Sunday, April 19, 2015

PA - Venue Shopping

A major characteristic of a Parental Alienator is the use of "Venue Shopping". In order to carry out their campaign, an Alienator needs to find sympathetic enforcement parties to help them limit or stop the access of the other parent(s) to the children.

An Alienator will often have a history of filing reports with a variety of police agencies (local police, Sheriff's department, State police, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, etc) as well as with CPS. They will also repeatedly relitigate custody and visitation, utilizing every court possible.

In our case, Ken Shaw used many of the above tactics in order to harass, intimidate, and develop a fraudulent case against our family.

He began with filing a false report with the Kingston Police Department on December 22, 2012. According to Ken Shaw, a friend of mine showed up at the visit with her two sons (aged 7 and 11) solely in an attempt to kidnap my youngest daughter from him. The Kingston Police never bothered to contact either my friend or me for our side of the story - they considered Ken Shaw that unreliable.

When that attempt didn't succeed, Ken Shaw contacted Homeland Security, claiming that my friend had tried to impersonate a Homeland Security agent. The agency investigated, and considered Ken Shaw so unreliable that they dismissed his allegations.

Next Ken Shaw manufactured false allegations about Jon Massey allegedly staying at my house in violation of an order of protection, and contacted the local police department with his trumped up story. He managed to gain some traction with the assistance of CPS, until we secured judicial intervention from the Family Court judge. The judge stated that if he found out that any of the parties in the family court case were involved in the original complaints or ongoing action he would take punitive action against them, and then lifted the order of protection keeping Jon from the house.

Behind the scenes Ken Shaw continued to file false reports with the Kingston Police Department, usually revolving around incidents in which he had behaved inappropriately (a gross understatement) at visitation. It speaks volumes towards his (lack of) credibility with them that not only did they not bother to contact me at all - which would have been standard procedure if they took a claim seriously - but they eventually told me that I should secure a restraining order against him through the Canadian courts.

When Ken Shaw had no success with filing reports with law enforcement, he turned to CPS both in Canada and the United States. The Canadian agency closed both reports he filed without ever contacting me, indicating that they did not take his reports seriously.

The only agency that took any action was the United States CPS. Yet despite Ken Shaw filing a report that alleged abuse of all of my children, after interviews all of them denied any abuse, except the one child who had been consistently under his control and influence, my youngest daughter.

Coincidentally, the Kingston Police reported to the US agency that they believed that the child had been coached by the father and step-mother and that she wasn't credible or reliable.

Even the initial Family Court judge did not believe the allegations brought forward, and expressed that clearly in court Then he ordered a new psychologist to evaluate the situation with my youngest daughter.

The DSS attorney ended up being sanctioned $1000 because he deliberately ignored the judges orders to have the psychologist evaluate the situation BEFORE any other evaluations and interviews. Rather than comply with the judge, CPS subjected my youngest daughter to multiple additional interviews as well as a psychological exam (by the local psychologist who receives over $185K a year under his contract with CPS) prior to allowing the judge's expert to evaluate her.

The CPS caseworker even acknowledged that she had to order Ken Shaw to stop questioning my youngest daughter, because he admitted that he was constantly questioning her about his abuse allegations.

What is ultimately indicative of Ken Shaw's lack of respect for the court process is the fact that while there was an ongoing action in the United States court, he filed for custody through the Canadian court system, a clear violation of the Hague Convention which dictates jurisdiction in child custody matters.

And of course, while under oath, when questioned about this clandestine filing, Ken Shaw lied and claimed that he "didn't know" that he had signed not one but at least two separate petitions for custody through the Canadian court, all of them alleging abuse by me - something that had never been investigated by the Canadian agency, and that had not yet been adjudicated by the US courts.

It took the US Family Court judge contacting the Canadian court directly to stop Ken Shaw's action.

This venue shopping for a "sympathetic" court is reminiscent of Susan Carrington's case - she was awarded full custody of her children,  but then her ex-husband applied to a different court and seized custody in violation of the UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) which is designed to try to prevent just this type of behavior.

As a futher "accessory" the Alienator will shop for a therapist or mental health professional that will provide them with the reports necessary to advance their expedition.

In our case, Ken and Mary Shaw first took my youngest daughter, in the fall of 2012, to a therapist who stated that there was nothing wrong with her other than needing to adjust to the abrupt change in her circumstances.

So then after the December 22 incident, they found a new professional, and on the intake interview they LIED about why they had custody, claiming that my youngest daughter had been taken from me due to physical abuse, rather than as a temporary placement while the Jon Massey case was being resolved.

The notes from the therapist even document that at every session, Ken Shaw would first give a report to the counselor of everything that I had allegedly done at the prior visit(s), then she would ask my youngest daughter about the report.

Ultimately, the final order stated that I would be allowed to send cards, gifts, and letters to my daughter through this counselor. So what did Ken Shaw do next? He removed her from counselling.

These behaviors are very similar to those of Dina Mackney in the Chris Mackney case. She found mental health professionals that would back her up, even though they failed to follow acceptable practices.

CPS engages in the same behaviors - they set up a stable of psychologists, therapists, counselors, and other professionals who provide their mandated service plan requirements. Often this is the sole or primary source of income for these individuals, so they become just another tool to give the documentation that CPS needs.

When an Alienator starts shopping, the only person getting bargains and deals is the Alienator. The other parent(s) and the children lose!

No comments: