FCLU Colorado

https://www.facebook.com/1586605354/posts/10228626206351880/?mibextid=DcJ9fc

Dr. Craig Childress

My oh my... look what the birdies brought me... Colorado. My oh my.

It looks like Linda Gottlieb's going down, down, down, and it looks like she's taking Jennifer Harman and all of "parental alienation" with her. My oh my.

Don't say I didn't warn you, because I did. Right here on my page, I said "Holy Cow everybody, don't use Gottlieb's Turning Points program. She's going to crash and burn and take everyone with her."

I said that. Right here, I said that. Now it looks like the crash and burn part is here.

Hey, notice this. The pathogen is restricting who can testify on your behalf. I'm a testifying and consulting expert in the family courts, do the new restrictions affect me?

Nope.

From ProPublica: "The new law, which takes effect immediately, also requires experts who advise the court on custody cases to have training in working with victims of domestic violence and child abuse."

There's something wrong with that, does anyone notice something wrong? The order is reversed. The concern in the family courts should be child abuse and domestic violence. The order's wrong.

I qualify as an expert under Kayden's law. Lucky you. Otherwise, you'd be in trouble. I'm telling you, mental health in the family courts is an absolute mess - until they're motivated to fix it.

I'm a qualified expert under Kayden's Law. It's right there on my vitae - I'm a trauma psychologist out of child abuse and foster care. That's why I'm here. This is my pathology - child abuse and IPV spousal abuse using the child as the weapon.

I know exactly where I am. I've always known... I'm a trauma psychologist out of child abuse and foster care, of course I recognize child abuse, don't be ridiculous.

Here's the entry from my vitae that qualifies me as an expert in the family courts under Kayden's law - Clinical Director for an assessment and treatment center for children in foster care.

10/06 - 6/08: Clinical Director
START Pediatric Neurodevelopmental Assessment and Treatment Center
California State University, San Bernardino
Institute of Child Development and Family Relations

Clinical director for an early childhood assessment and treatment center providing comprehensive developmental assessment and psychotherapy services to children ages 0-5 years old in foster care. The primary referral source for the clinic was Child Protective Services. Directed the clinical operations, clinical staff, and the provision of comprehensive psychological assessment and treatment services across clinic-based, home-based, and school-based services. The clinic was a three-university collaboration, with speech and language faculty and services through the University of Redlands, occupational therapy faculty and services through Loma Linda University, and psychology faculty and clinical staff through Calif. State University, San Bernardino.

When CPS identified child abuse and placed the child in foster care, they would send the child to our clinic for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Have you ever assessed a 3-year-old who's just been placed in foster care? I have.

Have you treated child physical abuse, the kids with the welts and bruises? I have. Have you diagnosed profound child neglect that destroys the brain? I have. I've personally treated all four forms of child abuse, and I've personally led the treatment teams with CPS social work involvement for children in foster care.

I've personally gotten moms with children into the hidden shelters that have no address, because I had access to the addresses of the IPV spousal abuse shelters for moms and kids that have no addresses. I worked behind the curtain of protection.

I'm a real honest-to-goodness trauma psychologist out of child abuse and foster care - I know exactly where I am. This is my pathology - child abuse and spousal abuse using the child as the weapon.

This battlefield is going to become intense. Wheee.

It looks like Gottlieb is spiraling down-down-down, and it looks like she's taking all of "parental alienation" world with her, starting with Jennifer Harman. I warned you, I told you so, you should listen to the cricket. Stay in school, Pinocchio, and learn the proper knowledge to use.

Don't listen to the Fox and Cat, don't go to the "parental alienation" Funhouse. But do you listen? No. So then you get turned into a donkey and sent to the salt mines. Oh my goodness.

Somebody's got to rescue you from the pathogen's allies. But no one qualifies as an expert on your behalf... except me. I guess I'm kinda like your blue fairy. Stop being such a donkey, return to being a real person who uses real knowledge to solve the problem (pathology) in your family.

The pathogen's tricky. It drove all the clinical psychologists away, it made all the forensic psychologists stupid, and it gave you a worthless new "parental alienation" pathology to keep you forever locked-up in continual conflict.

Then... now that "parental alienation" has finally run its course, the pathogen is now closing the trap. You'll be trapped for a hundred years. No one will ever believe you, and you can't tell anyone because the only "experts" you can get to speak for you are the pathogen's allies.

Except me. La-dee-dah, dum-dee-doe, the pathogen missed me. It thought it got rid of all the clinical psychologists, and it had... except I tripped and fell down a rabbit hole, and, you see, it turned out to be quite the curious adventure. It just kept getting curiouser and curiouser.

But I've made it back to reality. Apparently just in time to be an expert in the family courts. I hear they're getting hard to come by, these "expert" folks.

Seems like we'll be losing a few soon. Bye Linda. Bye Jennifer. Good luck. Boy, I'll bet they're both kind of stressed out about how things are developing. I'm glad I'm not them right now, or anytime actually.

Kayden's law is coming everywhere. If you want to get busy on your state legislators, now's the time. The pathogen's activated your legislators, you just need to add Eryk to Kayden so that both sides are protected from child abuse and spousal abuse (proper order).

My oh my. That's all I can say. And maybe holy cow.

Just a heads-up from me to you, keep your head down. My oh my.
Incoming. I love the smell of na**lm in the morning.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857

https://www.propublica.org/article/colorado-limits-court-use-of-family-reunification-camps?fbclid=IwAR2-dd3dVzg6x9PkLRj5hq9d1bxYJSCkr6hzwt58WBV_WlkdT0ZsgBRxfNo

Colorado Becomes the First State to Limit Court Use of Family Reunification Camps A new bill restricts the use of reunification programs and requires domestic violence training for experts in custody cases. Lawmakers credit ProPublica’s reporting for exposing the need for reforms in the family court system.

Colorado Suspends One Family Court Custody Expert, Reviews All Custody Evaluators Following ProPublica Investigation A state-approved list of custody evaluators included some who had been accused of domestic violence and disciplined by the State Board of Psychologist Examiners.

Why isn’t Colorado’s judicial branch being truthful with you? Because they want Amendment D to pass.

It’s a special interest measure that benefits 7 judges at the expense of constitutional rights. It's completely unnecessary. But you won’t hear that from Colorado’s judicial branch.

If passed, the amendment would temporarily suspend the constitutional rights of citizens living in the new 23rd Judicial District. They have the right to select their own judges through their nominating commission. But not if Amendment D passes.

It would allow 7 leftover judges from the downsized 18th Judicial District to fill the new seats in the 23rd Judicial District.

A “no” vote preserves the constitutional right of the constituents in the 23rd Judicial District to select their own judges through their nominating commission. Amendment D would create a one-time exception to the constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 20) to allow 7 judges currently serving in the 18th Judicial District to transfer to the new 23rd Judicial District.

It’s said that Colorado’s judges aren’t involved in politics. This year’s Amendment D shows that’s not an accurate statement.

The worst thing is that the judicial branch is not being straightforward and truthful with voters. The amendment is a black eye on the judicial branch.

We should not alter the state constitution for a one-time issue. If there was really a problem with the state constitution, the amendment should create a general process for future instances when a district is divided into two districts. This amendment does not do that. That’s because there is no flaw in the state constitution.

The proposed amendment is an example of the improper influence the judicial branch has over Colorado’s General Assembly. Seven judges can get the General Assembly to adopt a referendum for a constitutional amendment that would allow them to keep their jobs.

Getting a measure on the ballot to hold judges accountable, however, is all but impossible because judges don’t want to be held accountable. Judges aren’t just deciding legal issues in Colorado. They have great influence over the policies the legislature adopts.

