http://www.thelizlibrary.org/bad-custody-evaluation/Laura-c-hohnecker.html
Martha
C. Jacobson Custody Evaluation
|
|
Brief background of case: Based on this specious and sadistic custody evaluation, which Father then distributed widely to third parties, such as the child's school, the Father then filed a series of repetitive "emergency motions" over the ensuing months claiming severe parental alienation, and all kinds of sick and disturbed behaviors by the child when she was with him (behaviors that occurred nowhere else). To back up his claims, the Father repeatedly called DCF and police when he had possession of the child, who (in the Father's custody only) was nonfunctional, crying, trembling, refusing to speak, and more. DCF as well as the Guardian ad Litem in the case, Juliette Lippman, either actually fell for this ruse or (more likely) pretended to, and in turn wrote up "findings" in their own "investigative reports" that supported the Father's PAS claims. These so-called findings in fact were based on no personal observations of anything that would tie the child's behaviors in the presence of the Father (which otherwise would look like some kind of abuse by the Father) to the Mother as causative agent; rather, their conclusions were based on Martha Jacobson's baseless speculations [note] in the custody evaluation report. In October 2011, at the beginning of a hearing on one of the Father's emergency motions, and based on DCF investigator and GAL testimony that in turn was based on Jacobson's custody evaluation, family court Judge Renee Goldenberg -- instead of holding an evidentiary hearing -- abruptly announced that she was sheltering the child in the custody of the state. Then, instead of placing the child into foster care, Judge Goldenberg circumvented the requirements of due process and Florida's child custody statutes by "placing" the ostensibly "sheltered" child with a "relative" -- the Father! Goldenberg ordered no contact by the Mother. Mother's counsel appealed. A favorable decision was handed down by the 4th DCA March 7, 2012. A remanded "shelter hearing" then was held in Palm Beach County juvenile court on April 3 and 5, 2012, resulting in the return of the child to her Mother. For six months until these decisions, the Mother was barred from all visitation and essentially all meaningful contact by the Father and his so-called helping professionals (contrary to even the dictates of dependency proceedings). The head of the child's post-"shelter" "treatment team", most responsible for this atrocity, who was given authority to "treat" the child, as well as to determine (deny) contact with the Mother, coincidentally happened to be Martha Jacobson's good friend Laura C. Hohnecker, Ph.D. During the six months in question, the formerly bright, happy, healthy straight-A second-grader apparently deteriorated or freaked out so badly that she was drugged with Prozac to get her to calm down and/or make her more compliant. (What child-centered therapy -- not.) Consider: Six months is a 1/8 portion of a 7-year-old child's cognizant lifetime. That's equivalent to SIX YEARS in the lifetime of a 50-year-old. Ever know a little kid to get homesick during a week away at camp? Here, six months. The child was abruptly wrenched from the parent who had lovingly raised her from birth. Like suffering a parental death. Permanent emotional damage. All because Daddy was resentful that the child loved Mommy more (could it possibly be his own parenting or personality?), and instead of offering sound advice, a bunch of professionals saw a profit-making opportunity. Evil. |
Update April 17, 2013:
Poliacoff review of Martha Jacobson's custody evaluation, September 6, 2011:
"This is just a fingers in the dyke momentary proceeding... I can
overrule the legal department of Department of Children and Families..."
|
The court's order (with redactions):
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 "The court listened carefully to the testimony of Drs. Jacobson and Hohnecker as well as Ms. Lippman and considered each of their demeanors while testifing. The undersigned has been a judge for thirteen years and a trial attorney for more than sixteen years before taking the bench. Over the last almost thirty years, the undersigned has often witnessed expert testimony being colored in favor of the party who is paying the expert. Never, however, has the court witnessed such a lack of objectivity, fueled by money, where a child's very life is literally at stake... The damage that may have been inflicted on this innocent young child may be irreversible." [Judge Donald W. Hafele is quite possibly one of Florida's best judges. We were blessed that he currently sits in Dependency Court.] |
|
IGNORAMUS ALERT !! The custody evaluation review -- too many lawyers, judges and psychs keep getting this wrong: A custody evaluation reviewer reviews the competency of a custody evaluation that already was conducted. He determines whether the psych tests and procedures used were valid and appropriate. He determines whether the analysis and conclusions of the custody evaluator comport with the data gathered by the evaluator. He assesses bias, inconsistencies, omissions, and adherence to psych regs and professional practice guidelines. He does NOT meet with the parties, gather new data, or do a new assessment. It is not a "second evaluation". See the Grossman case for example of an bad custody evaluation review. |
SITE INDEX
| LIZNOTES
MAIN PAGE | COLLECTIONS
| WOMENS
HISTORY LIBRARY | RESEARCH ROOMS
| THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES
| THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE
| PARENTING COORDINATION
| THE LIZ LIBRARY
ENTRANCE