Please contribute to change via the Elkins Task Force which, if the task force will demonstrate credibility, will signal the court is serious about providing relief for family court litigants.

And, as the San Diego Grand Jury report from 1992, demonstrates, nothing has been done to address the problem of social workers lying.

In fact, Public Officials have made things worse.

The art of the deal as it turns out, is a "non-profit."

How it works is Executive Directors of various so-called "Non-Profits" continue raking it in, courtesy of Funding opportunities via the County Board of Supervisors.

If the Board likes you, you're in. If you've angled yourself on the committee for "Children, Youth and Families" you're *really* in.

Consider committee member Sharon Lawrence, who additionally "serves" as the Executive Director of Voices for Children. Apparently this non-profit doesn't have a salary cap. Lawrence's salary began at 72k. In 2007, it was at 121k and seemingly, climbing.

Needless funding also continues to be thrown towards law enforcement, via The Sheriff's Sweet Rides.

However, the biggest problem of Family Court Services is Wesley Mason. We have Wesley Mason on tape, in an attempt to explain a lie. The problem? Mason was promoted *after* officials were made aware of Mason's lying.

And on a case-by-case basis, consider Dr. Bruce Haynes, Chief of San Diego County Emergency Services. He's top dog for "First, Do No Harm."

Except Haynes backs his hiring of a former deputy as an EMT, after the deputy killed a child in anger.EMTs with violent past do well in San Diego

As Dr Haynes revealed, he plans to continue the practice of hiring people with a violent, criminal past. The hiring of Dr. Haynes was seen as a good thing in 2006.

Sometimes get caught breaking the law to protect their own. Sometimes stupidly so, as it seems to appear in the case of Karen Cabrera. Seems Karen left a very wide paper trail.

Think San Diego's Family Justice Center is doing a good job? As this report from Channel 10 demonstrates, it might be time to Rethink that idea.

Although for the past twenty-five years San Diego city officials can't get a library built, what's important to remember is the focal point for San Diego big shots remains pleasure no matter the cost. Behind this is the unseen hand of former city attorney Casey Gwinn, working hand-in-hand with former mayor, Dick Murphy, a retired San Diego Superior Court Judge.

Notice how Casey Gwinn's name keeps popping up...especially now that Gwinn has moved on to his private, non-profit domestic violence center.

Most agree, the beginning of the destruction of families, occurs from "visitation" centers. It only gets worse, especially if Hannah's Houseis involved.

You may remember Hannah's House a Casey Gwinn favorite.

The AAML, a good organization; went bad in San Diego in spectacular fashion. First, it let Jan Stocks in.

Second, when Stocks favorite scam visitation agency Real Solutions, of which she is a board member; (aka: Hannah's House) was suspended in January of 2005 until mid-March; Stocks turned mute....advising neither litigants, nor judges the corporation of the suspension. For more on San Diego outing this agency, click, H E R E.

Letter from The Grand Jury. pleading for help

The Actual, Grand Jury Report

Then there's the matter of "Visitation" centers altogether. Ka-ching.

Griffin's scam visitation center 'Real Solutions' first busted in San Diego Magazine's March issue, Real Solutions - NOT! and again in, November, while Casey Gwinn went on his merry way. Get Real! barely slowed Griffin down. Ever the quick change artist, Griffin quickly created a new company identity, with, "A Better Solution." Picking up steam, Griffin morphed into another identity, now; HANNAH's HOUSE. Due diligence anyone?

Hannah's House , unwittingly providing the chillingly somber answer to the question; Will San Diego's Children Ever be safe?

When Donations ceased for Griffin's outfit after the San Diego Magazine article came out, Griffin's solution was to hire a PR firm and create a new company name.

And so the problems, are now entrenched in the City. Relevant Penal and Family Codes are below.

San Diego is probably Most famous for the players just changing seats. See Colleen Rudy and then Colleen Murphy Then ask yourself if you believe these guys about much of anything.

In a hurry? Click here, for Twenty-Four San Diego Attorneys we recommend avoiding. But know this: Between the Family Justice Center "community partnering" with a woman the DA should be prosecuting for Fraud, there is no better Exhibit San Diego Family courts are essentially, criminal courts, than Vista Judge and former prosecutor Jeff Bostwick.

Judge Jeffrey Bostwick, was about to sentence Beth Brown to "no contact" with her thirteen year old daughter for the next five years. Beth was no criminal, she was merely a victim of exactly one 'bad' evaluation.

When Beth became upset after hearing Judge Bostwick's intention, Judge Bostwick, unable to bear the result of his about to be announced order, ordered the bailiff to remove her.

Beth and the Bailiff, (a woman), interacted with the result being Beth was beaten by the bailiff, and arrested for felony assault on a "peace" officer. However Beth's injuries were such that she didn't go to jail; she went to the hospital.

The Brown Case, is just one example of family court cases morphing to criminal courts.

Brown has a Public Defender, having depleted all her resources in Family Court. The PD is Sherry Stone. 760.945-4005. Case number is CN 183253. The case continues although the Public Defender's office has demonstrated little in the way of success or interest, in presenting an adequate defense for mothers or fathers, as these types of cases increase.

History shows San Diego kids catch no break of any kind. For a short, legislative history click here, for Money Talks.

What follows is a case study of Parental Alientation.

We tried to make appointments to meet with the City Manager, but absolutely no one was interested. Since that time a legal secretary working at the Family Justice Center sued the city over her treatment while working there.

But there's a history in ignoring the needs of families.

Judges Peterson and Milliken didn't respond to five telephone calls, questioning why Gwinn allowed Susan Griffin, currently repaying the County of San Diego, $69,000.00 for putting children at risk, and misleading officials about her educational background; to participate in Gwinn's, Family Justice Center.

It appears very likely, all judges will continue ducking responsibility to attend to the needs San Diego's children. The question isn't, will the Commission on Judicial Performance, do the same? By now the reader should know.

As the San Diego Union Tribune Shows, when it's in San Diego, The Star of the show is Money.

The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; May 29, 2000; Alex Roth;

With their two Porsches, Ferrari and house with an ocean view, Dr. Stanley and Linda Perkins weren't bashful about spending money -- and the divorcing couple spent a bundle on a vicious custody fight.

The fight was particularly vicious considering it wasn't even about a child. It was about Gigi, the couple's dog.

The battle lasted two years, costing the childless couple thousands on expenses ranging from legal fees to a "canine bonding" study designed to help decide who was the better master for their beloved pointer-greyhound mix.

In March, the case culminated in a trial in San Diego Superior Court, complete with a dramatic day-in-the-life-of-Gigi video that one of the lawyers believes helped clinch the case for her client.

The Perkins divorce case -- a story of puppy love in its most literal, extravagant sense -- spotlights an issue that might affect any couple sharing a pet. That issue is pet litigation.

Who bothers to consider which partner might get to keep Fluffy the cat or Sparky the dog in the event of a romantic split?

Think the question through, divorce lawyers recommend -- because many estranged spouses are surprisingly willing to take each other to court over issues ranging from vet bills to visitation rights.

It is an area of the law that isn't fully developed. Under the state's civil code, pets are treated like a sofa or dining table -- pieces of property to be awarded to one party or the other.

And when trying to resolve the issue, feuding ex-lovers have been known to engage in battles almost as venomous as any child-custody dispute.

San Diego lawyer Richard Prantil handled a case in which the two parties signed a contract calling for one to get the dog during the week, the other on the weekend.

"They didn't have kids, and this was their kid," he said.

Then there was the case in which a divorcing couple was fighting over custody of the family shih tzu. The list of trial exhibits included a giant oil painting of the dog that San Diego lawyer Jean Skripek's client wheeled into the courtroom on a dolly.

"Those people had a lot of money," Skripek said.

`We want the cat'

When it comes to their beloved animals, warring spouses have been known to commit astonishing acts of emotional cruelty. Vista attorney Cheryl Tomac recalled one particularly bitter battle between her client and her client's ex-husband over the family cat.

One night the man called his ex-wife and told her that the cat had meowed in a way that sounded like the ex-wife's name. As a result, he informed her, he'd taken the cat into the garage and hanged it.

"We want the cat,"

Tomac screamed at the opposing lawyer over the telephone, "and it better be alive when we get it."

The cat, it turned out, was unharmed.

San Francisco Bay Area attorney Leonard Weiler, a board member of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, said most pet litigation is resolved before a judge gets involved. A trial over a pet, he said, is almost unheard of.

Indeed, few lawyers can recall a case as long or bitter as the fight over the Perkins' dog. The case is now the stuff of folklore on the local family court circuit -- and most of the stories "have not been kind," said Stanley Perkins' lawyer, Maura Byrne.

The battle for Gigi

Stanley Perkins, 44, is a Pacific Beach anesthesiologist. His ex- wife, Linda, 38, who now goes by her maiden name of Kaplan, runs a business distributing technical manuals

The story traces back to the beginning of their marriage in 1994, when, ominously enough, one of Stanley Perkins' two dogs killed one of his fiancee's cats a few days before the wedding.

The couple immediately gave the dog away and Stanley's second dog died a year later. The husband decided he wanted another dog.

"I told Linda that Stan was a `dog person' and had always been so," Stanley Perkins' sister said in a court declaration. "I remember telling her that `a boy and his dog' applied to no one more than it did to Stan."

The couple acquired Gigi at an animal shelter in 1996. Two years later the couple filed for divorce -- and custody of Gigi soon became a major issue.

Stanley Perkins said he should keep Gigi because the dog had been a gift from his wife to replace his other dogs. Not so, countered his wife, who insisted the dog had been a joint acquisition. "I was Gigi's `Mommy,' " she argued in a court declaration. As proof she submitted a birthday card addressed to "a special `Mom,' " and signed "Love, Gigi."

(The card -- which offered thanks because "you brush my coat and pet my head and let me in and out . . . " -- actually was written by Stanley Perkins.)

`Natural enemies'

In May 1998, Superior Court Judge Thomas Ashworth granted temporary custody of Gigi to Perkins, with Kaplan getting weekend visitations. He also told them to feel free to consult any experts who might help him make a final ruling. They eventually took him up on the offer.

Meanwhile, the legal file began to pile up in court. Kaplan insisted Gigi belonged with her because she worked out of her apartment and could give the dog more attention.

But Perkins predicted dire consequences if his estranged wife got custody of Gigi. The problem: Kaplan's 11-year-old cat, Muffin. As dog and cat, he asserted, the two animals were "natural enemies."

"Gigi and Muffin do not play together and they never have," he stated. "Further, Muffin does not like Gigi nosing her."

By September 1998 no permanent custody arrangement had been resolved, and the Perkinses continued to argue about which of them would provide the better home. It was time, they decided, to consult a professional.

Enter Dr. A. Lynn Wilson, animal behavior expert.

Bringing in the experts

Wilson, who offers advice on raising pets, said the case was the first and only time she'd been hired to perform a "bonding study" in a custody dispute over an animal.

Nonetheless, Wilson gamely visited both parties in an effort to decide which one had a closer relationship with the dog and would make a better master.

According to Wilson's report, during the interview with the wife, Gigi slept and played with a chew toy. Wilson's report noted the frequency of Gigi's walks (2-3 times a day), Gigi's eating habits (Pro-Plan dry food) and sleeping arrangements (dog bed in wife's room).

During Wilson's interview with the husband, he demonstrated a game where Gigi "playfully and gently pulls on his hand with her mouth."

Wilson concluded that both were loving masters. She further pronounced Gigi "a well-adjusted dog." Wilson recommended that Kaplan get primary custody of Gigi because she worked at home and her neighborhood was safer for pets.

A minor controversy later erupted when it surfaced that Perkins had hired another animal behaviorist, Dr. Dennis Fetko, to prepare for his interview with Wilson. Fetko, who goes by the moniker "Dr. Dog," didn't return a phone call seeking comment.

Based on Wilson's report, the judge granted the wife temporary custody of Gigi, with the husband getting weekend visitations.

Adding the costs

Meanwhile, the divorce litigation dragged on, with the couple battling over a variety of non-Gigi issues, most of them related to finances.

By March 2000, Kaplan had spent $146,000 in legal fees on her divorce, according to court records. Through the years, her lawyer's firm had done more than 20 research projects and spoken to her on the phone nearly 400 times. It's unclear what percentage was related to Gigi.

As time went by, the couple decided that joint custody wasn't in Gigi's best interest. The whole arrangement seemed to be taking a psychological toll on the dog.

"Gigi was starting to get a little skittish about things," Perkins said. "She wasn't her normal happy self."

They decided that one of them should get permanent, exclusive custody. It would take a trial in front of Judge Ashworth to decide which one that should be.

The divorce trial lasted three days in March, and roughly half the time was spent on the issue of Gigi, according to Kaplan's lawyer, Sandra Morris.

