IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF FATHER: How Welfare Pays Family Court

To Continue Patriarchal Control

PENNSYLVANIA

Ludwig v. Stepien

A CASE STUDY OF SYSTEMATIC COURT/HHS FATHERHOOD

FRAUDULENT CUSTODY CASE

Elizabeth and Kathleen Stepien:

I finally decided to contact you. I am so sorry!!! Please know I love you and I will never blame you for what happened. I did not know what Jackie, the Judge & Dr. Ring planned – to take us away from each other. I tried everything to stop it but they are very bad people they do not care how much they hurt children and mothers by lying.

I want you to read what they wrote to get you away from me. I am giving you four pages of the Court papers that were used, #a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h on page 4 and a-g on page 1 & 2. If you want you can write me back – you know who will pass this letter to me.

You may want to keep this in your locker so you don’t get yelled at.

I gave you something from Courageous Kids – you are not the only children this happened too!!! These are bad people. We are not in California but I have been working in Pennsylvania and on March 3, I will tell people about this.

If you write me, you may want to say how you feel about what happened and how you are living now.

I could go to Court and ask for supervised visits but they do not let you talk or hug and they lie and drag you into Court and to people like Dr. Ring. I did not want you to have to go to Court or to only visit me with people watching and making up stories.

What they do to children is called Threat Therapy. They tell Moms and kids that no matter what Daddy does he is always right and if you don’t like it you will not get to see each other or go to jail.

You could let me know if you want me to try to do something. Maybe I could get you a cell phone or you could email my friend.

Let me know if you want me to do something. Or how you feel, I can share it with people who may be able to help.

Love, Mom

Your whole family loves and misses you!

The Department of Health and Human Services has created incentives for Courts to award custody to abusers under “Fatherhood” programs. Access/Visitation and TANF funds are given directly to family court to pay mental health “experts” trained to profit from prolonged custody litigation by purposely denying abuse and blaming the victim. Court administrators, judges, lawyers, counselors, mediators, and court “experts” are members of trade associations trained to force conciliation, counseling, therapy, co-parenting, and promote junk science claims of borderline personality disorder (instead of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and Parental Alienation Syndrome (instead of protection from abuse). AFCC’s Task Force report on how to be a Parenting Coordinator reveals a lack of knowledge about abusive control, narcissistic behavior, and sociopaths. Parenting Coordination is an extension of litigation and a violation of due process. Parenting Coordinators can be called counselors, mediators, or educators and they receive HHS payments for promoting Fatherhood.

This case study documents how a known abuser is permitted to use the court to obtain control. This case uses excerpts of the court record to show SYSTEMMATIC failure to protect survivors, failure to correct or acknowledge a false report and denial of due process.

This case study proves the Court protects counselors who receive HHS funds over children’s health. Pennsylvania received $99.5million in stimulus funds for OSCE programs. Stimulus money will fund a State-wide increase of the business of unethical mental health practitioners determining children’s lives

When a false, unethical report is the sole determinant of custody using the Fatherhood model of preference for increasing Daddy’s access through counselors, the Court blames the “loser” for reporting the unethical counselor.

“We reject Mother’s contention that she has never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues surrounding Dr. Ring’s evaluation since he has never been subject to cross-examination. The trial court’s ruling on March 27, 2006, which did not require Dr. Ring to testify, was a direct result of Mother filing a complaint against him [seven counts identified – see Rule to Show Cause below] with the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office [in fact, the ethical complaint is filed with the State Department Bureau of Licenses]. Mother’s action has consequences to which she is bound. As such, we conclude Mother’s claimsare without merit.” The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 815 MDA 2009

The children’s Mother filed a Petition In Accordance With International Commission On Human Rights, #P1279-08, on October 23, 2008 because HHS Fatherhood programs resulted in a proven unfair trial. The excerpts show how BerksCounty set-up a trial to give custody to Father, an abuser, by using the false, unethical report of the Fatherhood counselor by denying all due process to Mother.

