THE central Queensland childcare centre where a worker is accused of torturing a child has been temporarily closed.

The Isaac Regional Council announced on Friday it has suspended services at the Moranbah Early Learning Centre.

The move comes after police on Thursday charged a 21-year-old female employee with torture, deprivation of liberty and assault.

The woman, who allegedly taped a child’s legs together, is to face court next month.

In a statement on Friday, the council said it owns the childcare centre but a company called Total Childcare Solutions manages it.

The staff member, who has been charged, has been sacked and two others who are being investigated have been suspended, the statement said.

Isaac Regional Council Mayor Anne Baker said a solicitor has been hired to conduct an independent investigation.

“As a parent and grandparent, hearing these sorts of allegations makes me sick in the stomach,” she said in a statement.

“I will not allow one child to step foot into that centre until I’m confident … the appropriate standards are being met by everyone.”

She said parents should make alternative arrangements for at least the next week.

The centre is also offering counselling to parents and children.

Meanwhile, the Queensland Commissioner for Children says there are no plans to review the state’s blue card system.

Elizabeth Fraser says the scheme for screening people who work with children has been regularly refined over its 11-year history.

“Queensland’s system is regarded as one of the most comprehensive and robust of its type in Australia,” she told AAP in a statement.

Under the scheme, the commission is alerted when a blue-card holder’s police file is amended.

Obtaining a blue card to work with children involves a national criminal check.

Read more:

 

There is nothing feminine about lying.

There is nothing feminine about cheating

There is nothing feminie about misandry.

There is nothing feminine about bigotry.

There is nothing feminine about narcissism.

There is nothing feminine about child abuse.

There is nothing feminine about abortion.

There is nothing feminine about infanticide.

There nothing feminine about feminism.

Most violence neglect and abuse against children are by women, the most violent is abortion and infanticide by women.

Feminist, are particularly vile and narcisstic.

Women have an historical overwhelming reputation they can’t be trusted, just out for a free ride and free passes.

Their real agenda seems to be male submission their rule control and servitude, not ever equality.

“Sexist feminists, in the familiar phrase, “want to have it all”, the children and the money. It follows that they want fathers to have nothing, other than what individual mothers deign to allow them.” [AVfM]

There so few stand-up women, until women make an undertaking committed effort and pledge to be upstanding and act with honesty and integrity they will carry their well earned distrust and contempt.

I wonder if any will commit to such an undertaking or simply duplicitic feminist drones and trolls.

Dear Member of Parliament

We would like to express our concern over the lack of respect being shown for the role of fathers of Australia, and the vilification of all fathers personally in that role. The nature of political discourse in this country has sunk to a very low point. Although we may not all support the Government and all of its policies, the unacceptability of current abusive and violent attacks on our fathers is something that we can all agree on. As professionals, we find this kind of abuse and gender based insults totally unacceptable and demeaning to all men.

many fathers and their children calling for Human Rights and Social Justice highlighted the extent and intensity of the “attacks, vilification and demeaning portrayal” of fathers . We note that large numbers of ordinary Australians are contributing to this vilification with comments on Facebook and by forwarding chain emails that contain derogatory material. We believe, like fathers in ‘Dads in Distress’ that this behavior is being encouraged by the example set by some members of Parliament, . This behavior undermines the civility necessary for democracy to operate effectively, and risks creating an environment that denies men equal opportunity to contribute to Australia’s democratic government. and parenting

We call on all members of Parliament to provide leadership and publicly acknowledge that the kind of misandric behavior being demonstrated in Parliament, and in the broader community is not a legitimate part of political debate and needs to stop. We call on the mothers, fathers, spouses, partners, sons and daughters of members of Parliament to support our call and insist that these attacks will not be tolerated.

Yours sincerely

Professors of fathers suffering

https://www.facebook.com/events/347315435343140/

   

                                           Preserve the family and save our future

FACEBOOK LINK

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Phone:

Email:

 

GLOBAL FAMILIES OBJECT TO UN POLICIES

Protests Around the Globe as a Unified Force

On September 28 and 29^th (London) protests in the USA, European Union, Canada and parts of Africa will participate in the first ever global objection to UN policies on the family that is tearing apart parents from their children and grandparents from their lineage in all UN based countries.

