the joint custody schedule. Sometimes it was not very
easy because many times the father would abruptly change the schedule,
but we worked together with him to always make things go smoothly.
Exchanges always went well.
After the initial separation my granddaughter began crying out and
screaming in the night, "I didn't do anything wrong," and sobbing that
her pee-pee was hurting. She was five years old at the time. It
broke my heart to witness her suffering. Later sexual abuse was
documented by the Advocacy Center/CPS, the child's pediatrician,
Children's Medical Center, police reports and the District Attorneys.
Information was given to Crime Victim Compensation by the child's
psychologist in which CVC reimbursed the crime. My daughter and I did
not know any of the sordid details of the abuse to my granddaughter
and were devastated when we later read the documentation of the
details of the abuse.The father was indicted for Indecency w/child
sexual contact, later changed to criminal sexual assault on the child.
After the father was not allowed to have contact with with my
granddaughter she no longer had urinary tract infections, and the
screaming out, the reliving in her dreams of the abuse had stopped.
Page 6
She became a happy thriving child during the three years of protection
from her abuser. After the trial and his acquital, Judge Collie still
granted my granddaughter protection.
After Judge Tena Callahan took the case and my granddaughter was
removed from her mother for no reason, I was allowed to see my
granddaughter only four times during the last two years of the
supervised visits between my granddaughter and her mother. The social
worker, Nancy Stark, is the supervisor of these visitations for which
she gets paid 100 dollars per hour, just from the mother. My daughter
now has to pay nearly a thousand dollars a month child support to the
father.
Patty Rochelle, the amicus attorney, has stated that I interfered with
the visitation between my granddaughter and the father, which I did
not. When his supervised visits began, my granddaughter,
understandably, was afraid of him because of the past abuse. She was
eight years old at the time. She was extremely frightened of the
visitation that was to be at his house. The exchange was to have taken
place at the school, St. John's Episcopal School. After the
visitation, I was to pick her up at the school. While waiting for my
grandaughter to be brought back to the school I was reading in my car,
which is what I usually did while waiting for my grandaughter to
finish many of her different activities. I assumed that Nancy Stark,
the supervisor, the father and my grandaughter had already gone to his
house for the visitation.
While waiting there I received a call from my granddaughter. She was
crying and wanted me to come to the school. I was concerned as to why
she was still at the school and was allowed to call me. I immediately
went into the school and as I approached the principal's office, I
could hear her crying. While in the lobby I looked through the window
to see what was happening. My granddaughter was wedged between Nancy
and her father, and Nancy was shaking her finger at my granddaugter
and yelling loudly at her. Later we learned about the threat therapy
that they use on the children in these cases. It appears that this
was the beginning of that. Just as I saw this, my granddaughter's teacher,
Jane Mayo, jerked me around and shoved me back instead of explaining
Page 7
to me why Julia was allowed to call me. Evidently, she did not want me to witness what was happening to my granddaughter.
I now understand why my granddaughter was allowed to call me, as well
as her mother. My daughter, who works about a block from the school,
just as concerned as I, quickly arrived at the school just as my
granddaughter's teacher was manhandling me. She immediately called
911, sat down and remained in the lobby. While waiting in the lobby,
my granddaughter's teacher told my daughter she was doing the right
thing by "going through the courts." There still was no explanation
as to why my granddaughter was allowed to call us. We now know that
faith-based organizations, used as exchange sites, are also a part of
the fraud.
I now understand why my granddaughter was allowed to call us. My
daughter was also accused of interfering with visitation, which she
did not. She now understands why they let my granddaughter call us.
This was the only way they could remotely find a so-called reason to
take my granddaughter from her. The Legal Aid officials train fathers
and court officials in harrasment, bullying and set-ups in order to
accomplish their goals. Our tax dollars are going to support these
kinds of actions.
The father stated to me shortly after the pending divorce that he did
not want the divorce. I realize that he was very angry because he
could no longer control and abuse my daughter, so he retaliated by
hurting his daughter, which he knew would cause my daughter more pain
than anything.
How, in this day of supposed enlightenment, can anything so horrendous
go on in our family courts? What kind of educaiton are our family
court judges getting and why? What kind of instruction are the amicus
attorneys and court appointed psychologists getting and why? I was a
teacher of young children for 42 years and I think I may have been
capable of understanding and learning during this time, but this is something that I cannot comprehend...........”
End of Letter
A Tearful Grandma
Page 8
The Lisa Goodwin Time-line Case History
All facts listed below have supporting documentation proving their veracity.
1. The mother of the child in this case began divorce proceedings
in April 2004 due to abuse by the father. The child who is the subject
in this case was 5 years old at the time. She is now 11 years old.
Soon after the divorce the mother gets a booklet from the child's
father, “Putting Kids First,” put out by the father's rights group.
2. The divorce became final January 2005. Custody arrangement was
joint managing conservator.
3. On May 12, 2005 the court ordered a protective order due to
suspected sexual abuse to the child by her father. CPS began their
investigation. The court did not allow the father to see his daughter
until the trial in June 2007.
4. On August 25, 2005 the father was arrested for indecency with a child.
5. In October 2005 True Bill Indictment against the father.
Sheldon Goldstein, the mother's attorney at the the time said the DA
never intended to prosecute the father. In November, 2005 Texas Vine
reported 2 cases: 1) F0555446K 2)F05564460—no court scheduling yet.
After the father bonded out of jail they gave the mother a case #
05068222. In March 2009 the mother found out that there was another
case that was still open. On June 22, 2009 more than a year after the
trial, the mother suddenly got a message from VINE that this case was
being closed. The trial was over. The trial case was closed a year
ago. In July 2006, before the trial, the mother told Goldstein she
could no longer pay him, and that the DA would be taking over. During
that time Jason Hermus, DA, and Ron Goronson, the father's criminal
attorney signed a form of continuance data for it to be TBJ (switched
from Judge to Jury) On this form dated July 2006 the charge had been
changed to Aggravated Sexual Assault, 1st degree felony, which makes a
conviction much more difficult. The mother found the form for the
original charge that was previously signed by Jason Hermus on 9/2/05
for indecency with a child, 2nd degree felony. Soon after July, the
Page 9
new DA Rachel Clark takes over.
6. No Contact was ordered as condition of bond in case of
involving a child victim.
7. Dr. Jenny Clifford, the child's pediatrician, reported the
suspected sexual abuse to CPS in May, 2005 due to repeated UTIs and
complaints of pee pee hurting, beginning after the divorce when the
child began to spend time with her father in a separate household.
8. The child was then referred to Children's Medical Center in
Dallas, TX in which Dr. Cox reported from his physical exam
“Asymmetrical Opening” and hymen septum with separate vaginal opening. The doctor reports the patient does recall genital pain.
9. From May 2005 until after the criminal trial the professionals
(CPS) determined that it was in the child's best interest that no
supervised visitation take place. CPS reports “the child does not want
to see her father and is afraid he will touch her again. The emotional
trauma is evident by the child's expression of sadness and questions
about why a father would treat a child like this.” Ongoing therapy by
private psychologist Alexandria Doyle was recommended.
10. From September 2005 until the criminal trial in June 2007 the
child saw Alexandria Doyle, PHD, for therapy.
11. On April 3, 2007 Dr. Doyle sends her documentation regarding
the sex abuse to the child by her father to Crime Victims Compensation
and they state that they find upon the available evidence that the
child's treatment is related to the criminally injurious conduct. We
were reimbursed by CVC due to the abuse to the child by her father.
12. During the child's course of therapy with Dr. Doyle, Dr. Doyle
had stated numerous times in front of the child that her father was a
psychopath, crazy, etc...and the mother and child needed a guard dog
to protect them.
Page 10
13. Jason Hermus, the DA, interviewed the child numerous times and
determined the child had been sexually abused by her father. Each time
the child met with Jason Hermus she seemed calm and happy. Soon before
the trial, he passed the case to Rachel Clark.