  1. Dr. Timothy Ring, in his appointed capacity as custody evaluator, submitted his false report to Judge Keller on March 27, 2006 in the custody trial of Ludwig v. Stepien, for the sole benefit of Father. Dr. Ring is listed as a witness for Father. Dr. Ring is referred to as an expert for Father. Dr. Ring’s report was underlined only in favor of Father, therefore it is tampered evidence. Dr. Ring’s report is identified as “Defendant’s Exhibit 1.” Therefore, Dr. Ring was appointed by BerksCounty Court of Common Pleas to submit a custody evaluation for Father. This constitutes a serious violation of civil liberties of Mother. See Exhibit 4, transcript of 3/27/06 excerpts with arrows denoting collusion.
  1. Dr. Ring REFUSED Plaintiff cross-examination on 3/27/06. Judge Keller acquiesced. See transcript.
  1. Dr. Ring REFUSED Plaintiff witness of his intern Sandhya Sheperd. Judge Keller acquiesced. See transcript.
  1. Judge Keller denied witness integral to Mother’s defense, a violation of due process and equal protection. See order denying witness of school employees (collateral witnesses), Mother’s answer, Judge’s trial statements. Note, school employees were NOT included in Dr. Ring’s evaluation. Mother worked and volunteered in the School District. Employees contradicted claims in Dr. Ring’s report. Also see 3/27/06 transcript included in 302 MDA 2007.
  1. Judge Keller denied EVERY exhibit of Mother on 3/27/06. Exhibits were proof that the custody evaluation was fictitious and that Father was abusive. Judge Keller purposely denied due process and equal protection in order to manufacture a false record omitting abuse.
  1. Judge Keller denied the report of Dr. Susan Atkins, Clinical Psychologist, because it contradicted the fictitious custody evaluation. See 3/27/06 Transcript and Dr. Atkins report submitted as an Exhibit in Federal Record and 302 MDA 2007.
  1. Judge Keller ignored the witness of Dr. Susan Atkins because it contradicted the fictitious evaluation of Dr. Ring, including that Mother suffered from abuse and that Dr. Ring’s diagnosis was NOT a DSM classification. See 3/27/06 transcript and Exhibit 5, Custody Memo of Law, Dr. Atkins testimony.

Judith Wallerstein, is renowned for her study of the emotional outcome of divorce on children. Early in her work, Ms. Wallerstein recognized the importance of Fathers. At that time, she was heralded by the Fatherhood movement. However, as her work progressed, Ms. Wallerstein, recognized negative effects of patriarchal abuse. For championing the needs of children, she became denounced by the Fatherhood Movement (see CRC newsletter).

Elizabeth Stepien is “The Overburdened Child,” as identified by Ms. Wallerstein in 2001.

“The second category of overburdened children is that special group who are burdened by responsibility for a troubled, needy or depressed parent and who have been cast by that parent into the psychological role that the parent requires. The intensity of the parental need for the child and the regressive dependence on the child that can develop at this time represents one of the important findings from the author’s work. It would be facile (simplistic, superficial) and in the author’s judgment, misleading, to suggest that the child taken on the role of the parent or for professionals to conceptualize these relationships primarily as role reversals. These interactions are complex and unfamiliar and merit careful examination. In these cases, there are many variations in the role that the overburdened child plays at the time of separation and during the years that follow. The child or the adolescent may serve the parent as arbiter, protector, advisor, parent, sibling, comrade in arms against the other parent or against the world, confidante, lover or concubine. Or the child may serve as a key figure who wards off the parent’s depression or ego disintegration. **

Children who are likely to be selected for these demanding roles are sometimes more sensitive, more vulnerable, more pitying, more worried about the adult, and more frightened than are children in other divorced families. Their greater sense of vulnerability make it more likely that they will yield to the parents wishes, threats, or blandishments (flattery). Nor is it unusual for the child to be called upon to maintain the psychological functioning of the parent by assuming one or more of these roles.”

Father’s abuse and need to use the children to satisfy his emotional failings was identified by Dr. Ring. Dr. Ring blames the victim (Doreen) for the abuse (conflict) and blames Doreen for Father’s (Chester’s) failure to give answers. Dr. Ring failure to identify Battered Women’s Syndrome or Post Traumatic Stress Abuse. Instead Dr. Ring makes the common mistake of pathologizing the victim, minimizing and blaming the abuse on the victim.

TEXT of Dr. Ring Custody Evaluation

Page 22 #2 “the conflict between these two parties is characterized predominately by Doreen acting out in emotionally disregulated ways. Chester is ostensibly fairly passive and describes himself as basically “defending himself.” This clinician is concerned regarding both Doreen’s emotional disregulation and Chester’s adjudication of the “victim’s role.”

Page 23 #4 “Chester Stepien’s mental status is that of an individual who does not show significant disturbance or characterological deficit. This clinician, as stated previously, is concerned regarding his victim posture and how much responsibility he has displaced on the children for his emotional well-being.” Doreen Ludwig has been reasonably credible regarding details fo the conflict in their marital relationship, which clearly, Chester has minimized, and again, basically adopted his position as the victim and as primarily the person who is defending himself. This clinician’s observation of their interactions is one of probably equally shared responsibility with regard to each parties’ contributions to these conflicts.

Page 13 “Chester concedes that most of the caretaking of the children was Doreen’s responsibility because she was a stay-at-home mom, and he worked many hours. However, he does state, “My girls did want me to give them their baths.”

Page 15 He did seem to be a bit confused regarding his responses to certain hypothetical situations. This might be due to the fact that his estranged wife usually dealt with situations involving the children and that he was hesitant to assert his opinion. This also may pertain to Chester’s personality, in that, he appears to be a very concrete person, and visualized himself in hypothetical situations requires a degree of abstract thinking. Chester also appears comfortable showing his feelings rather easily in front of his children, although this may not be as desirable as he believes. For example during this particular interview, he indicated that he cries in front of the girls, stating that he misses them, and consequently evokes a sense of guilt in the children, thus, precipitating excessive responsibility on their part for his bad or good feelings.”

Testimony of Doreen Ludwig

“I left an abusive man and filed for divorce on November, 2004. My lawyer told me that since I was the primary caretaker of our two daughters since birth and there were no problems with Children and Youth or school, that the children should be safe, meaning there was no reason for an extended court custody fight.”

“Chester Stepien (husband and Father) hired a Father’s Rights Attorney, Jacqueline Mark. They immediately petitioned for custody claiming that Mother was mentally ill. Judge Scott Keller ordered the parties to Dr. Timothy Ring for a custody evaluation. Father paid the full amount of $3,200. Dr. Ring is a member of The Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators, a pro-abuse, pro-PAS, network headed by Dr. Barry Bricklin.”

“Issue 7 Investigations – evaluationsDr. Ring filed a false report. Mother filed ethical charges. After 2 ½ years, Dr. Ring was served with seven ethical violations. [See Rule to Show Cause below.]

“At the custody trial on March 2006, the evaluation was marked Defendants Exhibit, was underlined only in favor of Father, the psychologist is listed as Father’s only witness along with the two children, and the Child Custody Network Attorney when asked by the Judge for more witnesses, states “No we are happy, we have Dr. Ring, we have only listed (witnesses) of Dr. Ring and the children.” This psychologist DENIED to be cross-examined, he and the Judge DENIED the witness of the intern who conducted 80% of the evaluation and could testify that Father admitted physical abuse. But custody was changed to Father SOLELY because of Dr. Ring’s report.”

“The record includes three hours of testimony and a denied-into-evidence written report from Dr. Susan Atkins, (Mother’s treating psychologist, who works for over twenty years with Lancaster Domestic Violence Shelter and worked with the truly mentally ill). Dr. Atkins even states when reading Dr. Rings evaluation “I was shocked,” “Dr. Ring did not make a DSM diagnosis,” and that Mother does have “ADD, PSTD, Adjustment Disorder.” This testimony was ignored by the trial court and the Superior Court. The custody evaluator did not consult with Dr. Atkins, nor any school employees where Mother was heavily involved and had been employed. The school employees were listed as Mother’s witnesses and were DENIED by the Judge. They would have proven the evaluation false.” [See Dr. Atkins 12-page report, 3/27/06 transcript, and memo of law with transcript excerpts.]