LEGAL PATHOLOGY GIVING THE GOVERNMENT POWER AND THE PEOPLE LITTLE TO NONE ALL COUNTRIES

1. Closed courts  2. Gag orders  3. Wide decision making parameters  4. Court rules that prefer prosecution  5. Objections to perjury, falsified documents and ill treatment of children by the state gets treated as parental/grandparent terrorism  6. Civil law development and case law reduces defense  7. Refusal of the courts to allow in pertinent evidence  8. Perjury, false documentation and other agency and prosecutor case mishandling overlooked by judges  9. Judges not following the law  10. Children have no voice in courts  11. Selective rights appropriation (gender discrimination)  12. The implementation of specialized courts that are money making corporations  13. Inadequate defense council 14. Target populations are poor for some family law  15. Obscene amounts spent on stakeholders  16. Little to no accountability with courts and agencies 17. Low evidence standards on most matters  18. Hearsay is used to produce drastic results

PSYCHOLOGY IS THE PROSECUTION’S DREAM COME TRUE ALL COUNTRIES

1. No oversight in evaluations, their efficacy, honesty, factual basis and recommendations

2. Case workers and Guardian Ad Litems put in “diagnosis orders” with therapist who provides those to gain future referrals

3. Amounts paid for diagnosis and court appearances are excessive

4. Poor people suffer the most and can’t afford second opinions if the evaluations and recommendations are unethical

5. Concepts and theories used are unproven, usually unscientific and in some cases patently false but treated as fact

6. Diagnosis tools are rigged for diagnosis and treatment

7. The DSM IV criteria is so vague and inclusive that anyone can fit in one or more criteria

8. If someone doesn’t fit all the criteria the agencies are still using the criteria to destroy families and label people for life

9. Therapists, the courts and even defense attorneys are not allowing psychology’s victims to see the evaluations or obtain a copy to defend themselves against a lifetime of consequences and labeling

AFFECTS ON CHILDREN ALL COUNTRIES

While the UN breaks their arm off patting themselves on the back for “saving” children, this is really what is happening

1. Children experience trauma at the hands of the state  2. Children experience more illness and mental health problems to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attachment disorders, depression, oppositional/defiance disorders and bi-polar disorders. 3. Children traumatized by state/court decisions are more likely to be drugged using psychotropic medications unfit for adults let alone children  4. Children’s self image, insecurities and fears of abandonment may thwart thriving  5. Children abused by the state through parental alienation in non-custody or dependency cases are more likely to do drugs, end up in jails and prisons, drop out of school, have illegitimate children and be subjected to child protection agencies.

Locations of protest:

Date_____________              Time__________________

 

If you would like more information on this topic, please contact     (name)           at      (phone)          email

WE ARE approaching the time of the year when the government- sponsored White Ribbon Campaign will be seeking to have only men swear an oath to be non-violent toward only women.

Should not, however, every Australian swear to be non-violent to all others, regardless of sex or any other discriminator?

The White Ribbon Cam­paign has stooped to a new low  this  year  by  releasing just  before  Father’s Day a discussion paper titled Fathers, Fathering  and  Pre­ venting Violence Against Women which disparagingly targets fatherhood and mass­ culinary, claiming  they  are redundant  concepts.

According to the White Ribbon Paper, the most impotent cause of violence against women is gendered power inequalities. Further, it says that the widespread belief among men that we make a unique contribution to parenting says a lot about us, our sense of entitlement, and our desire to feel impotent.

But a large and growing body of research evidence shows reciprocal or bidirectional violence to be far more common than violence perpetrated solely by one partner.

This is especially true in studies of dating partner violence in young people.

Using a broad definition of physical violence in the Australian National Crime Prevention Study, dating violence was common, with one in three males and females reporting they had experienced at least one type of physically violent behavior from a boyfriend or girl friend.

This  finding has  been confirmed  across nations and cultures by  pre-eminent violence researcher Murray Straus, whose 2007 paper concluded that dominance by the female partner was as strongly related  to partner violence as dominance by the male partner, and  that prevention and treatment of partner violence could  be­ come more effective  if the programs recognized  that most partner violence was bidirectional and act on the high rate of perpetration by women.

The paradox of White Ribbon is that it claims gender inequality as the root cause of violence against women, but adopts a single-gender approach to the problem of family  violence, despite the contemporary understanding that men and women are both deeply entrenched in its causation, as are multiple biological, psychological and social factors.

My alternate to the White Ribbon pledge:

To family violence,

Australia says no.

This is regardless of the sex of the victim or perpetrator or their relation­ ship!

Dr. GREG CANNING, Hermit Park

Dark Blue: Child Abuse Prevention

Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child or children.^[1] In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department for Children And Families (DCF) define child maltreatment as any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child.^[2] Child abuse can occur in a child’s home, or in the organizations, schools or communities the child interacts with. There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, psychological/emotional abuse, and child sexual abuse.

Different jurisdictions have developed their own definitions of what constitutes child abuse for the purposes of removing a child from his/her family and/or prosecuting a criminal charge. According to the Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, child abuse is “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm”.^.

^{ON FACEBOOK CLICK HERE}

September 12, 2012 Dr. Tara J. PalmatierFamily Courts

A Post from ‘A Voice for Men’ LINK HERE

Decorated combat pilot and His Children Brutalized by West Virginia Family Court Judge Lori B. Jackson

When United States Air Force (USAF) combat pilot Lieutenant Colonel Joel Kirk was a young boy growing up on the banks of the Chattahoochee River in rural Georgia, his father took him to see the Blue Angels perform. This was a pivotal moment in the young Lt. Col.’s life. Attending the airshow inspired him to become a military pilot. Lt. Col. Kirk didn’t dream of becoming a pilot because he wanted to fly fast planes or because he thought it would be cool. He dreamed of becoming a pilot for his father.

In the Lt. Col.’s own words:

“In 1979, I sat on a hilltop across from Dobbins Air Force base with my father and watched the Blue Angels roar overhead. I remember the look of amazement in my father’s eyes as he gazed skyward at the powerful jets. Here stood my hero, my guardian, my mentor in admiration and awe of something higher. I knew at that moment what I wanted to do.”

“I knew that some day I wanted my father to look up to me as I looked up to him. I wanted to make him proud. I wanted to show him and my entire family that I was worth the time, love and energy they invested in me. I didn’t want to gain wealth, cars, houses or land. I just wanted to be a man of honor and integrity. My grandfather served in the army during World War II. He was at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. I wanted to be like these wonderful men. “

Lt. Col. Kirk worked very hard and graduated university in 1991 at the top of his class, Magna Cum Laude, and became a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps (USMC). (Yes, you read right; Kirk has served in both the USMC and the USAF.) Three years later, he realized his childhood dream the day he received his wings.

He writes:

“In January of 1994, my father walked onto a stage in Pensacola, Florida in front of hundreds of people. On that stage, my father, a farmer from Duck Hill, Mississippi, pounded a shiny set of gold wings onto the left side of my dress blues. The tears welled up in his eyes on what was only the second occasion I had seen him cry, the first being my sister’s wedding day.”

“I did it! I made it! The relief was overwhelming. I had struggled so hard and accomplished something only 1 in 100,000 people ever do. But even more importantly, I made my father and my family proud.”

The young officer was living his dream.

                       

Kirk and Father – Getting his wings

Enter Tina Taylor, a very beautiful and very destructive personality disordered predator whom he eventually married and with whom he fathered two beautiful children — a son now 14-years old and a daughter now 12-years old. Today, Tina Taylor Kirk has destroyed nearly everything the Lt. Col. has worked so hard to achieve and is poised to abscond with his military retirement after years of unspeakable abuse and multiple betrayals, at least three affairs that have been documented (2 with other enlisted men and 1 with a mutual “friend.”)

Far worse, Tina Taylor Kirk continues to abuse and terrorize their children; aided, abetted and enabled by West Virginia Family Court Judge Lori B. Jackson, Ms. Kirk’s three pro bono attorneys Thomas G. Smith, Esq. (Smith, McMunn & Glover, Clarksburg, West Virginia), Jamison H. Cooper, Esq. (Cooper Law Offices, Bridgeport, WV), Afton Leanne Huston, Esq. (Smith, McMunn & Glover, Clarksburg, WV), and Clinical Psychologist, Edward D. Baker, Ph.D. (Fremouw-Sigley Psychological Associates, Morgantown, WV).

This story does not have a happy ending, but hopefully the exposure on AVoiceforMen.com, Shrink4Men.com and other websites, blogs and news outlets will help to bring about a just ending and conclude the ongoing judicial and financial abuse of Lt. Col. Kirk and the judicial and maternal abuse of the Kirk children.

Growing men’s rights activism track record.

Over the last year and a half, AVFM, in unofficial conjunction with the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), S.A.V.E. (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) and the men and women who support these sites and organizations, have established a growing track record of powerful activism. Through our shared commitment to equal rights, justice and protection for all, we have managed to expose the gross prosecutorial misconduct of Ellsworth, Maine Assistant District Attorney Mary Kellett.

Kellett will soon be facing the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar for her breach of ethics in her malicious and frivolous harassment of Vladek Filler. Just this summer, AVFM, NCFM, S.A.V.E. et al championed the cause of Gordon Smith of Delaware. For some time now, Mr. Smith has been the victim of his ex Tiffany Marie’s Smith’s relentless and escalating false allegations of domestic violence and the complicity of Delaware law enforcement and its judiciary. Last week, the Delaware State police finally arrested Ms. Smith for her multiple false allegations and shameless harassment campaign. This story isn’t over yet as Ms. Smith was released on bail and, it is believed, continues to pose a serious threat to both Mr. Smith and their children of whom she still has custody.

Over the coming weeks and months, we will be turning our attention and activism toward Lt. Col. Joel Kirk and his children, who have been horribly wronged by the very system that Lt. Col. Kirk has devoted and risked his life to protect.

War is hell, and so is being married to and sharing children with an alcoholic, emotionally and physically abusive, Borderline Personality Disordered woman.

Before citing the many injustices, unethical, outlandish, biased and potentially criminal acts of Judge Lori B. Jackson, Thomas G. Smith, Esq., Jamison H. Cooper, Esq., Afton Leanne Huston, Esq., and Dr. Edward D. Baker, Ph.D., it’s necessary to provide some history and context. The Kirk marriage has a little something for everyone: false rape allegations, false domestic violence allegations, physical and emotional spousal abuse, child abuse, alcohol abuse and addiction, serial infidelities, financial fraud, identity theft, pathological deceit, and much, much more all perpetrated by Ms. Kirk.

Lt. Col. Kirk met Tina Taylor in 1991, three months into his Naval Aviation Training. He graduated Marine Officer Basic Training (otherwise known as TBS) near the top of his class, was flying Marine Aircraft and generally at the top of his game. It was instant attraction at first sight and the young officer believed he had met the woman of his dreams. In reality, the future Ms. Kirk is the stuff of nightmares.

Six months later, the Lt. Col. discovered Tina was engaged to a Navy pilot in California the entire time they were dating in Florida. He was devastated. Friends of Tina came forward after she left for California and revealed the truth about her promiscuity, drinking, smoking and drug use. While the Lt. Col. believed he had dodged a bullet, he says there was still a part of him that felt he was meant to be with her. Even after her fiancé called him warning him to “quit stalking” Tina or he would “regret it.” It would appear Tina lied to this man rather than admit she had betrayed him with the Lt. Col.

The false allegations started early on in their relationship and are just a glimpse of the hell that would later ensue. Their relationship should have ended then, but Tina resurfaced 2 years later.

The Borderline Boomerang and the never-ending, waking nightmare.

After receiving his Gold Wings in 1994, young officer Kirk was stationed in Southern California with a Replacement Air Group flying CH-53 Sea Stallions, even though he had requested to be based on the East coast to be closer to his family. If only the powers that be had honored his request the Lt. Col.’s life may have turned out very differently.

Soon after arriving in California, Tina tracked the Lt. Col. down and re-entered his life. She claimed leaving him in Florida was a mistake and . . . wait for it . . . that her boyfriend/fiancé was “abusive” and “threw her out onto the street.” She apologized for her past behavior and claimed to have found God. This activated the Lt. Col.’s knight in shining armor instincts. He rushed in to save his dubious damsel in distress and fell for her all over again.

It was only a few weeks after their reunion that the Lt. Col. discovered Tina’s relationship with the Navy pilot wasn’t over. After much denial and obfuscation, Tina finally admitted she was still seeing the man she claimed abused her, but only to “finalize” the relationship. Against his better judgment, Lt. Col. Kirk took her back.

He explains:

“I had never seen crying and pleading like Tina engaged in back then. “Please take me back. Please!” “It was a mistake!” “I was just finalizing our breakup!” “Please!” I was conflicted for weeks with myself about what to do. This woman had nearly cost me my dream career in Pensacola and was begging me to jump back in to the fire.”

“It was very difficult to believe her at this point. I enjoyed a very sheltered childhood in a small town and was not fully aware of important warning signs that would have spared me a lot of pain. I had no knowledge of Borderline Personality Disorder and sociopathy. I came from a place where everyone trusted each other, from the best guys in the world in my Marine Officer Training, to my relationship with Tina. I never saw her coming. In my entire life up until that point, I had been taught to always forgive and forget and did not understand that some people are just untrustworthy and best avoided.”

“Looking back, I still don’t know how I rationalized taking her back, but I did. I took her back and it was at this point that I made the most critical and life-changing decision I would ever make. I married her and that has brought me more pain, agony and distress than any and all combined combat flying would ever do.”

Lt. Colonel Joel Kirk

For those of you reading this who are unfamiliar with Borderline Personality Disordered individuals, you may wonder how a man as intelligent as Lt. Col. Kirk could have been so easily taken in by a woman like this despite the many warning signs. It is all too common for young, idealistic and, in many ways, naïve men from close knit families and traditional backgrounds like Lt. Col. Kirk, to be beguiled by and fall in love with women like Tina Taylor Kirk. Nice and trusting guys make perfect cannon fodder for this kind of female predator.

Lt. Col. Kirk is a decorated pilot. Over the course of his military career, he has been a Marine Pilot, a Combat Forward Air Controller (FAC) and a Marine Instructor Pilot. He is still an active Air Force Pilot. He was commissioned during Desert Storm. He served in Operation Northern Watch (Iraq), Operation Noble Eagle (U.S. after 9/11), Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Operation Joint Force (Bosnia).

He has been deployed 7 times for wartime contingencies and received 6 air medals for his service. He has flown nearly 200 combat missions and served over 500 hours in combat and 4,000 flight hours in six different airframes, both rotary and fixed wing. Yet, because of Judge Lori B. Jackson, an either extremely incompetent and/or extremely corrupt West Virginia Family Court judge, this brave and decent man has had to stand by and allow himself and his children to be abused by their mother, a woman who offered to sell the children to the Col. for $288,000 during mediation, which is documented in a letter written by Ms. Kirk’s attorney, Thomas G. Smith, Esq.

If you would like to read it (Children for Sale).

Notice how Mr. Smith tells the Lt. Col.’s attorney how generous Ms. Kirk is for offering to sell the children to their father for a paltry $144,000 apiece, and immediately reminds the Lt. Col.’s attorney that mediation negotiations are inadmissible in court. It would seem that even Mr. Smith knows how reptilian his behavior is.

Harrison County west virginia Judge Lori B. Jackson knowingly places children in the custody of an abusive, alcoholic, borderline personality disordered mother in the “best interests of the children.”

After over a decade of abuse and betrayals with more enlisted men (a very big no-no in the military, as in a career ending no-no), false rape allegations, $250,000 of debt incurred by and because of Tina ($40,000 of the debt was fraudulently incurred via credit cards she opened in her name during a separation that he now has been ordered to pay, while living it up with her boyfriend/alleged rapist and the rest was from two mortgages also incurred jointly by Tina) and other horrors, Lt. Col. Kirk wanted out.

He wanted out for years, but knew he would face tremendous bias in Family Court, even with over 1300 minutes of audio recordings of her abusive rampages. He had to leave the children with their abusive mother while deployed in two-month intervals, which was bad enough. He was terrified of what would happen to the children if they were left with her all of the time.

Then, one crazy summer night in 2009, Lt. Col. Kirk seemed to have a way out drop into his lap. I have tried repeatedly to write a short synopsis of what occurred that evening, but am unable to effectively convey the sheer insanity of what transpired.

Lt. Col. Kirk recounts the events of June 28, 2009:

“On the outside, Tina was mother of the year. At home, her head spun around on her neck while she turned green and vomited — and I mean all the time. I prayed for something or someone to save us. On June 28, 2009, Tina’s 40th birthday, she drank at least 5 too many martinis, all while the children and I pleaded with her to stop. She went into a rage that surprised even us veterans of such activity after years of her abuse.”

“From painful experience, the kids and I had learned to stay away from Tina when she was drunk and/or on the attack, to egress, and not to engage because it made her worse. If we couldn’t get away, we just went fetal and took it. Never ever did we fight back.”

“That night, I was trying to study for my annual check ride the next morning—a vitally important yearly test. We had spent Saturday and most of Sunday celebrating Tina’s birthday. Because it was her birthday, our video camera was lying on the table, so I filmed her. I filmed a raging Borderline abusing her family. She did not know I had come into the adjacent dark room because she was so wasted.”

“My son fled to a neighbor’s house for help, telling the neighbor, “Mom is going to kill us.” My son was 11 when this happened. He ran down a pitch-dark gravel road in flip-flops over 2 miles for help.”

“When it appeared that my wife might physically harm our daughter, I stepped in and set the camera on a table. It filmed me calmly asking my daughter to go outside so she wouldn’t have to suffer anymore of her mother’s verbal tirade. I knew Tina would then shift her rage to a new target, me, and she did. When she tried to incite me into an altercation, I knew I had to leave. I retrieved the camera, grabbed a bag of clothes and walked out the door with her cursing and screaming at me all the way.”

“I thought I had turned the camera off, but luckily I had not. I knew my son had fled. I also knew my daughter was outside, but not where (I have 100 acres). I got in my truck, backed out and stopped at the barn to see if the children were there. Our daughter came running and jumped in the truck.”

“We started down the driveway and as we did, we felt a tremendous crash on the back of my SUV and heard a scream. I stopped immediately and got out. As I walked to the back of the vehicle, I saw Tina on the ground screaming and yelling like a demon. She had attempted to jump on the back of a moving SUV and fell flat on her face.”

“I asked her if she was okay and discovered very quickly that was a bad move. She came after me. I ran back to the truck, jumped in and locked the doors. She then proceeded to dismantle the side mirror from the truck and attempted to break the windows, cutting her hand in the process. There was blood everywhere.”

“She screamed for my daughter to unlock the door, but she refused to do so. I still did not know where my son was, so I was scared to leave the property and did not want to move with Tina hanging on to the truck. Because we didn’t have cell phone coverage where I had stopped, I left our daughter in the truck, stepped out and ran to a reception area to call the police. They arrived on the scene at the same time as my son and the neighbor. Tina then went after all of them.”

“As she was being arrested, she screamed that I had abused her. She told the officers to look at what I had done to her. I showed the police the video and Tina was charged with domestic assault and taken to jail. Once on bail, she filed a protective order against me for assault, detaining her and the children and that she was in fear for her life. She filed an ex parte motion that the children were in immediate danger and needed to be removed from me.”

“The Judge granted the motion and Tina came to court with pictures of her injuries and claims of abuse. I came with the video from that night, the testimony of our children to the court appointed CPS worker, the police and the neighbor witness. I was given sole custody of my children on her motion to remove them from me. No reprimand for her false allegations was given. If I had not had the presence of mind to film the events that occurred that night, I would have lost my kids, my job and everything.”

“I called HOPE, a Domestic Violence center in Harrison County, and asked for help. I was told Tina had already reported a claim and that they could not speak with me. Within a week, there was a letter from HOPE stating that my ex was a victim of a dominating, controlling husband. She had never mentioned that she was the one arrested for Domestic Assault and they never bothered to verify what she told them with the court or the CPS worker. I knew right then I was in for a long haul.”

“Guardians and child counselors were appointed. Therapeutic visitation was arranged. At the very first meeting, Tina attacked the children in front of the Guardian and the counselor while in session. My children hid and the Guardian escorted my ex out and filed an immediate NO CONTACT order. I was relieved. I thought finally, “That should be enough.” Oh, was I wrong.”

Psychological evaluations were ordered. The services of Dr. Edward D. Baker, Ph.D. were retained. He diagnosed Ms. Kirk with Axis II Borderline Personality Disorder and Axis I Alcohol Abuse and diagnosed the Lt. Col. with Personality Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified). Being entrusted with 25 million dollar aircraft necessitated that Lt. Col. Kirk be psychologically evaluated throughout his entire military career. Dr. Baker’s opinions are unsupported by 25 years of meticulous military testing.

Some of the more absurd findings by Dr. Baker include that Lt. Col. Kirk exacerbated Tina’s Borderline Personality Disorder because he was “too moral” and that she drank and had affairs to ease her pain from the marital conflict. This is ridiculous. It would be laughable that Dr. Baker believes a man not wanting his wife to cheat on him with multiple partners, to not abuse their children and not drink herself into oblivion while endangering the lives of herself and the children is “too moral,” if his findings were not used by Judge Lori B. Jackson and Ms. Kirk’s three attorneys to enable her continued abuse of the children and the Lt. Col.

Dr. Baker also determined that filming Tina was “abusive” because the Lt. Col. seemed more interested in making her look bad than nurturing the children. These are just the “highlights” of Dr. Baker’s biased and empirically baseless interpretations regarding the nature of Borderline Personality Disorder, marital infidelity, addiction, domestic violence and child abuse. Lt. Col. Kirk suspects Dr. Baker had decided the outcome of his report before he even met with him. The report itself is littered with factual errors and gross biases, but more on that in future articles on this topic.

The children were also evaluated by multiple professionals and found to be credible witnesses. During their evaluations, the children provided detailed accounts of their mother’s abuse. Statements from the children’s evaluations include:

• “Dad      just sits and takes it and mom just keeps after him.”

• “Mom      abuses dad and hits him.”

• “We      hide from mom until dad gets home.”

• “The      night mom got arrested on a scale of 1-10 was a 10, but we have 9s a lot.”

• “Mom      does not help around the house and when dad is gone we have to take care      of ourselves.”

• “Our      father does everything.”

Originally, the court ordered that the only way the children could safely travel for visitation with their mother was if she had a Breathalyzer interlock installed in her vehicle. Within 5 months, Tina removed it without consent of the court and was held in contempt.

Judge Cornelia Reep was the original judge involved in the Kirk’s divorce and custody dispute. She watched the video, read the reports and awarded emergency physical custody to Col. Kirk without hesitation. Three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, Ms. Kirk strategically obtained new legal representation, while stiffing her first attorney for thousands of dollars.

Judge Reep had represented Tina’s new attorney during his divorce when Reep was a practicing attorney, which caused her to recuse herself from the case. Judge Lori B. Jackson took over and things changed dramatically for the worse. As it turns out, Judge Jackson should have also recused herself from the case as her husband is best friends with Tina’s attorney, Thomas G. Smith, Esq. This would also appear to be a conflict of interest.

The details of Judge Lori B. Jackson’s malfeasance are long and will be detailed at greater length in future articles, so let’s begin with the basics. For starters, Judge Jackson:

• Is      in the process of reversing custody. She ruled that although Ms. Kirk was      drunk, hysterical and abusive, she still showed good parenting instincts      unlike Lt. Col. Kirk who, although sober, acted just as irrationally by      video taping the abusive episode instead of trying to calm down a drunk,      raging, violent Borderline. A videotape, by the way, that Judge Jackson      has gagged from public view.

• Determined      that the children had been unfairly separated from their mother because of      court proceedings and not because of Ms. Kirk’s volatile and abusive      behavior and alcoholism.

• Determined,      without a shred of evidence, that the children would be harmed if they      were not returned to Ms. Kirk’s care because Lt. Col. Kirk is “equally      dangerous to the children.” Bear in mind, Judge Jackson viewed the video      filmed on June 28, 2009.

• Determined,      without a shred of evidence, that since Ms. Kirk had been the primary      caretaker of the children prior to separation, that, by law, she should be      entitled to that again despite her well-documented abuses. In reality, Lt.      Col. Kirk has long been the children’s primary caretaker, even with his      deployments.

• Determined,      without a shred of evidence, that Ms. Kirk had passed up employment      opportunities by being married and should, therefore, be reimbursed. In      reality, Ms. Kirk worked for all but 5 years of the marriage until the      children were weaned. She holds an associate degree in business, a degree      in holistic nutrition and multiple fitness training certifications.

• Determined      that Lt. Col. Kirk showed a lack of concern for their daughter because he      “locked her in a truck” and did not console her when she was upset, even      though it is impossible to lock someone in a vehicle without power locks.      Clearly, the Lt. Col. and his daughter were in the vehicle to keep Ms.      Kirk from attacking them until the police arrived.

• Determined      that Ms. Kirk’s expenses exceed her income, so Lt. Col. Kirk should pay      her and that all credit card debt, even the debt she ran up during her      affair while separated, was marital and Col. Kirk’s responsibility.

• Determined      that the divorce was “equal fault.”

• Determined      that anytime Lt. Col. Kirk deploys for more than 72 hours, the children      will be in the full custody of Ms. Kirk. Keep in mind they have been      living with the Lt. Col. and their grandmother for over three years and in      the Lt. Col.’s home for the last seven years.

• Determined      that all of the Lt. Col.’s estate, including pre-marital assets (funds      that the Col. has had since childhood and kept separate) was to be      divided. West Virginia is an equitable distribution state not a community      property state.

• Created      money that does not and has never existed in an effort to pad Lt. Col.      Kirk’s credit side of the distribution ledger. This way, Judge Jackson      could show unequal distribution and extort money from the Lt. Col. through      a court order to pay Ms. Kirk an exorbitant amount of money. The amount      created was over $70,000. This was even upheld in the last contempt      hearing in which Judge Jackson ordered the Lt. Col. to pay even though she      admitted in court, “That is clearly a mistake.” The Lt. Col. has an appeal      schedule on this matter later this fall.

• Awarded      Ms. Kirk the Lt. Col.’s retirement, half of the marital assets, no      responsibility for child support, $45,000 in spousal support already paid      in the last three years and $12,000 more over the next three years      regardless of remarriage. All marital debt, about $400,000, was given to      the Lt. Col. Ms. Kirk, again with two college degrees, and who worked for      all but five years of the marriage, was imputed at minimum wage for      calculations that leave the Lt. Col. with over $1,000 a month in support      payments to her for what will soon be 50% custody. This does not include      the $800 a month in child support he was ordered to pay.

Judge Jackson’s rulings have nearly destroyed the Lt. Col.’s ability to support his children. He was also ordered to pay the bulk of the court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem fees. For over three years, he has paid Ms. Kirk over $1500 a month in pay and benefits while he had sole custody of the children and serviced 100% of the marital debt. Ms. Kirk has had no legal fees since stiffing her original attorney. Her lawyers work pro bono. Ms. Kirk also quit work after separation under the guidance of her first attorney in order to throw off the chart for income and place the lion’s share of burden on Lt. Col. Kirk. Mission accomplished.

Judge Lori B. Jackson basically ignored three years worth of recommendations by court appointed officials who were charged with determining the “best interests of the children.” All of these officials, with the exception of Dr. Edward D. Baker, agreed that the children should not be placed in the custody of their mother. However, even Dr. Baker agreed the children were truthful in their accounts when he interviewed them. Numbers of reports were submitted to the court attesting to Ms. Kirk’s unfitness as a parent and Judge Jackson has neither acknowledged their existence in her rulings nor has she stated why she disregarded them.

Judge Lori B. Jackson completely disregarded the children’s counselor’s recommendations and continues to disregard the children’s own custody requests to live with their father.

Judge Lori B. Jackson disregarded the detailed written report and recommendations of the Guardian ad Litem formed over her extensive three-year interactions with the children and thorough investigation.

Judge Lori B. Jackson disregarded the report by Children’s Protective Services.

Judge Lori B. Jackson has yet to acknowledge Ms. Kirk’s diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and its implications on her fitness to parent.

Judge Lori B. Jackson appears to have based her rulings simply on the word of an established mentally ill liar and the dubious opinions of a Psychologist who claims that Ms. Kirk’s many abuses, infidelities, alcoholism and rage were due to the effects of a “volatile marriage on her frail psyche.” It is also possible that there are relationships and/or political favors occurring behind closed doors, but don’t expect to see the truth or, for that matter, justice from Judge Lori B. Jackson.

More articles on Lt. Col. Kirk’s case are soon to follow by Paul Elam, others and myself. We ask that you consider supporting Col. Kirk when the time comes (and it will very soon!) by writing letters, posting respectful and civil comments on any news publications that carry this story, blogging about his story and/or simply by keeping Col. Kirk and his children in your thoughts.

Meanwhile, I have one question for Judge Lori B. Jackson, the pro bono attorneys, Thomas G. Smith, Esq., Jamison H. Cooper, Esq., and Afton Leanne Huston, Esq., and Dr. Edward D. Baker, Ph.D.:

Would you feel comfortable leaving your children in Tina Taylor Kirk’s care for a week? For a day? For an hour?

Didn’t think so.

Written by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

Dr. Tara Palmatier is a life coach, blogger and webmaster of A Shrink for Men. She is also a regular contributor to A Voice for Men and monthly co-host of A Voice for Men Radio

A Post from ‘A Voice for Men’ LINK HERE

By CAILA KLAISS

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Edwin M. Kosik has sentenced Mark Ciavarella, former president judge of the Court of Common Pleas and former judge of the Juvenile Court for Luzerne County, Pa., to  28 years in federal prison. The federal system offers no parole  and Ciavarella, 61, could remain behind bars until he is 89 years old.

In an ongoing corruption scandal that implicated more than 30 state and local government officials and contractors, Ciavarella, in a “kids for cash” scheme, was accused of sentencing juveniles to Pennsylvania Child Care and Western Pennsylvania Child Care detention centers in exchange for cash payments. Ciavarella was convicted of accepting a payment of nearly $1 million from the juvenile detention centers’ builder. After the scandal, which broke in 2007, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the sentences and wiped clean the records of all minors (about 4,000) who appeared before Ciavarella during his tenure as a Juvenile Court judge.

More than 200 people packed into the William J. Nealon Federal Building in Scranton, Pa., last Thursday to witness the sentencing of Ciavarella.  Following an 11-day trial in February 2011, Ciavarella was found guilty on 12 of 39 charges, including racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and filing false tax returns.

Since allegations emerged five years ago, Ciavarella has steadfastly maintained that he never received kickbacks for incarcerating juveniles who appeared before him.  In a statement he delivered to the court right before his sentencing, the husband and father of three requested that the government release his entire investigative file to the media and public for review.  Ciavarella said, “Let it all become public and allow everyone to judge based upon the evidence amassed against me, if there is any believable evidence that I received money to place juveniles.”

In an email to ABC News, the office of  Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Zubrod, the lead prosecutor,s aid that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would not be making the file available.  “The file contains statements of other witnesses, Grand Jury documents and other matters not directly related to Mr. Ciavarella that we cannot disclose. We rely on the evidence that was presented at trial,” the letter said.

Many of the families of children whom  Ciavarella incarcerated saw the sentence as a victory.  Droves of parents and some children were present at the courthouse to witness Ciavarella’s fate firsthand.  “The day was extremely draining,” Susan Morgans told ABC News.  Morgans’ daughter appeared before Ciavarella as a teenager and was sentenced to detention.  Although Morgans’ daughter is now in her 20s, she still struggles with the effects of her boot camp experience and did not attend the sentencing. “His refusal to accept responsibility evoked a lot of emotions.  Many of us were hoping to hear remorse,” Morgans said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office echoed the same sentiments.  “The sentence that Mr. Ciavarella received was the sentence the government asked for, and we believe it was appropriate given the ruin Mr. Ciavarella brought to the thousands of young people,” Zubrod’s office conveyed to ABC News.

CLICK HERE FULL STORY

couriermail_com_au QUEENSLANDERS have been hoodwinked for a decade into believing there’s an army of frontline workers in child protection, the Child Protection Inquiry has been told this morning.

Since the early 2000s state governments have told the public support staff and associated workers are in the frontline, it has been alleged.

Professor Karen Healy from the University of Queensland has raised serious allegations that the deliberate fraud has led to hundreds of kids being removed from their family home without good reason.

Professor Healy has told the inquiry the department deliberately sidelined trained social worker who actually engage with families and employed staff with backgrounds in record keeping and criminology.

“I would define a frontline staff person as someone who spent a significant part of their week engaged with clients,” she said.

She has also told the inquiry families who have had children removed may one day take legal action against the State Government.

“These people have rights,” she said.

“These people may start demanding justice.”

For much of the decade the government had provided no breakdown on figures on actual frontline workers in annual reports or public documents, she said.

Professor Healy, who heads up the Australian Association of Social Workers, said she had raised the issue with two former Community Services Minister.

She also has an email from some departmental staff who pleaded with her not to give them “a hard time” in pursuing the issue of who or who was not a frontline worker.

Child protection is far from simple, isn’t it? Lindsay Wegener from the child protection peak body PeakCare Qld writes for couriermail.com.au

Professor Healy said the “de-professionalisation” of the department had led to poor decision making with children being removed from families rather than social workers being allowed to work with them on improving parenting.

The executive arm of the department and, by extension, the ministers, did not have a good grasp of the full ramifications of removing a child from a home, she said.

“I do believe they did not have a strong understanding of that,” she told Counsel Assisting Ryan Haddrick.

Commissioner Tim Carmody asked whether the department might believe that creating a public perception of a large number of front line workers was in the department’s interests.

Cutting front line workers might a create “moral panic” that would not necessarily follow the cutting of bureaucratic positions, he suggested.

Professor Healy agreed with the suggestion.

The inquiry continues.

 

[youtub=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqHeAWAfnm8&feature=player_embedded]