Follow The Money

In conversation this morning, I learned that a NYS employee who actually has to pay child support had done some research into the system.

On just a routine Family Court case (that does not involve CPS or false allegations), when child support is awarded and goes through their system, NYS gets about $2 in state and federal monies for every $1 that is paid in child support. (It is probably for "support", "equipment", or "infrastructure"...or some such blanket category that means it goes right into the state coffers.)

That's very ironic, since parents that receive child support in NYS have to pay an "annual fee" for the service they are being provided.

Again, where does that money come from? The taxpayers!

It is all a massive shell game. Robbing Peter to pay Paul...ultimately the taxpayers are funding one of the largest money shuffles in history, the social services system.

• Money is taken from the taxpayers to pay for these subsidies.
• Money is taken in child support from parents with children in foster care.
• Money is collected from parents receiving child support in "fees".

Parents who are paying child support on children in foster care have been double-dipped - as taxpayers first and then as support payers.

• Money is paid to CPS from parents with children in foster care (and when the kids are in kinship care - placed with family or friends - the money is not passed through to the kin).
• Money is paid to CPS from the state and federal government in subsidies for children in foster care.
• Money is paid to CPS from the state and federal government in adoption incentives.
• Money is paid to CPS from the state and federal government in subsidies to run the support collections units.
• Money is paid to CPS from non-custodial parents when the custodial parent is on public assistance, and only the money in "excess" of their benefits is passed through to the custodial parent.

Figure it out for yourself...CPS has the lock on a program that gets them large amounts of money with no accountability.

They can't be prosecuted for lies, false paperwork, perjury. They are almost impossible to sue.

Who wouldn't love a job like this - guaranteed security as long as you play the game and keep harvesting fresh cases to keep the system running!

Follow the money!

**********

Note: CPS is used in my blog entries as a generic term for the social services system that deals with children and families. The specific acronym varies from state to state and country to country, so to avoid confusion I stick with one set of letters.

Urban Dictionary

Apparently, the common nickname in the local (and regional) legal community that is used for Ken Shaw's attorney happens to be a definition in the Urban Dictionary. It was explained to me by multiple attorneys that the origin goes WAY back in her legal career when she first began using "dirty" tactics to win cases or force out of court settlements. Since her last name is unfortunately partnered with that description in the Urban Dictionary, the nickname has stuck.

At any rate, the behavior of this attorney is well known to the Attorney Grievance Committee for our area - in this case alone she has generated over ten complaints that were filed - and all dismissed. (I don't think it is coincidental that at least three of the committee members are her friends - some of whom she has engaged with inappropriately on Facbook - and one of those three was one of the AFCs in this case.)

If you are interested, there are very specific guidelines that govern attorney behavior, including Social Media behavior. And this attorney has systematically violated many, if not all of these.

Let's start with the fact that early on in the case she was the central voice seeking to get my initial attorney disqualified on the grounds of "conflict of interest".

She has had FAR MORE "conflict of interest" in this case than my attorney:

• She represented Jon Massey and his brother years before in a property transaction. She placed her own mailing address in the record because she failed to contact them for theirs. When tax bills were sent for the property, she failed to forward them on to the brothers. This led to the property being subject to a tax sale, and the loss of the $10K purchase price for the brothers. Her comment when the issue was raised? "I don't remember representing you, it isn't in my records."
• She represented my first ex-husband in several actions. As such she was privy to confidential information about him and my two oldest children. When the court was apprised that the two oldest would be testifying and that it was an apparent conflict, the judge said he would wait until it actually happened. When trial did take place, Ken Shaw's attorney passed notes to the other attorneys with confidential information she knew personally, in an attempt to discredit my son and my ex-husband.
• She represented one of our primary witnesses in the witnesses child custody case. When Ken Shaw contacted this witness regarding supervision of visitation, she wrote a letter to the court calling this witness, her former client, a "liar" and used other derogatory language. Additionally, during the course of the trial, Ken Shaw's attorney passed information from this witnesses social media profile to the other attorneys in an attempt to discredit the witness.
• She represented a second witness of ours in that witnesses divorce and custody case. Ken Shaw's attorney failed to disclose this to the court. During the course of the trial, Ken Shaw's attorney passed notes to the other attorneys with confidential information from the second witnesses case in an attempt to discredit the witness.

We also have an e-mail in which the DSS attorney directly states that Ken Shaw's attorney told him that Jon Massey was "sneaking in the house" - documentation that she herself prompted CPS to file false police reports in support of Ken Shaw's case.

Although all of these issues were reported to the court and to the Attorney Grievance Committee - they were never addressed. The Attorney Grievance Committee notified the court and left it to the discretion of the family court judge to take action - and neither the Family Court judge or the Attorney Grievance Committee ever did.

What we have learned about Ken Shaw's attorney from her clients involved in the case, as well as many other individuals who have approached us on social media sites is the following:

• She has billed clients for services that have not been rendered;
• She has failed to complete paperwork in a timely manner, often to the detriment of the client including financial loss;
• She has made promises to clients that she will be able to secure specific outcomes based on "friendships" or "influence" over other attorneys or the judges;
• She has instructed clients to file false or misleading reports with CPS in child custody cases;
• She has instructed clients to file police reports to "improve" their outcomes in divorce or custody cases;
• She has instructed clients to perform actions that are in defiance of court interest (removing all belongings from a marital household, clearing out all joint bank accounts);
• She has directed clients to never put her directives in writing and publicly admonished them when they have done so;
• She has disclosed confidential information received from clients to other parties;
• She has used a false name on Facebook, in violation of NYS Social Media Guidlines;
• She has posted confidential family court documents and information on social media sites (including a case in 2007 in which she was investigated by NYS);

• She has made posts on Facebook that are designed to harass others, more specifically, the DSS attorney and the director of CPS at the time, as well as Family Court and the judge (the judge even issued a letter regarding this matter);
• She has made posts on Facebook that advocate using fake evidence to "win cases" (and party to this were an attorney who now works for a nearby District Attorney, and one of the AFCs in this case);

• She has taken smart phones belonging to other attorneys and posted sexually harassing things on their social media pages.

Most or all of these items have been reported to the Attorney Grievance Committee by those clients involved, and they have FAILED to take any punitive action against her.

What is most amazing is that when I took screenshots of all the social media items and posted them - this attorney was obsessed with compelling me to admit that I had posted the screenshots from her Facebook page. Did you REALLY want the judge to know that you put all those things on Facebook? And did you really want the judge to know that a specific domain name redirects to an urban dictionary definition? (That is about par with the time that another attorney referred to her in his blog entry on August 23, 2007 and she brought a stack of porn magazines into court to argue with the judge about it.)

Some of you would think that this is SOP for attorneys, but it is NOT - we have encountered several "bad apples" in this case, but we also have had the benefit of working with some amazing individuals.

So people, I would advise you strongly - if you ever need to hire an attorney, research them thoroughly to find out what they are really like! After all, you don't want this photo gallery to be something from your attorney's dossier:

Have A Nice Day!

PA - The Most Recent Chapter

For a view on how we got to this point, visit the Jon Massey Case.

As a result of the direct actions of CPS, the DSS attorney, Ken Shaw's attorney, and Ken Shaw, the judge's disposition specified that the only contact that I was allowed with my youngest daughter was to send letters, cards, and gifts to her through her counselor.

Given Ken Shaw's track record for ignoring the orders of the judges in this case, even when they are written orders, I had to wait until I had a copy in writing to start sending anything to my daughter.

I sent out the first package for her November birthday, and received no response or acknowledgement from the counselor (supposedly a "professional") that it had been received.

So before Christmas I made a phone call to the counselor to check on the status of the first package, and whether or not the counselor still saw my daughter - and received no return call. A few days later I made a second call, thinking that the first had been overlooked.

At that point, apparently the counselor called the DSS attorney, and he contacted my attorney. The DSS attorney informed my attorney that the counselor was no longer employed by the agency in question and that I was to send packages directly to the agency where my daughter allegedly was receiving counselling. I have a letter from the DSS attorney to document.

This whole process took several weeks, so I put together a Valentine's day package and sent it off in plenty of time for her to receive it before Valentine's day.

Imagine my surprise to have the package returned by the agency with a letter explaining that they "were not in a position to accept or forward the item".

The DSS attorney states in his letter that I can send items to the agency, the court order specifies that I am allowed to send "letters, cards, and gifts", and the agency claims that I am not allowed to do so.

So apparently Ken Shaw has either taken my daughter out of counselling to prevent me from contacting her at all, or he has presented the agency with "documentation" that I am not entitled to send her anything.

This is known as Parental Alienation, and Ken Shaw is a master at it. In forthcoming chapters of PA I will describe how he has used this with his other children in the past. He is also a master of deception in other areas and the blog will document how this is a pervasive behavior pattern with him and not just isolated to this case.

Stay tuned, this isn't over yet.