This case study proves that Pennsylvania permits unethical evidence by HHS practitioners because the State refused to enforce the Ethical Code.

“2009 Update – Dr. Ring has been permitted to be unethical by the PA State Department. Charges were withdrawn because “he will never do it again,” “ he got training,” “he does a lot of reports for BerksCounty” and “he volunteers for the Red Cross.” [See Withdrawal]

Dr. Ring was protected because he receives TANF & access visitation funds for counseling, mediation and co-parenting coordination.

TEXT of Rule to Show Cause against Dr. Ring, 63-08,06-63-00065

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

COUNT ONE

  1. D.L. (Mother) and C.S. (father) are the parents of two minor children, E.S. (DOB 10/23/96) and K.S. (DOB 6/13/98) herein collectively referred to as the S children.
  2. At all times relevant herein, DL and CS have been involved in a dispute regarding the custody of their children.
  3. On or about December 7, 2004, the Court of Common Pleas of berks County, Pennsylvania issued an order in the matter DL v CS #04-16445 directing that the parties to that litigation and their minor children submit to a custody evaluation by Respondant (Dr. Ring).
  4. DL had primary physical custody of both children at the time of Respondent’s custody evaluation.
  5. On or about July 21, 2005, Respondent issued a “Child Custody Evaluation” (custody report) with regard to the S children that was filed in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas in the matter of DL v. CS #04-16445.
  6. A true and correct copy of Respondent’s July 21, 2005 custody report is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1.
  7. During the course of performing the custody evaluation and preparing the custody report, Respondent failed to comply with recognized standards for the completion of such an evaluation and report.
  8. Respondent’s custody report contains several inconsistencies, including but not limited to the following:
  1. On page 24 of the report, Respondent recommends a change in primary physical custody to the father based in part on the mother’s yelling to the point where it frightens the children, however, on page 20 of the report, Respondent reports that when asked if her mother’s yelling scares her, ES responded “no.”
  2. On page 22 of the report, Respondent based in part his conclusion that the mother had an unstable history by stating that “she essentially entered her relationship with CS as an escape from her family of origin,” and yet on page 3 of the report, Respondent reports that DL was living on her own in an apartment at the time she began her relationship with CS.
  1. Respondent’s custody evaluation and report improperly focused primarily on DL’s reported [by father only] psychopathology rather than parenting capacity, the psychological and developmental needs of the child and the resulting fit.
  2. Respondent’s report contains insufficient data and information about the impact of DL’s reported psychopathology on her parenting capacity and the psychological and developmental needs of the children.
  3. Respondent’s report contains insufficient data and or behavioral examples to support his statement that the children reported considerable emotional dysregulation on the part of their mother which caused them considerable anxiety.
  4. Respondent’s report contains insufficient data and information to support his expressed concern about the mother’s ability to maintain an appropriate home environment for the children while juggling her schooling and employment.
  5. Respondent failed to use multiple methods of data gathering and failed to obtain collateral and corroborative information relevant to the statements and photographs provided by the father with regard to the cleanliness and organization of the mother’s home.
  6. Respondent failed to use and/or document multiple methods of data gathering such as collateral interviews, home visits and/or reviewing the school or medical records of the S children to confirm the information provided by the parents.
  7. Respondent’s report contains insufficient data and information to show that his recommendation of a change in custody is in the best psychological interests of the S children.
  8. Respondent’s report fails to explain how the S children would benefit from a change in custody.
  9. Respondent’s report fails to explain why the father has better parenting skills so as to support a change in custody.
  10. Respondent’s conclusions and recommendations are unsupported by the data and information contained in his report and reflect a lack of objectivity and impartiality in his assessment.
  11. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the Board is authorized to suspend or revoke, or otherwise restrict Repondents license, or impose a civil penalty pursuant to 63 PS 1208(a)(4) and 63 PS 1211(b) in the Respondent displayed gross incompetence, negligence or misconduct in carrying on the practice of psychology.

COUNT TWO By committing immoral or non-professional conduct