Although Colorado removed contested elections for judges in the 1960s, what was created is an incredibly powerful, publicly funded judicial lobby that lobbies for what judges want. What judges want is not always what is best for the people.

If judges continue having such an improper influence over the legislature, we need to know the political parties to which the judges belong when we vote to retain them. Although a return to contested elections is not a favorable approach, it may be necessary given the political activity of Colorado’s judicial branch.

This proposed amendment shows that Colorado’s legislators are compromised. The judicial branch has far too much direct contact with the members of the General Assembly. The judicial branch has a full-time lobbyist (legislative liaison) at the legislature. Furthermore, the state court administrator, who’s selected by the Supreme Court, also has great sway with legislators.

We need to limit the contact between the judicial branch and the legislative branch to reduce the inordinate amount of influence the judicial branch has over the policies adopted by the legislature. Should there be a constitutional amendment to specifically allow 7 judges to keep being judges?

If the amendment passes, it may result in significant litigation regarding whether the judges were appropriately selected. Citizens of the 23rd Judicial District may challenge the judges selected under Amendment D, arguing that they are treated differently than citizens in all other judicial districts. Is there a good reason to treat citizens in the 23rd Judicial District differently than citizens in all other judicial district?

At the very minimum, the judicial branch needs to be honest with the people of Colorado. There is no uncertainty regarding how the judges in the new 23rd Judicial District will be selected if the amendment does not pass. Article VI, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution clearly states how all vacancies are filled – a judicial district’s nominating commission nominates candidates from which the governor selects judges.

It's not a good look for the judicial branch to be deceiving the people of Colorado with this amendment and its arguments for the amendment. It certainly does not inspire trust and confidence in the judiciary.

“Family court” is the most destructive & corrupt Legal organization on the planet!
Supported by Savage Narcissist!

“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”
[Luke 11:52]

Six of the 13 Turpin siblings, who were rescued in 2018 from a life of captivity in their parents' home, have filed a lawsuit alleging they suffered "severe abuse and neglect" for years in foster care after their rescue.

Turpin siblings file lawsuit alleging 'severe abuse' in foster care after 2018 rescue Six of the 13 Turpin siblings who were rescued in 2018 from their parents' California home have filed suit against their county and others tasked with protecting them.

Open topic sent by one of our members: WHAT SAY YOU?

Are women crazy, and are
men abusive after a break-up?

Men will talk of their “crazy” ex-wife. And women will talk of their “abusive” ex-husband. The men are not abusive, and women are not crazy. They are simply doing what is in their nature. Men’s job is to protect their wife. Even sometimes from themselves. Example: How many times has someone thought something was a “good” idea, but you knew that it was going to end badly for them. Instead of watching the train-wreck you try and prevent it. The same thing with men whose wife is trying to divorce them. They take on a firm leadership to try and prevent the woman from harming herself and the family. The same thing for the women. Women will try and horde all the finances and children in a divorce. Usually, asking for everything with a clear conscience. They will not want to share custody. The reason is, they need security and want to follow the rest of society. So, they are correct to expect the husband to provide for her for life. That is what he signed up for when he said, “I do.” But things get confusing for them when they initiate a divorce. They still expect the husband to “provide” for her and her children for life, but will plan on leaving her husband for another man. A new provider for her and her children. Men and women are not “crazy” and “abusive.” They are simply doing what is in their nature after they file a wrongful divorce. They are following their God-given natural desires. However, it is in response to someone who filed a divorce.

The Private for Profit Family Court & their Political Subdivisions Vendors!
Title VI-D
Title IV-E

The Depp Trial and the Demise of the ACLU: How a Celebrity Trial Exposed the Collapse of a Once Celebrated Group In yesterday’s massive defamation award to actor Johnny Depp, his ex-wife Amber Heard was left holding a bill for $15,000,000. Even after a reduction for her own award and a statutory reducti…

Family Law has NOTHING to do with Family nor Law! But the experience will forever change you!

Because of what appears to be lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance!

[US v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187 (1956)]