14. After the child met with the new DA Rachel Clark, the child
was very upset and cried. Her sadness lasted for days. Rachel required
the child to testify at trial even though she was only 7 years old.
15. The Criminal trial took place in June 2007 with DA Rachel
Clark. The verdict was the father "Not Guilty." Rachel Clark told the
mother after the trial that there is physical evidence the child was
sexually abused and to continue to keep the child protected. Felicia
Wasson , the head in the DA's office also told me that they are 100%
sure the father sexually abused his daughter. She apologized for the
fathers “not guilty” verdict. The court reporter at the trial, Jackie
Galindo, began to talk to the mother about the trial when the mother
started to order the trial transcripts from her. The court reporter
said the mother had grounds for holding the DA responsible for
insufficient representation, it was evident Rachel Clark's
representation was questionable.
16. After the trial Rachel Clark advised the mother to take the
child back to Dr. Doyle.
17. In September, 2007 the child begins therapy with Dr. Doyle
again after the trial. Dr. Doyle begins to tell the mother and the
grandmother about children who are horribly abused, but have to live
with their abuser anyway due to the courts decision. The mother is
also wanting to send the child to a less expensive public school, but
Dr. Doyle advises the mom to continue to send the child to the private
school, St. Johns Episcopal School. This is very difficult for the
mother to afford due to the cost of therapy and litigation. Around
this time the child cried to the mother during church one Sunday,
sharing with the mother that Dr. Doyle had talked to her about not
living with her mom. She was very sad. Soon after that there was a
writ of attachment written and signed on October 26, 2007 stating that
Dr. Doyle wants to turn the child over to the care of the Carsons
(Claus Fleckenstein's friends). Dr. Doyle states this is a serious
Page 11
case of "parental alienation."
18. On September 28, 2007 a protective order is granted after the
criminal trial by Judge Collie (the associate Judge) against the
father. At this same hearing Dr. Alexandria Doyle is caught lying
under oath at the hearing. There is documented proof of the lie
involving the advocacy center. In April 2007, 2 months before the
trial, CVC called the mother the day she went to court for the child
support to be reduced. They stated they had received Dr, Doyles notes
and they would be reimbursing for the the sex abuse to the child.
19. From June, 2007 (after the trial) until July 9, 2008 the
father had limited supervised contact with his daughter.
20. On October 31, 2007 Dr. Doyle resigns as the child's
therapist. Dr. Doyle got caught lying on the stand regarding the
abuse.
21. On December 13, 2007 Patty Rochelle becomes the child's Amicus
attorney. The mother tries numerous times to speak to Patty Rochelle
without success.
22. The child continues to live a carefree life free of abuse with
her mother from May 2005 until March 2008.
23. On March 14, 2008 there is a hearing with a new team. Patty
Rochelle sits by the abuser father's side in the courtroom. Judge
Callahan takes over for associate Judge Collie. Judge Callahan stated
during this hearing, “This court has been vested with the power not
over the case but over your body, his body and the child's body. I
don't take that lightly.” Judge Callahan is a fathers rights advocate.
Up until this point it has been almost 3 years and the courts had
continued to keep Julia and I protected from the abuse. Suddenly
ex-judge Susan Rankin (who is Amicus Patty Rochelle's law partner)
(whose child also goes to St. Johns) takes the child out of school and
orders are that any person in possession of the child, turn her over
to the custody of Susan Rankin. The mother was able to later pick the
child up at the court house, the child was very scared and
traumatized. The mother and child returned home to their normal
life....but somehow those events did not seem right and they were
afraid.
Page 12
24. On March 12, 2008 Patty Rochelle the Amicus attorney orders a
psychological evaluation of the parties. Per the mother's attorney,
the Amicus Attorney Patty Rochelle stated no decisions would be made
regarding the child until the Psychological evaluation was finished by
Dr. Jeffrey Siegel, PHD.
25. At that March 14th hearing, Patty Rochelle orders the
supervised visitation exchange with the father and child to occur at
the child's School, St. Johns Episcopal School. She appoints Nancy
Stark to be the supervisor of the visits between the child and her
father. Nancy Stark is a social worker.
26. On March 26, 2008 a supervised visitation exchange was court
ordered by Patty Rochelle to take place at St. Johns School. The child
was to have a visit with her father at his house. The child was
resistant to the visit. The child,from the school, called her mother
crying and asked the mother to come and help her. The child also
called the grandmother. During the exchange the child endured
“man-handling” by her teacher, Ms. Mayo, and scratches by Nancy Stark
, the visitation supervisor. When the mother witnessed her mother
being “man-handled” (pushed/shoved) by Ms. Mayo, the child's teacher,
the mother called the police. The police recommended to the mother to
get a protective order against all the people involved. During the
time the mother was waiting for her child to finish the visitation
with her father, Ms. Mayo states to the mother, You're doing the right
thing "going through the courts" for help. My attorney at the time
also stated to me, “If you take on Patty Rochelle, you are also taking
on St. Johns”
27. Upon leaving the visit at the school, the child held her arms
out and showed the mother and grandmother the scratch marks on her
arms. The child said the supervisor Nancy Stark scratched her. The
child also spoke about Ms. Mayo grabbing her by the backpack and
jerking her.
28.The mother, grandmother and child immediately went to the
police after the child began to talk about what had happened at the
school and showed them the scratch marks on her arms. A police report
was filed. Pictures were taken. There were repeated attempts to obtain
the police report. On April 15, 2008 the mother's attorney at the time
Page 13
received a copy of a letter to the Attorney General from the City of
Dallas stating the DPD believes the requested information may be
protected from public disclosure. They protect information that is
highly intimate or embarrassing, such that its release would be highly
objectionable to a reasonable person. The letter also states
information regarding alleged or suspected abuse or neglect of a child
is confidential.
29. On March 28, 2008 at around 11:30 a.m. the mother's attorney
calls the mother to inform her of an emergency hearing.The mother
immediately goes to the courthouse. The events that transpired at that
hearing will have lasting traumatic effects to the mother and child
for the rest of their lives. (The mother has a copy of the entire
hearing transcript) What happened that day is very disturbing to all
who read this transcript.
30. Despite the mother's numerous attempts to speak with Amicus
Patty Rochelle soon after she became the Amicus, regarding the child,
the Amicus refused to speak to the mother or read pertinent
information given to her by both the mother AND her attorney.
31. Patty Rochelle at this hearing recommends the child to be
taken away from her mother without having ever met with the mother,
which is in the transcript. In a recent hearing to recuse Rochelle on
November 30, 2009 the Amicus said on the stand that she had met with
the mother. The mother later proved the Amicus was lying at her
recusal hearing, but the motion to recuse the Amicus was denied by
Judge Callahan. It was proven at that hearing, under the Texas Family
Code Section 107.003, that the powers and duties of the Amicus had
been neglected and violated by Patty Rochelle. There were numerous
documents to confirm this, but Judge Callahan denied her recusal
anyway.
32. Patty Rochelle demanded the child to live with the Carson
family without having ever met with the Carsons. She stated Susan
Rankin had met with the Carsons. The Carsons and Susan Rankin both
have a child at St. Johns Episcopal school. It is documented in the
police report when the father was arrested for sexually abusing his
Page 14
daughter, that some of the abuse to the child took place at the
Carson's lake house. At the hearing Julia is removed from her mother
and is ordered to live with the Carsons. Later, just before the July
9th hearing, Nancy Stark says to the mother she does not think the
child will ever get over the trauma she experienced when suddenly
removed from the mother. Nancy said the child cried for a week.
Despite the child telling Patty Rochelle repeatedly she wanted to be
with her mom and she did not want to live with her father (per Nancy
Stark), Patty told her, "No, she needed to be with her father."
33. It is court ordered for the mother to pay for supervised
visitation 3 hours a week. Nancy Stark is the supervisor. The child is
often unavailable for visits, and Nancy often has to cancel. The
mother pays her 100 dollars per hour.
34. The mother's attorney Sally Bybee makes numerous motions to
reverse this ruling by Judge Callahan with no success. The mother
pleads for the child to get counseling with no success to this day.
Judge Callahan signs an order for the child to get counseling but
somehow the parties involved make sure it doesn't happen.The mother
continues to fight for her daughter to see a good, unbiased therapist.
35. On June 26 2008 Patty Rochelle files a motion for the child to
live with her father unsupervised, although there was no report from
Dr. Siegel, the forensic psychologist.
36. After the child was taken away from the mother the child
eventually went to see Dr. Siegel. The mother's attorney was preparing
for the hearing on July 9, 2008 in which she was anticipating Dr.
Siegel's report to be finished.The mother has copies of numerous
emails in which her attorney is pleading with Siegel to finish his
report. He says in an email on June 27, 2008, “I have not seen the
child so I have no opinions related to this yet.”
37. The child has had no therapy and there was not a psychologist
to make any recommendation at the July 9 hearing. The mother was told
by Nancy Stark that if she wanted this case to move along faster she
needed to let her child live with her father for a while. The mother's
attorney Sally Bybee withdrew from the case just before the hearing.
Page 15
38. Even though Patty Rochelle is not a psychologist, and it has
not been recommended by Dr. Siegel, she asks Judge Callahan to order
the child to live with her father. The Judge agrees for the child to
live with her father, who went to trial for sexually abusing his
daughter. They continue to deny this child therapy.
39. After the long awaited Psychological evaluation was finished
on December 8, 2008, the mother began to try and work towards a
peaceful resolution with the child's father and sent him an email. All
psychologist's reports written by the professionals basically state
the child should have a relationship with both parents. They say trust
is needed by both mother and father. The father emailed the mother in
December stating “what do you propose that needs to be done to settle
this?” Soon after that Nancy Stark calls the mother and advises her to
not communicate with the father any more. The mother continues to try
and connect with the father and Patty Rochelle for a peaceful
resolution with no success. Laura Shockley will not allow the child to
have phone contact with the mother unless Nancy Stark is there to
monitor the calls.The mother has to pay to talk to her daughter. The
mother also has been paying child support to the child's father since
October 2009 under a temporary order. COURT OFFICIALS DO NOT WANT
THIS CASE (high conflict) RESOLVED.
40. The mother's attorney and the mother have made numerous
attempts at mediation. At one point the mother's attorney said, " We
will have mediation but Patty or Nancy will not be involved." The
code states the Amicus has to be present for all legal proceedings
involving the child. Laura Shockley continues to delay mediation and
following through with a proposal for the child to have unsupervised
time with the mother. Shockley states that the father will not agree
to the child being unsupervised with the mother unless Dr. Doyle is
involved in the case. Dr. Doyle refuses to be involved in the case.
She knows things do not look good for her.
The child's mother had managed to keep her child free from
experiencing or knowing about the ongoing litigation. Suddenly her
child was tortiously thrown into the litigation by Patty Rochelle's
reckless and malicious conduct and motions that continue to this date,
which is in total disregard for the rights and interests of the child
.
Page 16
We ask your humble assistance and advice in how we might best traverse
a legal system in which I know not how to proceed. We firmly
believe that when evil is brought to light it will be dissolved. We
pray for the speedy reunion of the child with its mother. The fact
that a pedophile or a physically abusive father be awarded custody of
the very child he is victimizing, by a family court system which bends
to side with whomever can allow them to receive the most money, is
beyond belief of all decent people everywhere, but this is exactly
what has happened.
Let us make sure this doesn't happen to any child in the city of
Dallas ever again. Let us expose this travesty to the people of Dallas
and the State of Texas. May truth and love prevail. May all children
everywhere forced to live with an abusive parent by a corrupt court
ruling at the hands of money-thirsty lawyers or judge, be freed from
harm's way once and for all.
Lisa Goodwin
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214) 240.1091
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar