NEW BOOK: The Worst Interests of the Child

The Worst Interests of the Child, new best seller on Amazon …

Click on image to read excerpts and to buy Keith Harmon Snow’s new book, The Worst Interests of the Child.

Sacrificing Mothers and Children

Max's drawing from: Conscience Being Alliance

Max’s drawing from: Conscience Being Alliance

From Conscience Being Alliance:

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN
Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

The below-referenced chart lists over 75 family court cases in Connecticut where children’s safety and well being has been jeopardized by unethical and even illegal activities of court professionals who routinely target, extort and exploit Connecticut mothers.  In many of these cases, where mothers reported a father’s violent crimes against her family, the mother eventually lost custody to the wealthier father when he — the real perpetrator — accused her of alienation.  Violent fathers almost always won sole or joint custody of victims, and in some cases these fathers even went on to become mass murderers. 

Insurance companies and the State are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals who are routinely rewarded handsomely for submitting false claims that misdiagnose fit and loving mothers and their children with mental disorders they do not have; they are also providing diagnosis and treatment plans that are considered illegitimate by the AMA and APA.  Meanwhile, the same professionals justify their billing by deliberately recommending to judges the placement of children in the care of violent fathers, even rapists, and by shielding these offenders from criminal prosecution that might otherwise keep children safe.  The effect is that the whole family becomes damaged and in need of treatment, and are subsequently required to obtain ongoing court affiliated medical and legal professional services.

Continue reading … 



“Social Networking” or Conflicts of Interest?

by Julia Fletcher

A few weeks ago, I wondered why someone in Connecticut would send a link to Dr. Horowitz’s list of  “Facebook friends” to me. Dr. Horowitz looks like a very nice man. Why does it matter who he publicly lists as “Facebook friends”?

Here’s why it matters: 

Dr. Horowitz is “Facebook friends” with several attorneys and custody evaluators in Connecticut – like Bonnie Robson, who is a family law attorney.  Attorney Bonnie Robson and Dr. Horowitz  are business partners, working together in a business called, “The Collaborative Divorce Team of Connecticut” 

This is from their website:

Divorce Should Not Be a Battle!

The traditional divorce process is an adversarial system, often resulting in expensive, drawn out battles over property settlements, custody, alimony and myriad other issues. The chance of a couple emerging from this process amicably is remote at best, and the effect on children is often dramatic.

We all know that divorce should not be a battle. So why is it?

Cases involving child abuse, spousal abuse and domestic violence clearly don’t belong in an adversarial family court system. Why are they there?

It would be okay if  Dr. Horowitz and Attorney Robson were working together in a business venture to mediate divorce cases in which all parties agree to their involvement. However, when “Facebook friends” work “collaboratively” with each other without the agreement of all parties in a case, in an adversarial court setting, that’s not “collaboration”. It‘s “collusion”.

Attorney Robson’s husband, Dr. Kenneth Robson was the custody evaluator in this case . Dr. Horowitz is the “parenting coach” in that same case.   

Does Dr. Horowitz’s list of Facebook friends show harmless “social networking” or does it sound an alarm to litigants, taxpayers  and legislators that conflicts of interest are running Connecticut family courts?

Norm Pattis, an attorney in Connecticut wrote  in his blog :

… There is a vast infrastructure of experts, therapists, counselors, social workers, court staff and lawyers in the state, all of whom know one another, and all of whom march beneath the banner of “best interests of the child.” When conflict arises in a divorce about what is best for the kids, there are programs, protocols and resources to throw at the warring parties …

He continues:

… What I see in the cases in which I get involved is a regime that simply promotes and extends the conflict by other, and expensive means…

Attorney Pattis calls the family court system in Connecticut a “regime”. Others call it a “cottage industry”. Maybe Dr. Horowitz is joking when he lists “Angry Birds” as his other Activities and Interests on his Facebook profile page. If that was his intent, someone should probably remind him that ruined lives aren’t funny.

So, what could be better than “a vast infrastructure of experts, therapists, counselors, social workers, court staff and lawyers” with “programs, protocol and resources to throw at the warring parties”?

Here’s what Attorney Pattis thinks: 

… Juries bring community values and common sense to a courtroom.  Why don’t we trust them with decisions in divorce and custody? I worry that the community of experts, judges and lawyers become inbred when they deal with one another month by month in these heartbreaking cases. Therapists really don’t know best.

Inbred. That’s another way to describe it.

It looks like Dr. Horowitz lists friends as his “Facebook friends”. It looks like he lists his family members as his “Facebook friends”. He also lists what looks like part of that “vast infrastructure of experts, therapists, counselors, social workers, court staff and lawyers”  Attorney Pattis wrote about. 

Who allowed this to happen in the Connecticut family court system and where’s the FBI?

Editor’s note: With all due respect for the privacy of Dr. Horowitz’s public list of Facebook friends, we hesitate to post the screenshot of his public page here. We have done so because the authorities in Connecticut have purposely or inadvertently allowed this open collusion. We hope this post will encourage Connecticut taxpayers to demand an investigation. 

No “French Whore” in the DSM-IV

by Julia Fletcher

When Rush Limbaugh called a young woman a “slut” and a “prostitute”, those words didn’t sit well.

In fact, as soon as Mr. Limbaugh unleashed those words, advertisers began to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars from his radio show. 

Dr. Kenneth Robson isn’t a radio talk-show host.

He’s a custody evaluator in Connecticut family courts.

Connecticut parents and taxpayers pay Dr. Robson to evaluate mothers, fathers and children in family court cases – usually cases involving some form of child abuse.  The cases Dr. Robson reviews are serious cases. Some are extremely disturbing. Some involve unspeakable abuse. 

In one of those cases involving allegations of unspeakable abuse, the mother noticed and reported what she believed to be signs and symptoms of purposeful, horrific child abuse. Others witnessed those signs and symptoms. Experts in the field of child abuse were called to investigate. The signs and syptoms of abuse were documented.

Dr. Robson investigated and called the young mother “a French whore“. 

Could “French whore” be one of those clinical terms that doesn’t sound clinical?

According the the American Psychatric Association’s website,

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States. It is intended to be applicable in a wide array of contexts and used by clinicians and researchers of many different orientations (e.g., biological, psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, family/systems). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) has been designed for use across clinical settings (inpatient, outpatient, partial hospital, consultation-liaison, clinic, private practice, and primary care), with community populations. It can be used by a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors. It is also a necessary tool for collecting and communicating accurate public health statistics.

I typed the terms “DSM-IV” and “French whore” into the Google search bar and was quite surprised to find that the term “French whore” has indeed been used in a clinical setting.

In the book,  The Physician as Patient: A Clinical Handbook for Mental Health Professionals, Michael Meyers, M.D. and Glen Gabbard, M.D. describe a case in which a 50-year-old primary care practitioner used that same term. In the chapter called, “Personality Disorders, Personality Traits and the Disruptive Physician” they describe the “ego-syntonic personality disorder” which would describe Dr. Robson’s mental state – not the mental state of the mother. 

Could Dr. Robson be mentally ill? 

It would not be the first time a mentally ill health care provider was allowed to run rampant in our family courts. (See Seattle Times Special Report: Twisted Ethics of an Expert Witness)

 If Dr. Robson is not mentally ill, and if  Dr. Robson’s use of the term “French whore” was not an attempt to diagnose the young mother, then he could have been using the term “French whore” to degrade her. To humiliate her. To discredit her.

So, what if a heart surgeon were to refer to a patient as “a French whore”?  Could a congressional representative get away with calling a constituent “a French whore”? 

How about a radio talk show host?

Perhaps the most important question is this:  Which Connecticut legislators will take another look at Dr. Eli Newberger’s testimony in that case in Connecticut and pull the taxpayer dollars from Dr. Robson’s show?

Here’s part of Dr. Newberger’s testimony:

Click on the photo above for full text.