A day in the life.

Morris is an experienced family-law attorney. And she decided to use a bit of legal theater that had worked in several child-custody cases: A day-in-the-life video.

Kaplan shot the piece with a hand-held video camera, showing Gigi sleeping under her desk, walking in the park, playing on the beach. The video lasted about five minutes.

The judge, who wouldn't comment on the case, awarded Kaplan permanent custody

If however, you and your once beloved, agree to renew your commitment to your children, and your own emotional and mental health, in transitioning in a manner to lessen the necessary, negative impact to your child, yourself and your finances, there is hope.

Should you be able to come to terms satisfying all, it is possible to draft a Stipulation of an agreement and merely petition the court to make the agreement you drafted, the court's order.

The net result of this, including proper role modeling, is one needn't worry about getting out of the family law system, because one elected not to enter it.*

Failing that; bookmark these pages and check back often. Family law horror stories by county, will be available as soon as verified.

* Our recommendations are not for everyone, merely those who choose to change their relationships safely and in a way to protect their children and finances. Not all people are interested in concluding a relationship this way. For people who choose to deliberately injure others, this site is not useful.

For those who sincerely need the services of an attorney, we will recommend but a few. They are excellent and their fees necessary and commensurate with the necessary skills needed.

Again, we suggest attorneys when dealing with those inclined to hide assets or harm their own children.

~ Flash ~ Do Not Expect coverage in San Diego Union Tribune.

(It also explains how a monthly magazine could "scoop" a daily.)

Consider; Bill Horn. When Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, Horn declined to read the report from H&HS.

Consider Yvonne Young, head of CPS. Nada in attending to reports of Parental Alienation. Nada in other recently settled lawsuits.

Consider Representative Pam Slater Prices' now sixteen (and counting), unreturned calls. She's talking to someone though. Readers may remember when the Union Tribune reporting Slater-Price had the highest number of cell phone calls, without reimbursing the county.

Does the average San Diegan deserve this type of representation? Absolutely. Voter apathy deserves what voters currently have.

Although, kids certainly deserve better.

The public demonstrates its values when voting for those decline to work to make children safe. Remember that when voting.

We likewise recommend those individuals who have a need for their representatives to represent, to keep showing up with requests per Family Code 7507, as the law provides, until they do.

County Board of Supervisors

Greg Cox: (619)531.5511
Diane Jacob: (619)531.5522
Pam Slater Price: (619)531-5533
Ron Roberts: (619)531.5544
Bill Horn: (619)531-5555

Call ahead for an appointment.

Sometimes Police Departments need to be educated too.

Penal Code Section 278 might also be of some interest.

Penal Code Section 278:

278. Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

278.5. (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power.
(c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.

278.6. (a) At the sentencing hearing following a conviction for a violation of Section 278 or 278.5, or both, the court shall consider any relevant factors and circumstances in aggravation, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) The child was exposed to a substantial risk of physical injury or illness.
(2) The defendant inflicted or threatened to inflict physical harm on a parent or lawful custodian of the child or on the child at the time of or during the abduction.
(3) The defendant harmed or abandoned the child during the abduction.
(4) The child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed outside the United States.
(5) The child has not been returned to the lawful custodian.
(6) The defendant previously abducted or threatened to abduct the child.
(7) The defendant substantially altered the appearance or the name of the child.
(8) The defendant denied the child appropriate education during the abduction.
9) The length of the abduction.
10) The age of the child.
(b) At the sentencing hearing following a conviction for a violation of Section 278 or 278.5, or both, the court shall consider any relevant factors and circumstances in mitigation, including, but not limited to, both of the following:
(1) The defendant returned the child unharmed and prior to arrestor issuance of a warrant for arrest, whichever is first.
(2) The defendant provided information and assistance leading to the child's safe return.
(c) In addition to any other penalties provided for a violation of Section 278 or 278.5, a court shall order the defendant to pay restitution to the district attorney for any costs incurred in locating and returning the child as provided in Section 3134 of the Family Code, and to the victim for those expenses and costs reasonably incurred by, or on behalf of, the victim in locating and recovering the child. An award made pursuant to this section shall constitute a final judgment and shall be enforceable as such.

278.7. (a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
(b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
"Emotional harm" includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child.
(c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following:
(1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action. The report shall include the name of the person, the current address and telephone number of the child and the person, and the reasons the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed.
(2) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, commence a custody proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (Section 1738A, Title 28, United States Code) or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Part 3(commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the Family Code).
(3) Inform the district attorney's office of any change of addressor telephone number of the person and the child.
(d) For the purposes of this article, a reasonable time within which to make a report to the district attorney's office is at least10 days and a reasonable time to commence a custody proceeding is at least 30 days. This section shall not preclude a person from making a report to the district attorney's office or commencing a custody proceeding earlier than those specified times.
(e) The address and telephone number of the person and the child provided pursuant to this section shall remain confidential unless released pursuant to state law or by a court order that contains appropriate safeguards to ensure the safety of the person and the child.

279. A violation of Section 278 or 278.5 by a person who was not a resident of, or present in, this state at the time of the alleged offense is punishable in this state, whether the intent to commit the offense is formed within or outside of this state, if any of the following apply: (a) The child was a resident of, or present in, this state at the time the child was taken, enticed away, kept, withheld, or concealed.
(b) The child thereafter is found in this state.
(c) A lawful custodian or a person with a right to visitation is a resident of this state at the time the child was taken, enticedaway, kept, withheld, or concealed.

279.1. The offenses enumerated in Sections 278 and 278.5 are continuous in nature, and continue for as long as the minor child is concealed or detained.

279.5. When a person is arrested for an alleged violation of Section 278 or 278.5, the court, in setting bail, shall take into consideration whether the child has been returned to the lawful custodian, and if not, shall consider whether there is an increased risk that the child may not be returned, or the defendant may flee the jurisdiction, or, by flight or concealment, evade the authority of the court.

279.6. (a) A law enforcement officer may take a child into protective custody under any of the following circumstances:
(1) It reasonably appears to the officer that a person is likely to conceal the child, flee the jurisdiction with the child, or, by flight or concealment, evade the authority of the court.
(2) There is no lawful custodian available to take custody of the child.
(3) There are conflicting custody orders or conflicting claims to custody and the parties cannot agree which party should take custody of the child. (4) The child is an abducted child.
(b) When a law enforcement officer takes a child into protective custody pursuant to this section, the officer shall do one of the following:
(1) Release the child to the lawful custodian of the child, unless it reasonably appears that the release would cause the child to be endangered, abducted, or removed from the jurisdiction.
(2) Obtain an emergency protective order pursuant to Part 3(commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code ordering placement of the child with an interim custodian who agrees in writing to accept interim custody.
(3) Release the child to the social services agency responsible for arranging shelter or foster care.
(4) Return the child as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Upon the arrest of a person for a violation of Section 278 or278.5, a law enforcement officer shall take possession of an abducted child who is found in the company of, or under the control of, the arrested person and deliver the child as directed in subdivision (b).
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, when a person is arrested for an alleged violation of Section 278 or 278.5, the court shall, at the time of the arraignment or thereafter, order that the child shall be returned to the lawful custodian by or on a specific date, or that the person show cause on that date why the child has not been returned as ordered. If conflicting custodial orders exist within this state, or between this state and a foreign state, the court shall set a hearing within five court days to determine which court has jurisdiction under the laws of this state and determine which state has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a custodial order under the laws of this state, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 3400) of Division 8 of the Family Code), or federal law, if applicable. At the conclusion of the hearing, or if the child has not been returned as ordered by the court at the time of arraignment, the court shall enter an order as to which custody order is valid and is to be enforced. If the child has not been returned at the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall set a date within a reasonable time by which the child shall be returned to the lawful custodian, and order the defendant to comply by this date, or to show cause on that date why he or she has not returned the child as directed. The court shall only enforce its order, or any subsequent orders for the return of the child, under subdivision (a) of Section 1219 of the Code of Civil Procedure, toensure that the child is promptly placed with the lawful custodian. An order adverse to either the prosecution or defense is reviewableby a writ of mandate or prohibition addressed to the appropriate court.

280. Every person who willfully causes or permits the removal or concealment of any child in violation of Section 8713, 8803, or 8910of the Family Code shall be punished as follows:
a) By imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year if the child is concealed within the county in which the adoption proceeding is pending or in which the child has been placed for adoption, or is removed from that county to a place within this state.
(b) By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, if the child is removed from that county to a place outside of this state.

Sometimes Police Departments need to be educated too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Navigation: