Eleven years ago today 7-31-2000, Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to convicted batterer HAL RICHARDSON

HELL HAS A SPECIAL PLACE FOR ALL ABUSERS and ENABLERS (aka child traffickers) that have and are continuing the  abuse by Hal Richardson. With the help of the local CourtWhores, M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Judge David Debenham, Don and Jason Hoffman

 

Eleven years ago today Rikki Dombrowski was taken from her mother Claudine Dombrowski and given to a convicted batterer on a ‘snail mail’  from crooked Judge Richard Anderson. He made a ‘deal’ and without motion from either party, without hearing he simply on his own ‘switched custody’ from Mother to ABUSER HAL RICHARDSON.

Mother Claudine Dombrowski has had little to no contact with her daughter since this illegal ‘action’ and ruling was made. The Judges following after this decision could have at anytime corrected a very wrong very unethical very damaging ruling.

 

Instead, they continued ‘litigation abuse’ of a battered mother and forced her only child- HER daughter to live with out her mother and in constant fear.

[scribd id=43805172 key=key-18j7hcjx5kgmiopq3ylk mode=list]

2000 July 31-- Custody Switch-Judge Richard Anderson Gives FULL custody to CRIMINAL HAL RICHARDSON

HAL RICHARDSON - COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BAR FIGHTS ETC…

WHAT KIND A EVIL BASTARD WOULD HURT HIS CHILD SO BADLY BY TAKING HER MOTHER AWAY FROM HER? RIKKI DOMBROWSKI THE WORLD IS APPALLED, KANSAS IS SICK. THIS MAN WILL KNOW JUSTICE ONE DAY—GOD WILL JUDGE ALL WHO HELPED TO KEEP YOU SEPERATED FROM YOUR LOVING MOTHER.

GOD’S JUDGEMENT DAY—AND TOPEKA KANSAS WILL BURN

95LA014502-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)2OE
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1OR
97LA009121-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
98LA006122-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
92CV000432-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96CV000937-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
92LA000089-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
96LA012692-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97LA017898-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97U 000055-RICHARDSON,HAL,,D/B/A/ TOPEKA VINYL TOP,1D
90LA007629-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA GATEWAY FUNDRAISING,1D
97LA018158-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
96LA003402-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
98U 000141-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
04SC000200-RICHARDSON,HAL,,III,1D
03C 000086-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR TRACT 84,184D
95U 000500-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
03L 010117-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
05L 001833-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95SC000448-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95LN000161-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1OP
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
94SC000355-RICHARDSON,HAL,,OWNER OF MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
89CR 01537-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)1D
90CR 01308-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)1D
96LA019246-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
96LA000348-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97CV000960-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97LA011585-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,2D
08SC000096-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1P
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)2OE
97CV000778-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR,

2 p.

95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

7 p.

12-1-1997 Joan Hamilton DA Refuses to Prosecute Admitted CrowBar Assault

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

2 p.

1999_2nd ABP Heartland Consult an Tans Hal Richardson

3 p.

1996 Alternatives to Battering Per Domestic Violence Conviction against Claudine Dombroeski and Order of Probation Hal Richardson...

1 p.

1995 PSI Mary Kelly Recommends Prison for Hal Richardson as Conviction History of Violence past 15 years

5 p.

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

2 p.

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

2 p.

1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR...

3 p.

1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

Kansas Enacts ‘Maternal Gate Keeping” Law - (Banning Mothers From their Children) KS. SENATE BILL No. 38—page 8

This is only one of the portions of the bill that I have concerns with - mother is named specifically: The other portions give judges too much power allowing them to make rulings without following the requirements of the federal government for the state to receive funding. Hence the Kansas tax payer pays for it. (I always talk about taxes because most people don't want to hear about what's happening to the children - they sure do care about their taxes though - especially with a budget deficit - their taxes may have to be increased - yahooooooo!) I always say if you don't care about the children - let me talk to you about something you do care about - your money......

SENATE BILL No. 38—page 8

(C) Neither parent shall be considered to have a vested interest in the custody or residency of any child as against the other parent, regardless of the age of the child, and there shall be no presumption that it is in the best interests of any infant or young child to give custody or residency to the mother.

The Kansas Constitution states:

Article 15.--MISCELLANEOUS

§ 6: Rights of women. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the rights of women, in acquiring and possessing property, real, personal and mixed, separate and apart from the husband; and shall also provide for their equal rights in the possession of their children.

Rene Netherton’s Threats exposed at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany NY , 2011

Video streaming by Ustream

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11918412

Rene watch through the 2nd presenter—you are famous!!

Let’s Defund FATHERHOOD Programs, Marriage Promotion Programs, All Faith-Based Funding

With the debt ceiling crisis and the uproar over what programs to cut it's a good time to email your senators & representative and tell them what programs you would like cut and what programs you want to keep.

Let's defund Fatherhood programs, marriage promotion programs, all faith-based funding (faith-based charities are funded by church contributions, which aren't taxed)

Find your senator http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find you representative https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

 

Obama (and Congress) you are killing children with the tax payer’s money. STOP FATHERHOOD FUNDING NOW!

Here is a sample letter that all can write:

YOUR OR YOUR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS
TODAY’S DATE
The Honorable YOUR CONGRESSMEMBER’S NAME
ADDRESS
Washington DC 20510

Re: Cut $500 Million from the Fatherhood Initiative and Hold Congressional Hearings

Dear YOUR CONGRESSMEMBER’S NAME:

I am writing to you today to urge you to cut five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) in funds administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human services for Fatherhood Initiative programs.  http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/

These programs are designed to improve the lives of children by promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage, authorized under 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Public Welfare.

45 CFR Section 260.20  The TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) program  has the following four purposes:

(a) Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
(b) End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
(c) Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and
(d) Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

45 CFR Section 263.2(a)(4)(ii) Pro-family healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities enumerated in part IV-A of the Act, sections 403(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 403(a)(2)(C)(ii) that are consistent with the goals at §§260.20(c) or (d) of this chapter, but do not constitute “assistance” as defined in §260.31(a) of this chapter….

(g) State funds used to meet the Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grant match requirement may count to meet the MOE requirement in §263.1, provided the expenditure also meets all the other MOE requirements in this subpart.

Despite the stated positive goals, these programs lead to frighteningly negative outcomes for children. Goals of these funds are for fathers (especially ex-prisoners) to get jobs and pay child support. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/obama-visits-se-washington-to.html

Instead, gender-biased legal services are provided solely to fathers.  Opportunistic male batterers, molesters, felons and drug addicts seize the opportunity to use free legal services to avoid paying child support by gaining custody. This is the precise opposite of program goals.

On February 14, 2011, a non-custodial mother testified to Senate aides that she was refused legal services from an HHS federally funded grant program simply because she was a mother. This is an illegal use of federal dollars.http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/regixcomplaint.pdf

Approximately 70% of batterers who ask for custody receive custody.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html

Federal funds fuel this litigation.  Because aggressive fathers are able to access free legal assistance through federal Fatherhood Initiative programs, fathers have a distinct advantage in family court.  Custody is given to fathers who have legal representation, regardless of whether they pose a risk to their children.

A self-represented mother has no chance against a father who is advised and represented by an attorney. The result: Every year, 58,000 children (including nursing infants) are taken away from safe mothers and given to violent, abusive men. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html

This does not improve the lives of children. Rather, it causes immeasurable harm to them. Children live in situations that would break a seasoned soldier. They are beaten and raped. At least one per week is killed.These programs also lead to widespread fiscal waste, fraud and abuse.

Due to the lack of oversight and clearly defined and monitored outcome measures, these funds are commonly misused. An example is the defunded access to visitation program in Amador County CA.  The program was designed to foster a relationship and ensure contact between children and non-custodial parents, and provide victim protection through supervised visits. Instead, the grant program manager (a family law facilitator who illegally represented a private client, an admittedly violent father) used federal funds to:

1) benefit her custodial father client, rather than the non-custodial victim mother and victim   children;
2) block the mother’s access to her children;
3) suppress clear evidence of domestic violence and child sexual abuse;
4) pay other individuals who she used as witnesses against the mother;
5) collect money from the father for legal representation while billing the access to visitation program $16,000.00 for the father’s litigation costs; and
6) pay $6,000.00 for a wine drinking event disguised as training.

This is one of many programs throughout the country that are subverting the intent of the law. A federal investigation is needed to determine whether this subversion by fatherhood programs is unintentional or deliberate.

During a time of deep fiscal crisis, this pork barrel project, replete with waste, fraud and abuse that produce outcomes that harm children, is a travesty that needs to be defunded. We urgently request you to cut the Fatherhood Initiative funds immediately.

We further request Congressional hearings to allow testimony on the damage done to children due to the failure of family courts, assisted by federally -funded legal services, to protect them from violent and incestuous fathers.

Sincerely,
YOUR SIGNATURE
YOUR PHONE AND EMAIL ADDRESS

What is Domestic Violence?

National Domestic Violence Hotline
1-800-799-SAFE (7233)
1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.  Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

Physical Abuse: Hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair pulling, etc are types of physical abuse. This type of abuse also includes denying a partner medical care or forcing alcohol and/or drug use upon him or her.

Sexual Abuse: Coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behavior without consent. Sexual abuse includes, but is certainly not limited to, marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex after physical violence has occurred, or treating one in a sexually demeaning manner.

Emotional Abuse: Undermining an individual's sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem is abusive. This may include, but is not limited to constant criticism, diminishing one's abilities, name-calling, or damaging one's relationship with his or her children.

Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.

Psychological Abuse: Elements of psychological abuse include  - but are not limited to - causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends; destruction of pets and property; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school and/or work.

Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, or dating.

Domestic violence not only affects those who are abused, but also has a substantial effect on family members, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and the community at large. Children, who grow up witnessing domestic violence, are among those seriously affected by this crime. Frequent exposure to violence in the home not only predisposes children to numerous social and physical problems, but also teaches them that violence is a normal way of life - therefore, increasing their risk of becoming society's next generation of victims and abusers.

Sources: National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Center for Victims of Crime, and WomensLaw.org.

Dear Custody Court Judge: EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES

EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES 

By Barry Goldstein

Dear Custody Court Judge:

The research is now clear that certain extreme decisions in domestic violence custody cases that have become all too common are contributing to an increase in the frequency of domestic violence homicide and other harmful consequences. This is established in the leading resources about domestic violence and custody including THE BATTERER AS PARENT by Lundy Bancroft and Jay Silverman, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY edited by Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein and the major new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan. Judges should be aware of the research that demonstrates the danger of creating these dangerous decisions avoid these decisions in the future and modify existing arrangements that create substantial risks to the children.

The decisions that must be avoided and corrected are ones in which an alleged abuser is given custody and a safe, protective mother is limited to supervised or no visitation. I will more fully describe these dangerous cases below and I am not saying it can never be right to give someone custody who was accused of domestic violence or child abuse or that a mother who makes abuse allegations should never be denied normal visitation.

I will discuss the harm and danger of these extreme decisions below, but judges should be aware that these decisions are probably the largest factor in the recent increase in domestic violence homicide. Furthermore these extreme decisions are never in the best interests of children even when the court is right that the abuse allegations are false and the mother seeks to take the father out of the child's life for bad faith reasons. More commonly, the research demonstrates that court professionals who used flawed practices to justify the extreme decision also got the underlying facts wrong. Judges should look to the specialized body of research now available that can help courts make the best decisions in domestic violence custody cases.

Description of Extreme Cases

The extreme cases I am speaking about include evidence or at least allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. It is not limited to cases in which the allegations are confirmed or believed. The research establishes that courts fail to recognize valid complaints about domestic violence and child abuse with frightening frequency because of the outdated and discredited practices that continue to be used in domestic violence custody cases despite the scientific research now available. Furthermore, even when courts reject abuse allegations because of inadequate proof or in rare cases in which mothers make deliberately false allegations, courts have a tendency to punish mothers in ways that are harmful to the children.

Most of these cases involve mothers who are the primary attachment figures for their children. Primary attachment is created in the first couple of years of a child’s life so later care or custody of a child does not change the primary attachment figure. Some court professionals confuse continuity, which is a valid consideration with primary attachment which is far more significant to children. Primary attachment is often minimized by custody courts because of stereotypes and gender bias. Mothers are often expected to provide most of the child care so they receive little credit or benefit for doing so even though it makes a big difference to the well being of children. In fairness to judges, many attorneys fail to present evidence about the mothers’ early care for her children and the significance of that care.

In attempting to treat both parents equally, courts often fail to understand that the parents may not be of equal importance to the well being of their children based on past parenting such as superior parenting skills, non-abusiveness and primary attachment. When a court treats unequal parents as if their value to the child is the same, this is actually a bias favoring the weaker parent and certainly not in the best interests of the children. Children who are separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when they are older. It cannot be beneficial to subject children to such substantial risks unless the primary attachment figure is unsafe, but courts routinely do so when they treat alienation as if it were more significant than primary attachment or abuse.

If custody courts were acting in the best interests of children as required by statute, they would be weighing the harms and benefits of any proposed custody-visitation arrangement. So if a mother was a drug addict she could not be relied upon to keep her children safe and healthy. If she beat the children, that would create an obvious safety risk. If she had a mental illness so serious that it would prevent her from taking proper care of her children, this would create a safety risk. I must emphasize, however that many of the mental health diagnoses seen in custody court are inaccurate because of flawed practices and biases and in any event do not create a legitimate safety issue. The kinds of safety issues discussed in this paragraph are more serious than the risks of separating a child from her primary attachment figure and would justify the extreme decisions discussed in this article. The problem is that most of the extreme decisions are justified by reasons that do not involve a safety issue and are likely to create more harm than benefit for the children.

The extreme decisions frequently imposed on protective mothers come in the context of a court system that is extremely reluctant to restrict fathers who abused their partners to supervised visitation as recommended by leading domestic violence experts such as Lundy Bancroft and Peter Jaffe. Children who witness domestic violence are prevented from reaching their developmental goals which in turn interferes with their ability to reach future developmental milestones. These children are also more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behavior when they are older including substance abuse, self-mutilation, suicide, prostitution, crime, teen pregnancy, school drop-out and for boys to abuse future partners and girls to be abused by future partners. Again these are valid safety concerns that justify visitation restrictions. Some unqualified professionals unfamiliar with domestic violence dynamics minimize these risks because the parties are separated or the father stopped assaulting his partner when he no longer had access to her. Domestic violence is not caused by the victim’s behavior, but by the abuser’s belief system. There is no reason to believe the end of the relationship will change his beliefs so if the father is given custody or unsupervised visitation, the children are likely to witness his abuse of future partners. Over forty states have created court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias particularly against mothers in custody cases. The willingness and almost eagerness to engage in these extreme decisions against protective mothers, together with the reluctance to limit contact with dangerous fathers demonstrates the impact of gender bias in domestic violence custody cases.

For purposes of this article, these extreme cases are ones in which there is no legitimate safety issue to justify decisions that place children in jeopardy. One common example of a non-safety issue is the use of alienation to justify the extreme decisions. One of the problems with alienation is that courts often allow fathers to make a general complaint claiming alienation without specifying exactly what the mother is alleged to have done. This makes it difficult to defend and raises due process concerns. If the concern is that the mother is making negative statements about the father, where is the research that demonstrates the long term harm to children hearing these statements? There is none. Children hear negative statements like this even in intact families. The most likely result is to harm the relationship with the parent making these statements if they are false. Even when the statements cause some harm to the relationship, these effects are generally short term. More often in domestic violence cases the real problem with the father’s relationship is his mistreatment of the mother or children as when Alec Baldwin called his daughter vile names, threatened her and then wanted to blame the mother for the natural effects of his abusive behavior. We often see mental health professionals lacking domestic violence expertise pathologize the victim and use this to justify the kind of extreme decision discussed in this article. I will discuss this in more detail below, but these are rarely safety issues. Courts also sometimes impose the extreme decisions to punish mothers who continue to believe their allegations of abuse after the court denied them, criticize the judge or otherwise act in ways the judge disapproves of. Given the harm to children of separating them from their primary attachment figure, none of these justifications rise to the level of safety issues so that the restrictions on the children’s ability to see their primary attachment figure are far more harmful than any benefit the court believes it is providing for the children.

Extreme Decisions Contribute to Rising Domestic Violence Homicide Rate

When domestic violence first became a public issue over thirty years ago there was no research to inform decision making by institutions charged with responding to domestic violence. The standard police response was to separate the parties and have the abuser walk around the block to cool off. This is how police officers were trained to respond and was considered best practices. Later, researchers found that this response was ineffective. In 95% of cases in which men murdered their intimate partner, the police had been called and used the standard response. On average the police had been called to the home in response to the abuser’s violence five times. The information from the research and lobbying by those working to end domestic violence led police departments across the country to adopt a pro arrest policy. These and other policies designed to hold abusers accountable and make it easier for women to leave their abusers resulted in a significant reduction in domestic violence homicides. The benefit of strict accountability was confirmed by some communities like Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California that obtained even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide by stricter enforcement of criminal laws and restraining orders against abusers.

The steady decrease in domestic violence homicides continued until recently when many states reported a resurgence in intimate partner homicides. Some people have suggested the poor economy has caused this increase, but a lot of research and information suggests the frequency of custody court decisions favoring dangerous abusers and particularly the extreme decisions discussed in this article have been a major factor in the increase in domestic violence homicides. A large part of the reduction in domestic violence homicides had been aided by providing victims with safer ways to leave their abuser. Court decisions, particularly in criminal cases taking domestic violence more seriously sent an important message that society no longer tolerated abusive behavior. The frequent custody decisions supporting abusers have undermined this progress and sent the opposite message. Domestic violence advocates have told me that they are seeing more mothers staying with their abusers and taking his beatings because they are afraid the custody court will separate them from their children and they won’t be able to protect them. Of course some of these mothers do not survive this decision. At the same time, custody decisions that minimize the significance or fail to recognize the father’s abuse are sending a terrible message that society will tolerate this abuse. For many years, Dutchess County, New York permitted many court professionals with strong fathers’ rights sympathies to work in the custody court. This led to numerous extreme decisions against safe, protective mothers. This in turn led to a series of domestic violence homicides and now the community is trying to create a coordinated community response and change practices that have encouraged these tragedies including the murder of a police officer by an abusive father in the aftermath of one of these murders.

Custody courts also developed their practices to respond to domestic violence cases at a time when no useful research was available. The courts turned to mental health professionals for expertise based on the widespread assumption that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. We now have a substantial body of research that establishes these assumptions were wrong and the standard practices are working poorly for children. The evaluators and other mental health professionals routinely relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and usually unfamiliar with the specialized body of research now available. This has led judges and lawyers to be taught a lot of misinformation and continue to use outdated and discredited practices. Significantly, the Department of Justice study found many evaluators and other court professionals do not have the domestic violence training they need. Those professionals without the needed training are more likely to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse and therefore make recommendations harmful to children. We often see court professionals make reference to this myth and it is especially influential in the extreme decisions discussed in this article. Even if you know mothers in contested custody cases make deliberate false allegations only one or two percent of the time, you may be influenced by other court professionals making recommendations based on this myth. Parental Alienation Syndrome (also often referred to as parental alienation or just alienation because of its notoriety), which was recently rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V (that lists all valid mental health diagnoses) because there is no scientific basis for it, is based on the assumption that virtually all allegations of abuse by mothers are false. In fairness to judges, they were often never told that PAS is based not on any research but the beliefs and biases of Richard Gardner. Gardner, who made a fortune providing expert testimony for abusers made many statements to the effect that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. It is hard to imagine many judges would want to be connected with such beliefs if they had known the basis for the PAS formulation. Alienation tactics based on PAS are probably the most common basis for the extreme decisions as the theory recommends punitive actions against protective mothers without considering the harm to children.

Most court professionals have been taught that contested custody are ”high conflict” cases by which they mean the parents are angry with each other and act out in ways that hurt their children. The actual research shows a different story. Most custody cases are settled more or less amicably. Even abusive fathers who are willing to seek custody for strategic reasons will ultimately settle usually for an unfair financial advantage and often a custodial arrangement that gives him some continued control over his victim. Even though these fathers are abusive they are not willing to hurt their children in order to punish the mother. Of course most custody cases do not involve domestic violence and these are easily settled once the parties get past their hurt. Accordingly over 95% of custody cases are settled more or less amicably.

The real problem is the 3.8% of cases that go to trial and usually far beyond. The vast majority of these cases, probably around 90% are domestic violence cases that involve the worst of the worst abusers. These are usually cases where the father had little involvement with the children during the relationship, but suddenly demands custody as a way to pressure her to return or punish her for leaving. Abusers tend to be good at manipulation and court professionals are usually happy to find a father who appears to want to be involved in his children’s lives. The flawed “high conflict” approach works great for abusers because it requires the parties to interact and cooperate with each other. This gives him the access to his victim he sought by playing the custody card. At the same time it pressures the mother to cooperate with her abuser and punishes her reluctance to interact with someone she experienced as dangerous and difficult. In other words the “high conflict” approach gives abusers a huge advantage.

The most dangerous abusers are the ones who believe she has no right to leave him. They usually respond to her leaving in one or more of three ways. They respond by killing her which is why75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. They respond by killing their children. In the last couple of years over 175 children have been murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases. Most often they respond by going after custody as a tactic to regain control and too often custody courts help them do so.

In one California case featured on the Dr. Phil Program, Katie Tagle asked Judge Lemkau to limit the father to supervised visitation after he threatened to kill the baby. The transcript of the hearing shows that the judge stated he thought the mother was lying and threatened to punish her. During the unsupervised visitation, the father murdered seven-month-old Baby Wyatt and himself. I am sure Judge Lemkau was sincere when he expressed how sorry he was for what happened, but said there was nothing he could have done based on the information before him. In a sense, he is right. As long as he and other judges continue to use the outdated and discredited practices routinely relied on in domestic violence custody cases, you have little chance to protect the children whose futures you must determine.

The first priority in any custody case ought to be safety, but that cannot happen as long as custody courts continue to rely on professionals without the needed expertise in domestic violence. Many communities have developed practices where child protective agencies and domestic violence agencies work together on domestic violence issues. They cross-train staffs and when a potential domestic violence case develops, the caseworker will consult with a domestic violence advocate and even bring her to the home. This has resulted in a better ability to recognize domestic violence when it is present and respond in ways that benefit children. This should be understood as a fundamental part of best practices. Psychiatrists and psychologists are encouraged to consult with experts in fields in which they do not have expertise when that is a vital part of the case they are working on. Evaluators rarely consult with domestic violence advocates or other experts even though they rarely possess the domestic violence expertise they need or familiarity with current scientific research. Domestic violence advocates routinely conduct safety assessments for their clients. There are many common abuser behaviors such as strangling or choking his victim, raping or attempting to rape her and hitting her while pregnant that are associated with higher rates of lethality. We virtually never see evaluators discussing the significance of these and other dangerous behaviors. If they are not doing a lethality assessment, the evaluators cannot tell judges which alleged abusers are unsafe. Instead we routinely see evaluators focus on less important issues because they don’t have the expertise to recognize the dangers. Even worse they frequently seek to punish mothers who know their abusers are dangerous after failing to recognize the danger because of their lack of expertise. This is common in the extreme decisions discussed in this article.

There is good reason to believe there is a strong connection to the extreme decisions discussed in this article and the sudden rise in domestic violence homicides after many years of decline. These cases are dealing with the most dangerous abusers. The frequency of these extreme decisions has led many victims to stay with their abusers. Some of these mothers will not survive the decision. Perhaps most significant is that these decisions send a horrible message of support for abusers which only serves to support their dangerous beliefs. I am sure this is not your intent, but it is the message these extreme decisions send to the community.

These Extreme Decisions are almost Always Harmful to Children

The extreme decisions described in this article are the focus of much of the review of domestic violence custody cases because they trigger the most legitimate complaints. Thousands of these cases have been reviewed and we rarely find any attempt by the court professionals to weigh the harm caused by these decisions with whatever benefit the court believes it is providing to the children. The decisions are virtually always wrong because separating a child from her primary attachment figure significantly increases the child’s risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older. When the justifications for limiting the mother’s contact with the child to supervised or less do not involve safety issues, the restrictions on the mother’s access are more harmful than any benefits. In other words, even if the court’s factual findings are accurate, the decision is a mistake.

Many of these decisions are based on findings that the mother suffers from some kind of mental illness. Repeatedly we have seen unqualified and biased mental health professionals pathologize the victim and impose false or exaggerated diagnoses based upon considering facts out of context. In many cases mothers have been labeled delusional or paranoid because professionals without adequate training in domestic violence failed to recognize the proof of the father’s domestic violence. Other common mistakes are based on the misuse of psychological testing. Most judges and lawyers are not aware that these tests were not created for the populations seen in custody court and are based on probabilities so may not apply to the parties in a specific case. The tests were designed for patients in mental hospitals who have severe mental illnesses. In the context of family court, parents under stress or with minor differences from the average person are diagnosed as if the differences are significant. Under the best of circumstances, the results of psychological tests are accurate between 55-65% of the time. If I went to court and told you that 98% of domestic violence allegations by mothers are accurate, you would quite properly tell me that you have to look at each case separately because this father might be part of the 2% and yet the courts routinely rely on tests that don’t apply to at least 35% of the parties. Even worse, the tests are less reliable when given to parties under stress such as victims of domestic violence and those involved in difficult custody cases. Evaluators rarely explain that the tests are based on probabilities. Repeatedly we have seen mothers who have no problems dealing with family, jobs, school and other parts of their lives labeled with disqualifying mental illnesses. While they may be impacted by the pressure of custody court and the use of litigation abuse by the father, these mothers are safe as parents and sane in every other part of their lives. In almost all of these cases the mother has always taken good care of the children and the father allowed and often demanded she provide the child care right up until she decided to leave him. She did not suddenly become crazy because she left him except in his eyes.

Another common excuse for the kind of extreme decision discussed in this article is some version of alienation. This is a common abuser tactic and in many of these decisions the problems with the relationship between the father and children were caused by the father’s behavior. Court professionals have constantly heard and relied on half a sentence. The half they are familiar with is that children do better with both parents in their lives. This is a true statement, but the rest of the statement is unless one of the parents is abusive. Interestingly this statement seems to get little consideration when a mother is taken out of the child’s life. As mentioned earlier, alienation issues tend to be short lived and there is no research that demonstrates the kind of long term harm that has been shown to children separated from their primary attachment figure. I am not saying that alienating behaviors are not a legitimate issue, but only there is no basis in scientific research that justifies the harm done to a child in losing regular contact with her primary attachment figure. Supervised visitation is not sufficient to avoid this serious harm.

These extreme decisions are also made as a way to punish the mother for continuing to believe her abuse allegations after the court denies them, her continued fear or anger towards her alleged abuser, attempts to obtain publicity, failure to pay support or economic sanctions, criticism of the judge and other similar issues. Courts that limit mothers’ contact with the children for these types of reasons fail to recognize they are really punishing and hurting the children. Significantly, the motivation of most abusers seeking custody is to punish the mother for leaving and it is particularly harmful for courts to help him do so. The fathers understand the best way to hurt the mother is to hurt her children, but the judge is supposed to help the children. Even if the facts the judge believes justifies action against the mother are true, they can never justify extreme decisions that place the future of the children in jeopardy.

Sexual Abuse Cases

Many of the extreme decisions come in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse. By the time children reach the age of eighteen, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The stereotypical rapist or sexual abuser is a stranger, but 83% of rape and sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows. For young children, this is often their father, but when allegations are made by mothers in custody cases, the alleged abuser receives custody 85% of the time and the mother is often denied any meaningful relationship with the children she tried to protect. A large majority of these decisions are wrong and it is extremely difficult for judges to get these cases right with the deeply flawed practices that are standard in these cases.

Many years ago, three brave children complained their father was physically and sexually abusing them. The mother obtained a protective order limiting the father to supervised visitation and sought custody. The children told the CPS caseworker, their attorney, the judge and the court-appointed evaluator what their father did to them. As is common in these cases, these professionals decided the mother was brainwashing the children and they threatened to take custody away from her unless she stopped. The judge ordered a resumption of unsupervised visitation that weekend. Before the first visitation could start, the father was confronted by the baby sitter in the presence of the children’s law guardian and admitted kissing his daughters on their privates. The law guardian immediately made a motion to stop the visitation which I supported. The judge consulted the evaluator who said the father used bad judgment, but there was no reason to stop the visitation. During the first visit the four-year-old was penetrated for the first time.

I called CPS based on the father’s admission which had not been part of the original investigation. When the judge found out he yelled and screamed at me saying that the allegations had already been investigated. This time a new caseworker did a thorough job and found the father had done even worse than we alleged. They filed charges against the father and he never again had anything but supervised visitation.

The caseworker and I were invited to a celebratory dinner after the mother won custody. The children had gifts for us, but most important they had a name for us. They called us believers because we believed them when all the professionals charged with protecting them didn’t. There is no greater honor than to be called a believer and the problem is that a lot of custody court professionals are not believers. They instead believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations as again confirmed in the recent Justice Department study.

The evaluator in this case was a psychiatrist who was the favorite evaluator of all the judges in Westchester County, New York. He had a very positive reputation and in fact was excellent in cases that did not involve domestic violence or child abuse. Many years after this case a mother was pressured to accept joint custody with her abuser and this psychiatrist was appointed to resolve any issues the parents could not decide on their own. The mother learned that the father’s new partner had suffered a mental breakdown at a birthday party attended by her son. She called the psychiatrist to discuss how to handle the situation. The psychiatrist responded completely appropriately and then told her that when she first called he thought she was going to claim that her son was sexually abused AND HE WAS FULLY PREPARED NOT TO BELIEVE IT. In other words, no matter how strong the evidence, if this evaluator was appointed (and he handled most custody cases in Westchester), a mother had virtually no chance of convincing him about her allegations of abuse and the judges were almost certain to follow his recommendation. While few evaluators would express their disbelief of all sexual abuse allegations so openly, his views are all too typical. This gives even good judges little chance to get sexual abuse cases right.

Sexual abuse is extremely difficult to prove especially with young children. Many professionals expect physical proof, but many forms of sexual abuse do not leave physical evidence and any evidence is often destroyed by the time the child reports the abuse. We often see valid claims of abuse dismissed for reasons that are not probative such as the failure of prosecutors or child protective to bring charges, the reluctance of children to discuss the abuse particularly with someone with whom they have not developed a trusting relationship with and unqualified professionals often take a child’s matter of fact demeanor as if it disproves the allegations. Most prosecutors know that victims often recant valid allegations of abuse for many good reasons, but custody court professionals routinely use this as absolute proof the mother pressured the child to make a false allegation.

When a mother or child makes allegations of sexual abuse the most likely circumstance is that the allegation is true. The next most likely is that the allegation is based upon behavior that made the child act out in ways that suggested sexual abuse but were actually boundary violations. Other common causes are good faith complaints that turn out not to be true or situations where there is not sufficient evidence to determine the validity of the allegations. The least likely cause is deliberate false allegations by mothers, but inadequately trained court professionals frequently jump to this conclusion which often results in the kind of extreme and mistaken decisions discussed in this article.

In one New Jersey case, DYFS and the court completely mishandled both the domestic violence and sexual abuse issues. DYFS has now adopted best practices for potential domestic violence cases by making consultation with domestic violence advocates a standard response. This has been shown to give them the best chance to recognize domestic violence and make arrangements that work best for children. This case started before they adopted best practices and so never consulted with a domestic violence advocate even though the case is ongoing. They failed to recognize the father’s history of domestic violence. After the father was given custody and the mother limited to supervised visitation, an unqualified therapist inadvertently discovered the father had broken into his previous girl friend’s apartment after they separated and she had to obtain a restraining order. The unqualified therapist forced the mother to have joint counseling with her abuser and ignored his discovery because he did not understand its significance. DYFS later hired a psychologist who was familiar with current scientific research and was the only professional hired by them to cite research to support her recommendations. She immediately understood his history of domestic violence, together with other evidence the unqualified professionals failed to understand the significance of, confirmed the mother’s allegations of domestic violence and should have resulted in a reversal of the mistaken living arrangements.

DYFS sought to limit the mother to supervised visitation after all their unqualified professionals decided she had made deliberately false allegations. The evidence included the decision by DYFS and the prosecutor not to bring charges. As discussed earlier, the difficulty in proving sexual abuse means the failure to press charges does not establish the allegations were false and in the case of the prosecutor the inability to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt certainly does not mean the charges were false. DYFS interviewed the child without developing a trusting relationship and when she didn’t immediately repeat her allegations or with other professionals was reluctant to speak about them they concluded the allegations were deliberately false. Reports from the child’s therapist with whom she had a trusting relationship showed that the child reported the abuse but was reluctant to speak about it and used a matter of fact tone. The unqualified professionals immediately assumed that either the allegations were true or deliberately false so when they discredited the allegations proceeded as if the mother deliberately made false allegations.

The psychologist later hired by DYFS reviewed the records and recognized that the facts used by DYFS to discredit the allegations were not probative and cited research to support her findings. Again DYFS and the court ignored the findings of the one professional, who was both neutral and familiar with current scientific research. In reality, this was a very young girl who did not know the significance of whatever was done to her. Something her father and grandmother did made her uncomfortable and she told the person she most trusted, her mother. It was difficult for her to tell others although she did tell her therapist and a few other professionals. She was uncomfortable speaking about it. The evidence does not definitively establish if she was sexually abused or if her boundaries were violated. These are the two possibilities supported by the evidence that the professionals should have focused on, but instead they focused on false allegations just as the Justice Department study says is done by professionals with inadequate training. The result is that the child is forced to live with a dangerous abuser and denied a normal relationship with her primary attachment figure who is a safe, protective mother. In other words the court created one of these extreme decisions because it relied on unqualified professionals and failed to look to current scientific research to inform its decision.

In a Dutchess County case, the mother did everything right and the actions she complained about were admitted and still she was found to have made false sexual abuse allegations to gain an advantage in the litigation. The mother met with the school nurse who told the mother about incidents in which her child acted out in a sexualized way. The nurse advised the mother to seek therapy for her son. She took the child to the family services center that is regularly used by the courts and police as the nurse suggested. They selected the therapist to treat her son. The mother was concerned that the father would scratch the children all over their almost naked bodies, but not on their privates. They reacted in an inappropriately excited way and begged their mother to do this to them. The therapist believed this constituted sexual abuse and called child protective. The mother begged her not to because she was afraid of the reaction by her abuser. During couples counseling, the therapist for the mother and father also concluded the father’s actions were sexually abusive. The father admitted what he did and promised not to do it anymore. CPS also confirmed what the father did, but did not consider this to constitute sexual abuse and so unfounded the case. In the custody decision the judge treated the allegations as if they were deliberately false and punished the mother even though the acts she complained of were confirmed and two neutral therapists believed the actions were harmful to the children. The abuser won custody and the mother, who had been the primary attachment figure, was limited to supervised visitation. When good judges use bad practices to create these extreme decisions, it is easier for bad judges to get away with the extreme decisions even when there is no basis because his decisions are not that different from the mistakes by good judges.

Extreme Decisions Usually Have Underlying Facts Wrong

When the mother is safe, decisions that give custody to the alleged abuser and limit her to supervised visitation are virtually always wrong because the harm of denying the children a normal relationship with their primary attachment figure is greater than any benefit the court believes it is providing. These wrong decisions can only be obtained through the use of deeply flawed practices so it is not surprising that courts often also made substantial mistakes in their factual findings.

Often the key to understanding the case has to do with the domestic violence allegations, but unfortunately, although most professionals now have some minimum amount of domestic violence training, they have never learned how to recognize domestic violence or the importance of consulting with a domestic violence expert who understands the dynamics of domestic violence and is familiar with current scientific research.

Judge Mike Brigner wrote that when he trains judges and other court professionals about domestic violence, the most common question he receives is what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they cite behaviors like returning to her abuser, seeking a restraining order and not following-up and the failure to have police or medical records. All of these are common behaviors of battered women for safety and other reasons particularly if she is still living with him, but court professionals repeatedly treat these actions as if they prove her allegations are false. Another common mistake is for a professional to observe the children interact with their father and when they don’t show fear, the professionals assume it means the father could not be abusive. The children understand that he would not hurt them in front of witnesses, particularly someone he is trying to impress. When court professionals believe these common behaviors disprove domestic violence allegations, they give the judge very little chance of recognizing valid allegations of abuse.

Another common mistake is to look only at physical abuse in considering the mother’s allegations. Domestic violence are tactics abusers use to maintain what they believe is their right to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. Most domestic violence is neither physical nor criminal. Lawyers should present the pattern of the father’s controlling and coercive behaviors and judges should be looking for this pattern. This would include not only physical abuse, but verbal, emotional and psychological abuse. It would include economic abuse and control, litigation abuse designed to bankrupt or otherwise harm his victim, isolating behaviors, monitoring behaviors, threats as well as evidence that shows the father’s motivation for seeking custody. In cases in which the mother did most of the child care during the relationship, the court should consider why the father is suddenly seeking custody and why is he willing to harm the children he claims to love by removing their primary attachment figure. The father may not know the exact harm demonstrated by the research but should have a general sense that children are harmed when denied their primary attachment figure.

The Department of Justice study found that court professionals pay far too much attention to the anger or emotion a mother displays in court in comparison to its significance in determining how good a mother she is. Similarly over forty states have had court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found substantial bias against women and particularly against mothers involved in custody disputes. One of the common forms of bias is to blame a mother for the actions of her abuser. This is exactly what a court does when it blames the mother for her emotion or anger caused by the father’s history of abuse and use of abusive litigation tactics instead of blaming him for intimidating and coercive behaviors that caused her reaction. Gender bias is often difficult to recognize because it is not done deliberately or consciously and some court professionals become extremely defensive when this issue is raised. A good remedy is to frequently consider how you would have reacted to the same situation if the genders were reversed.

We often hear judges complain about how difficult it is to decide a he-said she-said case. Usually this is because much of the evidence that would have helped the judge see the pattern was missed because the court professionals did not know what to look for. In one case the father admitted telling his wife that he brought her here from Russia so she had no right to leave. He said she would never get away from him. This father, in effect told the judge his motivation for seeking custody, but the judge failed to use this evidence because he did not understand its significance. Most cases will not have such obvious evidence, but smart professionals can figure out the motivation from the history and context.

Consequences of Extreme Decisions

Abusers understand that the best way to hurt mothers is to hurt their children. This is why so many abusive fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seek custody when the mother seeks to leave her abuser. Court professionals often miss recognizing the fathers’ motivation because they have repeatedly heard that contested custody are high conflict cases when most are actually domestic violence cases. The worst part of this work is hearing about the unspeakable pain suffered by mothers and children when courts send children to live with dangerous abusers and take safe, protective mothers out of their children’s lives. It is extremely frustrating because these mistakes cause so much harm, but could be prevented if the courts would apply current scientific research.

If there was a scientific basis for these decisions, an evaluator could tell the court how his recommendations have worked out for the children in earlier cases. There is no such research and the closest we have are the Courageous Kids. These are young adults who have aged out of custody orders forcing them to live with abusive fathers and denying them a normal relationship with their mothers. These kids have a moral authority that none of the rest of us has because the decisions were supposed to be made for their benefit. The decisions gave control to the fathers who had tremendous power and resources to silence the children. This means the many Courageous Kids who have spoken out, often in great pain in order to help other children from suffering the same fate, represent a small percentage of spectacularly mistaken decisions. They describe tremendous pain and suffering during childhood and many problems that last into their adult lives. In many ways they are the lucky ones because other children in this situation commit suicide, destroy their lives with drugs and other harmful behaviors or otherwise never reach their potential.

As discussed earlier these decisions lead to a higher crime rate in addition to the increase in domestic violence homicide. A large majority of our prison population witnessed domestic violence or suffered direct abuse. The extreme decisions discussed in this article increase this unfortunate population. These mistakes also have a profound negative impact on society. The increased crime requires substantial expenditures in the criminal justice system as well as property losses and injuries. These mistakes also substantially increase health expenses that raise insurance rates and taxes when the government pays health costs. At the same time, by destroying or limiting the potential of these children, and others, it reduces economic output thus reducing tax revenue.

As someone who practiced law for thirty years, I am particularly concerned about the harm these cases do to the reputation of the courts and the legal system. I repeatedly hear statements that the custody court system is corrupt. This is based on so many cases in which the disparity of the evidence and the outcome makes it look like only corruption could have caused such improper decisions. The extreme decisions that cannot possibly benefit the children further support the corruption conclusion.

While there are instances of corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, I believe the research supports a different explanation. It appears the courts adopted flawed practices at a time when no research was available and have continued these outdated and discredited practices despite the current scientific research available. The use of myths, stereotypes, bias and misinformation are widespread in the custody courts. The use of mental health professionals as if they were the experts in domestic violence contributes both to mistaken decisions and widespread misinformation. Many judges have been unwilling to take a close look to scrutinize evaluators’ recommendations or to discredit evaluators who are unfamiliar with current scientific research. The problem is exasperated by a cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals who have figured out that fathers tend to have control of most of the resources in contested custody so the best way to make a lot of money is to support theories and approaches that help abusers. We frequently see courts treat evaluators and GALs who are biased in favor of fathers as if they were “neutrals.” These mistakes create an appearance of corruption that is extremely harmful to the reputation of the legal system.

Judges are supposed to be open to new information, willing to correct mistakes and to change their minds based on new evidence. I was particularly impressed with Judge Thomas Hornsby who wrote a chapter in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY in which he said that in his nineteenth year on the bench he learned the right way to handle certain types of restraining orders. It takes the kind of ethics and courage we expect from judges to admit past mistakes like that. Too often we hear judges refusing to listen to a domestic violence expert based on statements that the judge has been on the bench for many years and doesn’t need this assistance. And then they send the children to live with an abuser. It is important for good judges to set an example and reverse decisions that research establishes are harmful to children.

Conclusion

When you made a decision giving custody to the alleged abuser and limiting the mother to supervised or no visitation, you thought you were doing something to benefit the children. In some cases you thought the father was the parent most likely to promote the relationship between the children and other parent.

In most of these cases once the father gains control he actually interferes with the mother’s relationship in ways that you would severely punish if done by the mother. Repeatedly abusive fathers use their control to undermine the mother’s relationship because that was his purpose in seeking custody in the first place. The subsequent interference in the mother’s relationship, including asking the court to limit her contact is a change of circumstance giving the court new information not available when the decision was made. The research now available that demonstrates the frequency of abusers destroying mothers’ relationships with their children is also a change of circumstance the court was unaware of when it made the decision. Domestic violence is very much about context and one of the common mistakes in custody court is to look at each incident and each issue separately thus preventing court professionals from recognizing the pattern of abuse. Judges sometimes make the mistake of treating a finding denying abuse allegations as settling the issue so that it can never look at the issue again or at least not the prior evidence. Best practices would be to look at the new information, such as the father using his control to harm the children’s relationship with the mother in the context of his history of controlling and coercive behavior so that even if the court failed to recognize his pattern of abuse earlier, the new circumstances, taken together with the prior evidence can be sufficient to confirm the abuse allegations if only the judge can be open to acknowledging the prior conclusion was wrong.

Even if the court continues to believe the mother’s abuse allegations were false and even deliberately so, current scientific research does not support limiting the children to supervised or no visitation with their primary attachment figure. The harm of losing a normal relationship with their mother under these circumstances is far more harmful than the risk she might make some negative statements. This research, by itself constitutes a change of circumstance requiring at least normal visitation for the mother. We have too often seen judges refuse to correct their decision for fear of looking bad by admitting an error. I ask you not to take the risk of a child suffering depression, low self-esteem or God forbid commit suicide. That would be a judicial error we cannot tolerate.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

HHS Inspector General to State of KS: "Kansas Advocacy and Protective Services’ (KAPS) has charged Federal grants $491,936

(hat tip to a ‘friend’ for this)

HHS Inspector General to State of KS: "Kansas Advocacy and Protective Services’ (KAPS) has charged Federal grants $491,936 (APPENDIX B) for payments made to, or on behalf of members of KAPS board of directors for consulting and legal fees and health insurance premiums. Governing Federal cost principles (OMB Circular A-122) do not allow these types of payments to officers or employees of grantee organizations."

http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports​/region7/70302008.pdf

We recommended the amount be refunded to the applicable Federal programs. The law firm that responded to the draft report for KAPS indicated it could not respond to the validity of the facts and reasonableness of the recommendations because of the lack of records. They further indicated that “KAPS will cooperate fully with the Federal agencies involved in order to bring resolution to this matter."

My favorite part of the report is that when prosecuted by the feds for fraud, the nonprofit which receives $$$ to represent [RIG] indigent litigants in cases, and who filled out the grant applications and agreed to the terms, hired a law firm to represent the nonprofit who was entirely ignorant of the laws governing the case. The board of directors should be in jail, which is what would happen to us if we committed fraud and embezzlement against the federal govt. Instead, these people will reorganize under a new name and keep the scam going...I bet if we looked them up this would be the case.

Conduct Unbecoming for an attorney: Rene Netherton, Topeka Kansas- But this is nothing new. She Claims Claudine Dombrowski is DEAD. Does she know something we do not? Is she making yet another terroristic threat .. ? Is Claudine Really Dead? Did Rene Netherton kill her? ATTENTION LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FBI!!! Please investigate. Is Claudine DEAD?

Which is why this blog exists- to expose the whores of the court. This one is an *oldie* (literally)

Click on the links for full WEBPAGE Screen Shots  links- (which will show you and direct link to the source of the web screen pictures) -- of this renegade attorney Rene M. Netherton Attorney at Law Topeka, Kansas who is harassing a known battered mother, one to which she is a part of the conspiracy to commit deprivation of civil rights as formerly posted under the FBI- COLOR OF LAW

She rants and raves a lot - a lot. One would think that she should be removed as an just an embarrassment to the rest of the legal profession- even alone with just her booze in her office desk drawer-

Seems this attorney needs her anti psychotic drugs increased.

“Really Rene- is this what they teach in Law School?” - you are a disgrace to all Lawyers and you add creed to the the ‘lawyer jokes’ .

 

*Screen shots begin with her *currently* open profile then by most recent date of each blog.

Rene Netherton Blogger Profile

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/12359-718201154704PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/559707-718201155935PM

 

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/701984-718201155523PM

 

 

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/0727-718201154557PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/638719-718201160126PM

http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/938459-718201160323PM

Color of Law Abuses

Color of Law Abuses 

Rene Netherton’s threats to Claudine Dombrowski to have Kick Start bar injure or kill, M. Jill Dykes physical assault to Claudine in Courthouse hallway, Chris Dykes (husband of ATTY M. Jill Dykes) Call to Claudine of threats to Claudine, Police Reports and complaints, Judge David Debenham, accepting known falsified and inaccurate ‘evidence’ to deny Claudine her basic civil rights. Extreme BIAS.

Including, but not limited to, right to ‘life’ and safety, Right to Due process. David Rodeheffer, Donald Hoffman, Jason Hoffman and others have all:  CONSPIRED to commit DEPRIVATION of CIVIL RIGHTS under the COLOR OF LAW.

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

• Excessive force;
• Sexual assaults;
• False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
• Deprivation of property; and
• Failure to keep from harm.

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

When Abusers FORCE their Victims to Marry them Like HAL RICHARDSON forced Claudine Dombrowski.

(This is a Forward from Claudine Dombrowski.)

The author(s) of this blog felt it relevant to post on the ‘hell’ blogs of Shawnee County, Kansas OUTRAGE Case. A Case that NEVER should have happened, but due to the FOC’s GAL’s MHP’s and other cronyism and collusion  of Court Officers for PROFIT only- another battered mother,lost custody to the abuser and RIKKI DOMBROWSKI was forced to grow up in ‘hell’ without her mommy. Its monetary. ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

That is CHILD TRAFFICKING by very definition. Look it up Rene  Netherton. M. Jill Dykes, David C Rodeheffer, Judge David Debenham, Donal Hoffman, Jason Hoffman, Kara Haney, Safe Visit, Odyssey et el, and of course DADDY DEAEREST--You are all a part of the ‘conspiracy’ of Color of Law- when 3 or more people conspire to deprive one of their civil and human rights.As you did to this mother.

 

From: Claudine Dombrowski

 

This happened to me.

My daughter Rikki was 10 months old before we were married. Hal Richardson was on probation for 95 DV conviction 8 mos prior (part of which entailed NO CONTACT w Victim).

When all other coercion did not work--He took my infant daughter from her from daycare, to the Indian reservation.

The Topeka, Kansas local authorities (and FBI) would not go get my daughter, said it was treaties or such. No one, even w  restraining order, and probation requirements and conviction in hand-- would get my daughter back to me.

Our captor and Abuser: HAL RICHARDSON said if I ever wanted to see my child again, I would marry him (he was smart enough to do it in another STATE -  MO. as he was on probation in KS for crimes against myself).

Eventually after no 'authority' would help me, I did marry him, got my daughter back 3 days later, I left him two days after that and never went back.

That was in October 1995.

In 2005,while in hiding in MO. for my safety from this ‘batterer’.  I found the State and county were we were married, and had it annulled as a 'shot gun' marriage. (although I was by this time divorced and still in custody litigation w abuser in Kansas) it was a self principled matter by this time. In the last few years we brought this up in court that we were ‘never married’ and still this control freak was open mouthed that his ‘ownership’ was annulled.

I am glad they arrested this bully. There is always  ‘coercive control’ going on when women 'go back' or 'marry' the perp they have restraining order on.

Man arrested for trying to marry woman with a restraining order against him

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each Line Represents a Trip to Court.

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each Line Represents a Trip to Court. This is a KANSAS CASE! The Claudine Dombrowski Case.

Dear Judge David Debenham, Rene M. Netherton, M. Jill Dykes, David C Rodeheffer and other Co Conspirators in this case. Donald Hoffman, Halleck G. Richardson et el.

Scroll down, your attempts at Shawnee County Sherriff Records have been destroyed. Guess your lies are getting old, to even the corrupt Sherriff Dept. usually they will trump up anything- Especially to protect their ‘drug snitch’ Hal Richardson.

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence There is a crisis in our nation’s family courts. Judges are awarding child custody to abusers and pedophiles and punishing the safe parent who tries to … As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the “man” who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine’s history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here
www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

200 SE 7th Street, Topeka, KS  66603, (785) 233-8200

http://www.shawneecourt.org/doe/search.jsp?caseNumber=96D+000217&location

Case Number: 96D 000217

Div 13 – Hon. David B. Debenham . . .Ext. 4203

Petitioner:	RICHARDSON,HAL,,	Attorney:	HOFFMAN,DONALD,R,
Respondent:	DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,,	Attorney:	DUNCAN,ROBERT,E,II,

Division:	13
Next Activity:	H on 05/26/2010 at 1:30 PM

03/04/1996	-	Petition filed on 03/04/96
03/04/1996	-	Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. #1 Motion for Ex-Parte Interlocutory Orders filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON
03/04/1996	-	Summons issued personal service as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI issued to special process server.
03/04/1996	-	$61.50 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (61.50 DM Docket Fee)
03/04/1996	-	Temporary Restraining Order filed. – TRC
03/05/1996	-	Summons returned, personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 03/04/96 .
03/07/1996	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 04/02/96 at 10:30AM. in division 01.
03/07/1996	-	#2 Motion filed and entered by ALAN F ALDERSON for TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE AND CHILD SUPPORT. #3 Motion filed and entered by ALAN F ALDERSON for TEMPORARY CUSTODY
03/07/1996	-	Answer filed. Answering DEFENDANT CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. Answering attorney ALAN F ALDERSON. Worksheet T – Temporary Maintenance RESPONDENT’S Child Support Worksheet as of 3/4/96.
03/07/1996	-	DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDANT
03/19/1996	-	Domestic Relations Affidavit OF HAL RICHARDSON.
03/19/1996	-	Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Application for Temporary Maintenance and Child Support filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
03/25/1996	-	NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS FILED BY ALAN ALDERSON.
03/27/1996	-	AFFIDAVIT IN CONTEMPT FILED. ACCUSATION IN CONTEMPT & MOTION TO SEVER CONTACT & REQUIRE THERAPY FILED BY ALAN ALDERSON.
04/02/1996	-	Petitioner appears in person and by D.Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by A.Alderson. Mr. Hoffman says temporary custody is not disputed, although visitation schedule is being worked on. Order of Conciliation signed. Motions continued re: temporary support and accusation in contempt for agreed order or to be reset upon request of parties. JWL
04/02/1996	-	ORDER FOR CONCILIATION – JWL
04/02/1996	-	Notice of service of Discovery filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/30/1996	-	### MOTION FILED BY ALAN F ALDERSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDANT
05/01/1996	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY NANCY E FREUND ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.
05/09/1996	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 06/06/96 at 11:00AM. in division 01.
05/10/1996	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney ALAN F ALDERSON filed. – JWL
05/10/1996	-	#4 Motion filed and entered by NANCY E FREUND for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE.
05/17/1996	-	EMERGENCY CONFERENCE AT THE REQUEST OF MR. HOFFMAN. Re- porter, Martha Young. Petitioner appears by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears by Nancy Freund. Sheri Keller for Court Services. Telephone conference with Bernie Nobo, MSW, and all parties. Determined Respondent’s move would not be physical jeopardizing to minor. Court Services to work on exchange for visitation (child is 17 months old). Other terms on the record. Nancy Freund to prepare journal entry. Case continued to 6/6/96. JWL
05/21/1996	-	#5 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY.
05/28/1996	-	RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY FILED BY NANCY E FREUND.
06/04/1996	-	Per phone call from Shirley in Don Hoffman’s office, and verified with Julie in Nancy Freund’s office, case to be taken off docket until reports from Dr. Maxfield are re- ceived. Cancel 6/6/96 hearing. DBC
06/05/1996	-	### MOTION FILED BY NANCY E FREUND TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDANT
06/07/1996	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY JOHN J AMBROSIO ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.
06/17/1996	-	ORDER FILED BY NANCY E. FREUND JWL
06/17/1996	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney NANCY E. FREUND filed. – JWL
07/02/1996	-	SET – Status Docket on 09/04/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.
07/02/1996	-	Notice sent.
07/24/1996	-	Notice of service of Discovery filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN
08/28/1996	-	#6 Motion filed and entered by JOHN J AMBROSIO for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET CHILD SUPPORT. Filmed 08/29/96.
09/04/1996	-	RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.
09/04/1996	-	SET – Status Docket on 10/02/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.
09/04/1996	-	Notice sent.
09/04/1996	-	STATUS: Petitioner appears by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears by John Ambrosio. Case continued to 10/2/96 status docket, 9:00am, awaiting a report from Dr. Maxwell. LGK/pro tem
09/09/1996	-	DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDANT Filmed 09/10/96.
09/11/1996	-	SET – Pre-trial on 10/23/96 at 03:15PM. in division 01.
09/11/1996	-	Notice sent.
10/18/1996	-	AMENDED DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
10/22/1996	-	PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN. Filmed 10/23/96.
10/23/1996	-	SUMMONS AND CONTINUANCE NOTICE FILED BY DIST. COURT TRUSTEE
10/24/1996	-	PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.
11/01/1996	-	SET – Status Docket on 12/04/96 at 09:00AM. in division 01.
11/01/1996	-	Notice sent.
11/04/1996	-	Phone conference with John Ambrosio with Don Hoffman in chambers. Scott McKenzie to be appointed GAL with $250.00 from each party up front, within 20 days. Court to prepare order. JWL
11/05/1996	-	PRETRIAL ORDER. JWL
11/05/1996	-	LETTER TO MR. HOFFMAN AND MR. AMBROSIO FROM JUDGE LEUENBERGER REGARDING THE PRETRIAL ORDER.
11/06/1996	-	ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SCOTT MCKENZIE, – JWL
11/12/1996	-	SET – Court Trial on 01/30/97 at 01:45PM. in division 01.
11/12/1996	-	Notice sent.
11/14/1996	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
11/15/1996	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 12/13/96 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/02/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified. Filmed 01/06/97.
01/06/1997	-	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW FILED BY SCOTT D. MCKINZIE. (FOR GAL)
01/07/1997	-	ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SOUTHWESTERN BELL TO DONALD R HOFFMAN – JWL
01/14/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(JOHN FIORE) Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(LARNED STATE HOSPITAL)
01/15/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/23/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/15/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/21/97 05:00P.M. as to LARNED STATE HOSPITAL issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/15/1997	-	Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 01/10/97 .
01/16/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (8 SUBPOENAS)
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. $10.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. $10.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. $15.80 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/30/97 01:45P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/24/97 05:00P.M. as to STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/17/1997	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, SCOTT MCKENZIE, filed. – JWL
01/17/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 01/27/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
01/17/1997	-	WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN. Filmed 01/21/97.
01/21/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BRENDA DIVER 01/20/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to SHERRI KELLER 01/17/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 01/17/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD 01/17/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES 01/17/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW 01/17/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 01/18/97 .
01/21/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 01/18/97 .
01/21/1997	-	WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY JOHN J AMBROSIO. Filmed 01/22/97.
01/22/1997	-	#7 Motion filed and entered by MERRILL J BEFORT HICKLIN for STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER.
01/29/1997	-	#8 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE VISITATION SCHEDULE PENDING TRIAL.
01/30/1997	-	SET – Court Trial on 04/17/97 at 01:45PM. in division 01.
01/30/1997	-	Notice sent.
01/30/1997	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 02/21/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.
01/30/1997	-	Notice sent.
01/30/1997	-	Scheduling Conference: Chamber conference with Donald Hoffman, John Ambrosio, and Scott McKenzie, GAL. Case continued to 4/17/97 at 1:45pm. Court to call Maxfield’s office for written report, if any available notify attorneys Parties to work out interim visitation. Motion for visitation continued to 2/21/97. Motion of SRS moot, they should prepare order, court to call. JWL
02/04/1997	-	MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY MERRILL J. HICKLIN BEFORT, ATTORNEY FOR THE KANSAS DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. Filmed 02/05/97.
02/07/1997	-	AGREED ORDER. JWL
02/11/1997	-	Call from Kathy in Ambrosio’s office. Said based on fax from Hoffman’s office, visitation issue settled by agreed order and no need for 2/21/97 hearing. DBC
02/13/1997	-	AGREED ORDER FILED – JWL
02/21/1997	-	Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to LARNED STATE HOSPITAL 02/14/97 .
02/25/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from LARNED STATE HOSPITAL filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.
02/26/1997	-	Subpoena recalled – as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 02/26/97
02/26/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
02/26/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 03/20/97 05:00P.M. as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
03/07/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.
03/10/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.
03/11/1997	-	ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY TO DONALD R HOFFMAN – JWL
03/14/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service FAX AS PER JOHN FIORE INSTRUCTIONS as to JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY 02/28/97 Filmed 03/17/97.
04/01/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(5 PRAECIPES)
04/01/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/01/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/01/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/01/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/01/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/01/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/17/97 01:45P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
04/03/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW 04/02/97 .
04/03/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 04/02/97 .
04/03/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 04/02/97 .
04/03/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with spouse – WITH HIS RECEPTIONIST – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD 04/02/97 .
04/03/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 04/01/97 .
04/03/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to SHERRI KELLER 04/01/97 .
04/03/1997	-	Notice of Service for Discovery Requests Filed by Donald R. Hoffman. Amended Witness & Exhibit List Filed by Donald R. Hoffman.
04/15/1997	-	FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN.
04/17/1997	-	FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN J. AMBROSIO.
04/17/1997	-	CT: Petitioner appears in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by John Ambrosio. GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Court conducts a final and brief pretrial conference in chambers with both parties and all counsel, on the record. Parties given an opportun- ity to confer. Parties announce an agreed settlement, as per j.e. Outline of agreement on the record by Petitioner’s counsel. Respondent and her attorney left prior to outline of settlement on the record. Petitioner offered jurisdic- tional and grounds evidence. Divorce granted on grounds of incompatibility subject to final j.e. GAL announced his bill. GAL to continue appointment subject to terms in j.e. Journal entry to be prepared within 10 working days. JWL
04/18/1997	-	### MOTION FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT
04/18/1997	-	LETTER TO JOHN AMBROSIO FROM CLAUDINE M. DOMBROWSKI.
04/21/1997	-	REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI #9 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CORRECT MINOR CHILD’S NAME IN ALL COURT DOCUMENTS #10 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CHANGE COURT SERVICES OFFICER
04/21/1997	-	#11 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER #12 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM #13 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR TEMPORARY CHILD SUPPORT
04/21/1997	-	#14 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY #15 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD #16 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AS TO RELOCATION AS TO RESPONDENT AND MINOR CHILD
04/21/1997	-	#17 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PURPORTING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD OF NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE #18 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD
04/23/1997	-	SET – Hearing on 05/19/97 at 08:45AM. in division 01.
04/23/1997	-	Notice sent.
05/09/1997	-	#20 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CONTINUANCE Filmed 05/12/97.
05/09/1997	-	#21 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING PETITIONER’S VISITATION AND SHARED CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD Filmed 05/12/97.
05/19/1997	-	#22 Motion filed and entered by SCOTT D MCKENZIE FOR ORDER OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY
05/19/1997	-	#23 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER DIRECTING MINOR CHILD OF PARTIES BE RETURNED TO PETITIONER PENDING TRAIL OF INSTANT CASE
05/19/1997	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 06/12/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.
05/19/1997	-	GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Court Services appears by Sheri Keller. Petitioner appears in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent appears not but by John Ambrosio and Mike Broemmel for Anika Kweli. John Ambrosio’s motion to withdraw sustained. Scheduling conference: all motions set for 1 1/2 hours on 6/16/97. Respondent to file any matters in support by 5/29/97. Petitioner has until 6/9/97 to reply. GAL reply thereafter. Supporting affidavit for allegation of Indian Child motion. Trial set for 9/16/97 at 9:00am, full day. GAL has emergency motion set for 5/20/97 at 1:30pm. Visitation issue and Respondent not present for scheduling conference. JWL
05/20/1997	-	H: Petitioner appears in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent and minor child appears in person and Respondent by Anika Kweli. GAL, Scott McKenzie, appears in person. Evidence and motion heard. Ruling as per record. Motion denied, but temporary visitation modified. Order to be forwarded by 5/22/97. JWL
05/21/1997	-	SET – Hearing on 06/16/97 at 10:30AM. in division 01.
05/21/1997	-	Notice sent.
05/21/1997	-	SET – Court Trial on 09/16/97 at 09:00AM. in division 01.
05/21/1997	-	Notice sent.
05/22/1997	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, JOHN J AMBROSIO, filed. – JWL
05/22/1997	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 06/26/97 at 09:30AM. in division 01.
05/22/1997	-	#24 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ATTORNEY FEES
05/28/1997	-	Call to Mr. Hoffman’s office, okay to sign Temporary Child Custody and Support Orders, a copy was faxed to him pre- viously. DBC
05/28/1997	-	Temporary Custody and Support Orders filed by AINKA C KWELI. CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI to pay $119.00 beginning 05/20/97. – JWL
05/29/1997	-	#25 Motion filed and entered by SCOTT D MCKENZIE FOR ASSESSMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES
05/29/1997	-	### MOTION FILED BY SCOTT D MCKENZIE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM
05/29/1997	-	#26 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO CLARIFY PRE-TRIAL ORDER
05/29/1997	-	#27 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT
06/02/1997	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, SCOTT D MCKENZIE, filed. – JWL
06/03/1997	-	TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY BEFORE JUDGE LEUENBERGER 05/20/97
06/16/1997	-	$120.00 Cash recd from RICHARDSON,HAL,, (120.00 DM Payment)
06/16/1997	-	SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Petitioner appears in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent appears in person and by Ainka Kweli. Scott McKenzie, former GAL, appears in person. Motions filed since 5/20/97: Petitioner’s Motion for attorneys fees, GAL’s motion for attorneys fees, Respondent motion to clarify pretrial order, Respondent’s Motion for Citation in Contempt. GAL fees allowed, divided one-half to each party. Other motions under advisement. JWL
06/17/1997	-	AMENDED TEMPORARY CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT ORDERS FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI. JWL
06/23/1997	-	Inter Office Memo
06/24/1997	-	PAY OUT 120.00 ON 96D217 PER OBLIGATION LOADED PER IOM 6/23/97
06/25/1997	-	LETTER DECISION FILED. JWL (CONCERNING ATTY.FEES) Filmed 06/27/97.
07/07/1997	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY SCOTT D.MCKENZIE. JWL (CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES) Filmed 07/08/97.
08/15/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. (NINE PRAECIPES) Filmed 08/18/97.
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to JENNY SHAW Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to ATT CORPORATION Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/18/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 08/27/97 05:00P.M. as to BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE Requested by AINKA C KWELI
08/20/1997	-	Transcript of HEARING, held 061697 filed.
08/25/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to JENNY SHAW certified mail #P755979344 08/21/97 .
08/25/1997	-	Subpoena returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – Received by: SECRETARY – as to SHERRI KELLER 08/21/97 .
08/25/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to ATT CORPORATION certified mail #P755979347 08/21/97 .
08/25/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT certified mail #P755979349 08/21/97 .
08/25/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT certified mail #P755979350 08/21/97 .
08/25/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE certified mail #P755979351 08/21/97 .
08/25/1997	-	Transcript of HEARING, held 040297 filed. Filmed 08/26/97.
08/26/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from JENNY SHAW filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.
08/27/1997	-	Subpoena returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SGT. THOMPSON – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT 08/25/97 .
08/27/1997	-	Subpoena returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SGT. THOMPSON – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFF’S DEPT 08/25/97 .
08/27/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from SHERRI KELLER filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.
08/27/1997	-	LETTER FROM SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT REGARDING OBJECTION TO TWO SUBPOENA’S FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.
08/29/1997	-	AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY SCOTT D MCKENZIE
08/29/1997	-	#28 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT.
08/29/1997	-	#29 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CITATION IN CONTEMPT. #30 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CITATION IN CONTEMPT.
08/29/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. Filmed 09/02/97.
09/02/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/05/97 05:00P.M. as to S.A.R.P Requested by AINKA C KWELI
09/02/1997	-	SET – Court Trial on 09/18/97 at 01:30PM. in division 12.
09/02/1997	-	Notice sent.
09/02/1997	-	Upon motion of Respondent to recuse, Judge Leuenberger recuses and case is transferred to Div 12. Administrative Assistant called both attorneys to advise trial changed to 9/18/97 and 9/19/97 beginning at 1:30 p.m. both days, from 9/16/97. JWL
09/02/1997	-	Reassigned to division 12 from division 1. OJA reason for transfer 2.
09/02/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified. Filmed 09/09/97.
09/03/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE certified mail #P755979346 08/28/97 .
09/03/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from ATT CORPORATION filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified. Filmed 09/09/97.
09/04/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (5 PRAECIPES FILED)
09/04/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to OFFICER BRAD METZ Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/04/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to BERNARD NOBO MSW Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/04/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/04/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to SHERRI KELLER Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/04/1997	-	Subpoena issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/05/1997	-	#31 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E KEESHAN for SHAWNEE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO STAY OR QUASH SUBPOENA.
09/08/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to S.A.R.P certified mail #P755983645 09/04/97 .
09/08/1997	-	Filed by Fax AMENDED WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY AINKA C KWELI.
09/08/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.(4 SUBPOENA’S)
09/09/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to OFFICER BRAD METZ 09/05/97 .
09/09/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/09/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to MRS ED KABERLINE issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/09/1997	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to BRENDA DIVER issued to special process server. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/09/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to JENNY SHAW issued to special process server. $15.40 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/09/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to STEVEN E HARVEY issued to special process server. $17.15 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/10/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signee unknown – as to BERNARD NOBO MSW certified mail #P755984919 09/08/97 .
09/10/1997	-	Affidavit of Business Records from TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT filed. Business Records received. AINKA C KWELI notified.
09/10/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to ED KABERLINE 09/09/97 .
09/10/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MRS ED KABERLINE 09/09/97 .
09/10/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to STEVEN E HARVEY 09/09/97 .
09/11/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signed by non-addressee – as to RICHARD MAXFIELD PHD certified mail #P755984921 09/09/97 .
09/11/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with resident agent – Received by: SEC. – as to SHERRI KELLER 09/09/97 .
09/11/1997	-	Subpoena sent certified mail delivered , signed by addressee – as to SCOTT D MCKENZIE certified mail #P755984924 09/08/97
09/11/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to JENNY SHAW 09/10/97 .
09/11/1997	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to BRENDA DIVER 09/10/97 .
09/15/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
09/15/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to OFFICER BUTELL issued to special process server. $12.00 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/16/1997	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by AINKA C KWELI. (FOUR PRAECIPES)
09/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to DR GRACE MORRISON $215.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI
09/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to GERI THOMPSON $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI
09/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to MARY KELLY $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI
09/16/1997	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued certified mail returnable 09/18/97 01:30P.M. as to HAL RICHARDSON III $15.00 Witness fee. Requested by AINKA C KWELI
09/16/1997	-	#32 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI IN LIMINE. Filed by Fax
09/16/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, residence service , left with resident agent – LEFT WITH SGT MILLER – as to OFFICER BUTELL 09/16/97 .
09/17/1997	-	AMENDED WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FILED BY AINKA C KWELI
09/17/1997	-	FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED Filmed 09/18/97.
09/17/1997	-	FACTUAL STATEMENT FILED BY AINKA C KWELI Filmed 09/19/97.
09/18/1997	-	#33 Combined Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND MEMORANDUM TO PRODUCE BUSINESS RECORDS AND RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS. Filed by Fax
09/18/1997	-	RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CITATION IN CONTEMPT FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN
09/19/1997	-	ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE MENTAL HEALTH TO AINKA C KWELI – JPB Filmed 09/22/97.
09/22/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned, personal service – as to MARY KELLY 09/18/97 .
09/23/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – as to DR GRACE MORRISON certified mail #P755988036 09/20/97 .
09/24/1997	-	Filed by Fax #34 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR LEAVE.
09/25/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum sent certified mail delivered , signed by addressee – as to GERI THOMPSON certified mail #P755988037 09/22/97 .
09/26/1997	-	SET – Telephone Conference on 10/03/97 at 11:00AM. in division 12.
09/26/1997	-	Notice sent.
09/29/1997	-	FINAL ARGUMENT FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN.
09/29/1997	-	Filed by Fax RESPONDENT’S CLOSING SUMMATION AND ARGUMENT FILED BY AINKA C KWELI.
10/14/1997	-	Subpoena duces tecum returned certified mail requested , no service, no reason given – as to HAL RICHARDSON III 10/13/97
10/28/1997	-	Journal entry granting divorce, property division, custody child support. RFAD JPB
10/28/1997	-	RFAD; 10/28/97
10/29/1997	-	JOURNAL ENTRY OF DIVORCE FILED – JPB Child Support Worksheet
11/03/1997	-	Filed by Fax #35 Motion filed and entered by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. Notice of Appeal filed by AINKA C KWELI for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, to the APPELLATE Court.
11/03/1997	-	SET – Motion Docket on 11/20/97 at 10:00AM. in division 12.
11/07/1997	-	#36 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON JOINING IN RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR STAY AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT.
11/12/1997	-	SET – Motion Docket on 11/24/97 at 03:00PM. in division 12.
11/12/1997	-	Notice sent.
11/24/1997	-	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FILED BY AINKA C. KWELI Filed by Fax
11/24/1997	-	Entry of appearance filed by GARY N GORUP. ENTERING HIS AP- PEARANCE AS ATTORNEY FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. FILED BY FAX.
11/25/1997	-	NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD R. HOFFMAN. Filmed 12/02/97.
12/01/1997	-	Journal Entry filed. JPB
12/08/1997	-	REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY GEARY N GORUP Filmed 12/09/97.
12/29/1997	-	NOTICE FROM THE APPELLATE COURT, MOTION BY APPELLANT, CLAUDINE DOMROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL GRANTED.
01/05/1998	-	Card from the Clerk of the APPELLATE Court; they have received and filed the Notice of Appeal – Case No. 97-80304-A Filmed 01/16/98.
01/16/1998	-	Completed Table of Contents and mailed to attorneys; DONALD HOFFMAN AND GEARY GORUP
03/04/1998	-	Filed by Fax – INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM. Filmed 03/09/98.
03/17/1998	-	Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE
03/17/1998	-	Filmed 03/17/98.
03/17/1998	-	Garnishment order issued certified mail to STATE OF KANSAS IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
03/24/1998	-	Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to STATE OF KANSAS certified mail #P756185657 03/20/98 .
04/07/1998	-	BUSINESS RECORDS OF JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 03/07/97
04/07/1998	-	BUSINESS RECORDS OF LARNED STATE HOSPITAL DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 02/20/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF JOHN FIORE-CHIEF SECURITY DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 03/10/97
04/13/1998	-	SUPREME COURT RULE NO. 3.02 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONS TO RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY GEARY N GORUP. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY GEARY N GORUP.
04/15/1998	-	DEMAND FOR ESTIMATED COST OF TRANSCRIPT FILED BY ESTHER L THOMPSON.
04/21/1998	-	RECEIVED COPY OF LETTER REQUESTING TRANSCRIPT, CHECK SENT TO COURT REPORTER.
04/23/1998	-	LETTER FROM ESTHER L THOMPSON, COURT REPORTER RECEIVED HER ESTIMATED COST FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSCRIPT AND IS DUE ON 05/29/98 AND ANTICIPATE FILING THIS TRANSCRIPT BEFORE THIS DATE FILED.
05/04/1998	-	Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 03/08/98 & ENDING 03/21/98) Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 03/22/98 & ENDING 04/04/98) Answer of Garnishee STATE OF KANSAS returned and filed. Holding $169.38 Copy to attorney & RESPONDENT. (PAY PERIOD BEGINNING 04/05/98 & ENDING 04/18/98)
05/04/1998	-	RECEIVED EXHIBITS REQUESTED BY GEARY N. GORUP FROM THE COURT REPORTER. (3,A,B,& C)
05/04/1998	-	CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED BY ESTHER L. THOMPSON TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HELD ON 18TH & 19TH OF SEPTEMBER 97.
05/04/1998	-	TRANSCRIPT OF VOLUME II OF PROTIONS OF COURT TRIAL HELD ON 18T & 19TH DAYS OF SEPTEMBER 1997.
05/06/1998	-	Order to pay in and pay out filed. STATE OF KANSAS to pay in $169.38 Clerk to pay SCOTT D MCKENZIE. -JPB
05/06/1998	-	Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE
05/06/1998	-	Filmed 05/07/98.
05/07/1998	-	Garnishment order issued certified mail to STATE OF KANSAS IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
05/07/1998	-	Garnishment request filed by SCOTT D MCKENZIE
05/07/1998	-	Filmed 05/08/98.
05/07/1998	-	Garnishment order issued certified mail to COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST IN TOPEKA, KS. for judgment as to HAL RICHARDSON
05/12/1998	-	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND DISMISSAL OF GARNISHMENTS FILED BY SCOTT MCKENZIE. CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO STATE OF KANSAS
05/13/1998	-	Answer of Garnishee COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST returned and filed. Holding $.00 Copy to attorney.(UNABLE TO FIND ACCOUNT)
05/14/1998	-	Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to STATE OF KANSAS certified mail #P756103038 05/11/98 .
05/14/1998	-	Garnishment sent certified mail delivered , certified mail – to COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST certified mail #P756063503 05/12/98 .
05/18/1998	-	Received from the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, a request to transmit the Record on Appeal to Clerk of the Appellate Courts.
05/18/1998	-	HAND CARRIED RECORD ON APPEAL TO THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT 05/20/98.
12/30/1998	-	Mandate from the APPELLATE Court filed. Judgment of District Court, AFFIRMED. MEMORANDUM attached.
01/05/1999	-	LETTER TO HARRY MOORE FROM GEARY N GORUP DATED 12/31/98 THAT KANSAS SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED PETITION FOR REVIEW.
01/05/1999	-	BUSINESS RECORDS OF SHERRI KELLER DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 08/27/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/10/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF AT & T DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/03/97
01/05/1999	-	BUSINESS RECORDS OF JENNY SHAW DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 08/26/97 BUSINESS RECORDS OF BATTERED WOMANS TASK FORCE DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 09/02/97
01/29/1999	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY REBECCA A KING ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. Filmed 02/01/99.
02/09/1999	-	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY REBECCA A KING. Filmed 02/11/99.
03/02/1999	-	#37 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR STATUS CONFERENCE WITH THE COURT.
03/17/1999	-	SET – Status Conference on 03/30/99 at 09:00AM. in division 12.
03/17/1999	-	Notice sent.
03/23/1999	-	CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER. JPB RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM HARRY MOORE ATTACHED.
03/30/1999	-	Hoffman and petitioner; King for respondent. Agreed case should be referred to case manager for further work before motions. JPB
03/30/1999	-	COPY OF MEMO TO HARRY MOORE FROM JUDGE JAMES BUCHELE.
05/10/1999	-	OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed by REBECCA A KING
05/13/1999	-	CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed by HARRY MOORE ORDER ON CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS filed – JPB
05/27/1999	-	Transcript of TELEPHONE CALL, held 05/26/99 filed.
05/28/1999	-	#38 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ADVANCE HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS.
05/28/1999	-	ORDER FOR HEARING FILED – JPB ORDER FOR SERVICE FILED – JPB
05/28/1999	-	ORDER FOR HEARING issued as to HAL RICHARDSON personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.
05/28/1999	-	ORDER FOR HEARING issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.
05/28/1999	-	RETURN OF SERVICE ON ORDER FOR HEARING WAS FAXED TO PAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AS PER JUDGE BUCHELE
06/01/1999	-	ORDER FOR HEARING returned , personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI returned by fax 05/28/99 .
06/03/1999	-	ORDER FOR HEARING returned , personal service – as to HAL RICHARDSON 06/01/99 . Entered by 0211.
06/09/1999	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN. (2 PRAECIPES)
06/09/1999	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 06/15/99 09:00A.M. as to LENA NATION issued to special process server. $12.50 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
06/09/1999	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 06/15/99 09:00A.M. as to SHAWN NATION issued to special process server. $106.50 Witness fee. Requested by DONALD R HOFFMAN
06/14/1999	-	Filed by Fax
06/14/1999	-	#39 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY,CHILD SUPPORT,& MODIFICA- TION OF PREVIOUS JOURNAL ENTRY REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO MOVE TO TOPEKA & TO CHANGE THE MINOR CHILD’S SURNAME. Filmed 06/16/99
06/14/1999	-	Child Support Worksheet Filmed 06/16/99.
06/14/1999	-	Filed by Fax
06/14/1999	-	DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT Filmed 06/16/99. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. Filmed 06/16/99 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE JAMES BUCHELE. Filmed 06/16/99
06/15/1999	-	Subpoena returned , personal service – BY LEAVING WITH SHAWN, FATHER OF LENA – as to LENA NATION 06/11/99 Filmed 06/16/99.
06/15/1999	-	Subpoena returned , personal service – as to SHAWN NATION 06/11/99 Filmed 06/16/99.
06/15/1999	-	#40 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE. Filmed 06/22/99
06/16/1999	-	06/15/99 Parties appear with counsel Hoffman and King. Hearing held on issue of enforecement of prior order and order of case manager enforcing the order to move to Shawnee County. Miscellaneous orders stated on the record. King to prepare Journal Entry and submit per Rule 170. JPB
06/21/1999	-	TRANSCRIPT OF INFORMAL HEARING ON MOTION TO RECUSE
06/22/1999	-	MEMORANDUM TO JUDGE BULLOCK FROM JUDGE BUCHELE REGARDING MOTION FOR RECUSAL FILED BY REBECCA KING FILED. Filmed 06/23/99.
06/28/1999	-	ORDER TO ENFORCE PRIOR ORDER, ORDER ESTABLISHING SUPERVISED VISITATION, ORDER FOR HEARING ON CHILD SUPPORT, ORDER ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND ORDER AMENDING PRIOR DECISION REGARDING SURNAME FILED. – JPB
06/28/1999	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE BUCHELE TO DONALD HOFFMAN REGARDING HEARING ON 6-15-99 ON VISITATION.
07/01/1999	-	SET – Hearing on 07/09/00 at 11:00AM. in division 12.
07/08/1999	-	Ruling on motion# 40 —Affidavit in Support of Recusal of Respondent DISMISSED by Court per Memorandum Decision and Order filed. JMM
07/08/1999	-	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FILED. – JMM
07/09/1999	-	CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET OF PETITIONER
07/12/1999	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE BUCHELE TO JUDGE BULLOCK REGARDING TRANFER PENDING CASE TO DIFFERENT JUDGE.
07/16/1999	-	AGREED UPON ORDER FOR CHILD SUPPORT FILED BY REBECCA KING. – JPB (attached Child Support Worksheet of Petitioner)
07/21/1999	-	Reassigned to division 2 from division 12. OJA reason for transfer 1.
07/26/1999	-	Notice of Appeal filed by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas.
07/26/1999	-	Filed by Fax
07/26/1999	-	AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)
07/26/1999	-	#41 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 60-262
07/26/1999	-	Filed by Fax
07/26/1999	-	AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)
07/28/1999	-	SET – Motion Docket on 08/12/99 at 10:30AM. in division 02.
08/04/1999	-	Filed by Fax
08/04/1999	-	#42 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON RESPONDENT’S AND FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY.
08/12/1999	-	NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.
08/12/1999	-	Shawn Hoff, reporter. Pet by Hoffman. Resp by King. Resp’s motion to stay 6-28-99 order under K.S.A. 60-262 denied. Hoffman instructed to prepare J.E. RDA
08/12/1999	-	Filmed 09/21/99
08/13/1999	-	LETTER TO JUDGE ANDERSON FROM HARRY MOORE
08/13/1999	-	LETTER TO REBECCA KING FROM HARRY MOORE
08/13/1999	-	LETTER TO HARRY MOORE FROM REBECCA KING
08/30/1999	-	#43 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD.
08/31/1999	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN
09/01/1999	-	SET – Motion Docket on 09/23/99 at 09:30AM. in division 02.
09/01/1999	-	OBJECTION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTY OF RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR RESP FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.
09/02/1999	-	SET – Show Cause on 09/21/99 at 01:30PM. in division 02.
09/02/1999	-	AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY HAL RICHARDSON
09/02/1999	-	#44 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN – RDA
09/02/1999	-	Request for Service filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN RETURN OF SERVICE ON ORDER TO APPEAR WAS FAXED TO BARTON CTY SHERIFF FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ON CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.
09/03/1999	-	AFFIDAVIT,MOTION FOR ORDER,ORDER TO APPEAR issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.
09/03/1999	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN. – RDA (re: motion for order of stay)
09/03/1999	-	ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN – RDA
09/09/1999	-	RECEIVED CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. SENT TO DCT.
09/09/1999	-	#45 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI for CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT MOTION OF CONTEMPT signed by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
09/10/1999	-	AFFIDAVIT, MOTION FOR ORDER, ORDER TO APPEAR returned personal service requested. Served Claudine Dombrowski on 9/9/99 at 112 W 7th Street.
09/21/1999	-	HEARING: Shawn Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Donald Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. Trial on Pet’s Motion to Show Cause (#44). Motion #44 denied. Pet has failed to prove resp. did not estabish residency in Topeka by Sept. 1, 1999 as required by Court’s June 28, 1999 Order. Resp’s Motion for Attorney Fees denied. Shawn Hoff, reporter. RDA
09/21/1999	-	Ms. King withdraws Motion #43 to Withdraw as Attorney. RDA
09/22/1999	-	AFFIDAVIT,MOTION FOR ORDER,ORDER TO APPEAR returned personal service requested , no service, no reason given – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 09/22/99 . 5100 HOUCK STREETOR 5200; HOUCK STREET; PAWNEE ROCK, KS 67567 -
09/22/1999	-	RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT FILED BY REBECCA KING.
09/22/1999	-	RESPONSE MF 100199
09/22/1999	-	OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ORDER TO APPEAR FILED BY REBECCA A KING.
09/22/1999	-	OBJECTION FILMED 100599
09/27/1999	-	NOTICE FROM APPELLATE COURT OF ACTION TAKEN – ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MF 100699
09/27/1999	-	ACTIVITY NOTICE FROM APPELLATE COURT – PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL MF 100699
09/28/1999	-	Transcript of MOTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER held 6-15-99 filed.
09/29/1999	-	Filmed 09/29/99
10/13/1999	-	Card from the Clerk of the APPELLATE Court; they have received and filed the Notice of Appeal – Case No. 99-83905-A Filmed 10/14/99.
10/22/1999	-	Completed Table of Contents and mailed to attorneys; HOFFMAN, KING, BEFORT, & KEESHAN
11/03/1999	-	REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE MANAGER FILED BY REBECCA KING
11/03/1999	-	OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY REBECCA A KING.
11/09/1999	-	RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT OF CASE MANAGER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.
11/12/1999	-	Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 11/19/99 at 02:30P.M.
11/18/1999	-	REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT & OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER MF 111899
11/24/1999	-	Filmed 12/02/99
11/24/1999	-	JE MF 120299
11/24/1999	-	MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER FILED. -RDA (RE: REASSIGNMENT OF CASE MANAGER) JOURNAL ENTRY FILED. -RDA (RE: VISITATION)
03/10/2000	-	NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE FROM US POSTAL SERVICE FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. UPDATED COURT RECORD. SENT NOTICE TO DISTRICT COURT TRUSTEE
03/27/2000	-	OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN.
03/30/2000	-	RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO CASE MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION FILED BY REBECCA A KING
03/30/2000	-	Filed by Fax
03/30/2000	-	AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FILED BY REBECCA A KING
03/30/2000	-	Filed by Fax
04/06/2000	-	Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 06/08/00 at 09:00A.M.
04/06/2000	-	SET – Hearing on 06/08/00 at 09:00AM. in division 02.
04/11/2000	-	NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO GREAT BEND SHERIFF DEPT.
04/11/2000	-	NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO PAWNEE ROCK POLICE DEPT.
04/11/2000	-	NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
04/11/2000	-	NOTICE OF REQUEST OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO WESTERN RESOURCES INC.
04/14/2000	-	OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY REBECCA A KING AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d)(4)
04/14/2000	-	Filed by Fax
04/17/2000	-	$20.00 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)
04/17/2000	-	#46 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY
04/17/2000	-	Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 06/08/00 at 09:00A.M.
04/17/2000	-	AMENDED OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS FILED BY REBECCA A KING AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSMISSION BY FAX FORM FOR RULE 119(d))4)
04/26/2000	-	#47 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY. Filed by Fax
04/26/2000	-	#48 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.
05/08/2000	-	SET – Motion Docket on 05/25/00 at 11:00AM. in division 02.
05/08/2000	-	Motion for Pretrial set on docket at request of Ms. King. She will send notice. Vi
05/08/2000	-	Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 05/25/00 at 11:00A.M.
05/11/2000	-	LETTER RULING: (1) Pet’s Motion to Change Residential Custody (Motion #46) dismissed as premature. The issues must first be presented to the Case Manager. (2) Resp’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Change Residential Custody (Motion #47) is denied as moot. (3) Resp’s Motion for Pretrial Conference is denied as moot (4) June 8, 2000 hearing will relate only to Case Manager Objections. RDA
05/12/2000	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD R HOFFMAN & REBECCA A KING DATED 05/12/00
06/08/2000	-	HEARING ON PET’S OBJECTIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. ORDER: Recommendations adopted in part & denied in part. RULINGS: (1) Mr. Richardson’s visitation expanded – alternating weekends Fri thru Sun, exchange times subject to parties’ agreement or absent agreement, Court will set times for exchange sua sponte; Wed. visits to remain same as Nov. 1999 order; Holiday visits per Guidelines – father parent A; mother parent B. Summer visitation 3 weeks. (2) Tele visits permitted & encouraged; (3) Y-Safe visit monitored exchange terminated, parties to work w/Case Manager to determine alternate exchange location or parties may agree to have direct exchange; (4) July 21, 2000 @ 9 a.m. – Hearing re: enrollment in school residency placement & mother’s request to move. (5) Parties to submit CSW w/in 15 days together with positions on Child Support & unreimbursed medical expenses. (6) Restraining orders modified to permit parents to talk re: child & to permit exchange. (7) Ms. Dombrowsksi directed to release employment informa- tion to Court Services – Mr. Moore to prepare report & distribute report to parties. (8) Court Reporter to prepare transcript of Court’s Order. Costs of transcript assigned equally to parties. RDA
06/09/2000	-	SET – Hearing on 07/21/00 at 09:00AM. in division 02.
06/09/2000	-	Notice sent.
07/06/2000	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – RDA (re: Modifies & Denies the Recommendations of Case Manager Harry Moore contained in the report date 03/21/00 as stated in the Transcript held 060800
07/06/2000	-	Transcript of COURTS RULING, held 06/08/00 filed.
07/21/2000	-	HEARING: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Rebecca King. Hearing re: enrollment in school. Ms. Dombrowski requests to be released from Court’s order to live in Topeka with Rikki. RDA
07/31/2000	-	MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER FILED – RDA.
08/07/2000	-	#49 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EMERGENCY HEARING OR EX PARTE MOTION. Filed by fax
08/08/2000	-	#50 Motion filed and entered by REBECCA A KING for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR A NEW TRIAL.
08/08/2000	-	### MOTION FILED BY REBECCA A KING TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT
08/09/2000	-	Mandate from the APPELLATE Court filed. Judgment of District Court, AFFIRMED. MEMORANDUM OPINION attached.
08/10/2000	-	SET – Motion Docket on 08/24/00 at 10:30AM. in division 02.
08/14/2000	-	Order to Withdraw as Attorney of Record signed. DEB
08/14/2000	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, REBECCA A KING, filed. – DEB
08/28/2000	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – RDA.
09/05/2000	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY KYLE KAY WINGFIELD ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.
09/07/2000	-	Report received from Harry Moore & placed in social file.Vi3
09/11/2000	-	$20.00 recd from WINGFIELD,KYLE,KAY, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)
09/11/2000	-	#51 Motion filed and entered by KYLE KAY WINGFIELD for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION.
09/14/2000	-	SET – Motion Docket on 09/28/00 at 09:30AM. in division 02.
09/28/2000	-	MOTION DOCKET: S.Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Kyle Wingfield Case Manager will report to Court within 30 days how Rikki is adjusting to father’s home, school & parenting plan. Motion to Change Custody denied. RDA
12/19/2000	-	ORDER FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN – RDA.
12/20/2000	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 01/17/01 at 09:00AM. in division 02.
12/20/2000	-	MH notice sent.
12/27/2000	-	### MOTION FILED BY KYLE KAY WINGFIELD TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT
12/28/2000	-	#52 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR EX PARTE’ ORDER TERMINATING RESPONDENT’S CONTACT WITH MINOR CHILD OF PARTIES
12/28/2000	-	OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL BY COUNSEL FILED
12/29/2000	-	ORDER SUSPENDING PARENTING TIME FILED. – RDA
01/11/2001	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
01/18/2001	-	$20.00 Cash recd from ROBINSON,LEONARD,M, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)
01/18/2001	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.
01/18/2001	-	#53 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI (suspended visitation)
01/19/2001	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, KYLE KAY WINGFIELD, filed. – RDA
01/25/2001	-	CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER TO RETURN CHILD TO HAL RICHARDSON RETURNED BY SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. ORDER NOT SERVED. NO CONTACT AS OF 01/22/01.
02/08/2001	-	LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 01/30/01.
03/07/2001	-	Received call from Hoffman on their motion in which they will send notice. t/c with Robinson. ka
03/07/2001	-	SET – Administrative Hearing Officer Child Support Mot. on 04/02/01 at 02:30PM. in room 311.
03/07/2001	-	Received e-mail from case manager stating child support should be reviewed. lly/aho
03/09/2001	-	#54 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON TO ESTABLISH CHILD SUPPORT
03/09/2001	-	Child Support Worksheet OF FATHER
03/12/2001	-	NOTIFIED MR. HOFFMAN’S OFFICE OF THE NEED FOR A $20.00 MOTION FILING FEE.
03/13/2001	-	$20.00 recd from HOFFMAN,DONALD,R, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)
03/13/2001	-	AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 04/02/01 @ 02:30 PM
03/30/2001	-	Filed by Fax: RESPONDENT’S DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT’S SUPPORT WORKSHEET
04/02/2001	-	DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
04/02/2001	-	Child Support: Ruling on Motion #54. Tape 681, 1689-1861. Estimated Cost 12.00. Appearance by Petitioner and with counsel D. Hoffman. Appearance by Respondent and with counse l L. Robinson. AHO recuses herself from this case. Respond ent is married to AHO cousin. Attorney to contact Div 2 for hearing date and time. lly/aho
05/18/2001	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 08/06/01 at 03:00PM. in division 02.
05/18/2001	-	MH notice sent.
05/18/2001	-	LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 05/03/01.
07/13/2001	-	$20.00 Check recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT)
07/13/2001	-	#56 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY
07/23/2001	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO LEONARD ROBINSON & DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 07/20/01.
07/25/2001	-	Advised by counsel they have reached an agreement as to child support. Hearing on 8-6-01 deleted. Vi
08/06/2001	-	AGREED ORDER FILED – RDA. MANDATORY SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS FILED. KPC INFORMATION SHEET FILED.
08/22/2001	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 08/21/01.
08/27/2001	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 08/27/01.
09/06/2001	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE LUCKERT TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 09/05/01.
09/07/2001	-	THE ABOVE LETTERS DATED 08/21/01, 08/27/01 AND 09/05/01 HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE CLERK OF THE DIST. COURT’S SAFE
10/19/2001	-	Electronic Request for Income Withholding Order filed by DANNY J VOPAT
10/19/2001	-	Income Withholding Order issued certified mail as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
10/22/2001	-	### MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FILED BY DIST. COURT TRUSTEE
10/29/2001	-	RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
11/08/2001	-	REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS
11/08/2001	-	(Original Request for Review document kept in the Imaging department, photo did not image well.)
11/13/2001	-	Income Withholding Order returned certified mail requested , no service, unclaimed – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 11/09/01 . PO BOX 984; MANHATTAN, KS 66505 – Entered by 0876.
12/20/2001	-	LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 12/19/01.
12/21/2001	-	SET – Support Docket on 01/22/02 at 08:30AM.
12/21/2001	-	Setting made per attorney request.
12/21/2001	-	Electronic Request for Application for examination of judgment debtor filed by DANNY J VOPAT
12/21/2001	-	Order issued first class mail returnable 01/22/02 08:30A.M. as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
12/28/2001	-	Order returned , first class mail – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 12/27/01 . Entered by 2995.
01/09/2002	-	ORDER DISMISSING MOTION & ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED – RDA.
01/10/2002	-	MOTION & ORDER TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER FILED – RDA.
01/16/2002	-	MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER ON CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 30,2001 FILED – RDA.
01/25/2002	-	KPC COURT ORDER ENTRY, COPY OF WEB PAGE
01/25/2002	-	Notice of assignment of support rights filed IV-D AFDC.
01/25/2002	-	PARTICIPANT IS 1O/R-2O/E HAL RICHARDSON.
01/29/2002	-	REQUEST FOR HEARING AND OTHER RELIEF FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON
02/14/2002	-	ORDER FILED – RDA.
02/19/2002	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – RDA.
03/11/2002	-	STATUS CONFERENCE: S. Hoff, reporter. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. Resp. appears in person & by Leonard Robinson. Also, attending CM Harry Moore; Dr. Milfred Dale, Court evaluator; Dr. Bonnie Uffman, Resp’s therapist; Rene Netherton, re gal assignment; Resp’s husband, Mr. Yockers; Ms. Stumpf, maternal grandmother. AGREEMENTS & ORDERS: (1) Parties agree Dr. Dale will serve as Court’s evaluator for risk in unsupervised visits w/ Resp. & recommendation for therapy. Resp. to pay expense of evaluation. (2) Harry Moore resigns as CM. Parties to suggest names of successor. (3) Parties to work on PT schedule to be implemented after evaluation & on condition that unsupervised PT approved. RDA
03/22/2002	-	LETTER FROM RENE M NETHERTON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 03/20/02.
03/22/2002	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DR MILFRED DALE DATED 03/22/02.
03/22/2002	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 03/22/02.
04/19/2002	-	LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 04/12/02.
04/19/2002	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE ANDERSON TO DONALD HOFFMAN & LEONARD ROBINSON DATED 04/19/02.
05/10/2002	-	Conf w/counsel re: parenting time schedule. RDA
07/01/2002	-	LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO DONALD R HOFFMAN DATED 05/22/02.
07/01/2002	-	LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 06/28/02.
07/01/2002	-	LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LEONARD M ROBINSON DATED 06/10/02.
07/15/2002	-	Hearing on Proposed Journal Entry. S. Hoff, reporter. Resp. appears in person & by Leonard Robinson. Pet. appears in person & by Don Hoffman. J. E. to be resubmitted with schedule & other provisions as ruled on by Court. Dr. Albott rather than Dr. Dale selected as therapist. RDA
07/16/2002	-	LETTER FROM LEONARD M ROBINSON TO JUDGE ANDERSON DATED 06/28/02.
07/24/2002	-	LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LEONARD M ROBINSON DATED 06/10/02.
07/31/2002	-	Order for Unsupervised Parenting Time signed. deb
08/01/2002	-	ORDER FOR UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME FILED – DEB.
12/30/2002	-	NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY, FOR LEONARD M ROBINSON; UP-DATED RECORD
05/14/2003	-	Transfered from Div.02 to Div.03, New Judicial Assignment.
05/23/2003	-	#59 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI FOR AN ORDER FOR WRITTEN REPORT
05/28/2003	-	SET – Motion Docket on 06/12/03 at 10:00AM. in division 03.
06/03/2003	-	#60 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF INCOME WITHHOLDING ORDER AND COMBINED SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FILED BY DYNTEK
06/04/2003	-	Remove from Motion docket 6/12/03 agreed by attorneys
06/05/2003	-	SET – Support Docket on 07/15/03 at 08:30AM.
06/05/2003	-	#61 MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR AN ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE FILED BY JOAN HAWKINS
06/05/2003	-	CITATION IN CONTEMPT (FAILURE TO PAY) FILED BY JOAN HAWKINS – JMS
06/05/2003	-	Request for Service
06/05/2003	-	MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & CITATION IN CONTEMPT issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service to the Sheriff of SHAWNEE County, KS.
06/10/2003	-	$25.00 Cashier Check recd from ROBINSON,LEONARD,M, (20.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)
06/10/2003	-	#62 Motion filed and entered by LEONARD M ROBINSON for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY
06/11/2003	-	SET – Motion Docket on 06/26/03 at 10:00AM. in division 03.
06/12/2003	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
06/12/2003	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 06/26/03 10:00A.M. as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPT & RESPONDING OFFICERS issued to special process server.
06/12/2003	-	ORDER FILED – JMS.
06/13/2003	-	MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & CITATION IN CONTEMPT returned , personal service – as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI 06/11/03 . Served by 0885. Entered by 1117.
06/13/2003	-	Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
06/16/2003	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 06/26/03 10:00A.M. as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT issued to special process server.
06/17/2003	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum returned , personal service – as to SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 06/17/03
06/19/2003	-	Remove from mot/d 6/26 and set for half a day hearing on 7/16/03 at 1:30 pm per call from Mr. Robinson’s office
06/19/2003	-	SET – Hearing on 07/16/03 at 01:30PM. in division 03.
06/23/2003	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum returned , personal service – as to TOPEKA POLICE DEPT & RESPONDING OFFICERS 06/12/03
06/27/2003	-	#63 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR CONTINUANCE RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY FILED.
07/08/2003	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE SCHMIDT TO LEONARD M ROBINSON AND DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 07/07/03.
07/08/2003	-	ORDER TO WITHHOLD INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT – JMS
07/08/2003	-	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07/08/2003	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
07/15/2003	-	CONTEMPT DOCKET: Ward Rowe appears for Dyntek. (2OR)Obligor not present but Leonard Robinson appears. Personal service 06/11/03. Order back 08/26/03 at 08:30AM EXPO
07/15/2003	-	Judge Schmidt recuses herself from this case.
07/23/2003	-	SET – Support Docket on 08/26/03 at 08:30AM.
07/28/2003	-	Notice of Hearing Continuance filed. To be heard 08/26/03 at 08:30A.M.
08/26/2003	-	Support Docket: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI (2OR) Present.
08/26/2003	-	CONTEMPT DOCKET:ROWE APPEARS FOR DYNTEK.DISMISS CITATION.BCH
08/27/2003	-	Case Manager Recommendations received from Amanda Smith Wilson, Court Services. deb
09/04/2003	-	NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION AND ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE
09/04/2003	-	RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS
09/11/2003	-	PETITIONER’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS
09/30/2003	-	Case Management Order filed – DEB.
09/30/2003	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
10/10/2003	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD SWARTZ, DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER, TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI AND HAL RICHARDSON DATED 10/06/03.
10/30/2003	-	*********AHO RECUSES HERSELF FROM THE CASE ************KA
11/18/2003	-	SET – Hearing on 12/19/03 at 01:30PM. in room 311.
11/18/2003	-	Notice of hearing for 12/19/03 Hearing issued .
12/09/2003	-	#64 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR CONTINUANCE
01/06/2004	-	Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support.
01/08/2004	-	Order to Withhold Income for Child Support – JMS
01/08/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ DATED 01/06/04
01/13/2004	-	Agreed Order signed. deb
01/13/2004	-	SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND LEIN SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
01/14/2004	-	SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND LIEN SIGNED BY HAL RICHARDSON
01/14/2004	-	AGREED ORDER FILED – DEB.
01/23/2004	-	Order re: case manager’s letter signed. deb
01/23/2004	-	ORDER FILED – DEB.
02/12/2004	-	WRITTEN OBJECTION TO FEBRUARY 2004 RECOMMENDATION OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FILED BY FAX
02/20/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
03/02/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 02/26/04.
03/02/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
03/03/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
03/11/2004	-	LETTER FROM DIV. 12 TO RALPH RAPOSA DATED 03/11/04.
04/28/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
04/28/2004	-	Reassigned to division 12 from division 3. OJA reason for transfer 2.
04/29/2004	-	$26.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (21.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)
04/29/2004	-	#65 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EXPEDITED HEARING TO REMOVE DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FOR CAUSE AND REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED VISITATION
05/03/2004	-	ORDER FILED – DEB.
05/03/2004	-	ORDER FILED – DEB.
05/04/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
05/06/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 05/04/04.
05/07/2004	-	#66 MOTION FILED BY LEONARD M ROBINSON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT
05/07/2004	-	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FILED
05/10/2004	-	Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Counsel from Leonard Robinson signed. deb
05/10/2004	-	RESPONSE OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER TO MOTION FOR EZPEDITED HEARING TO REMOVE DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER FOR CAUSE AND REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED VISITATION
05/10/2004	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, LEONARD M ROBINSON – DEB
05/12/2004	-	NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN AS TO SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
05/20/2004	-	Order signed. deb
05/20/2004	-	ORDER FILED – DEB.
05/24/2004	-	Filed by fax – RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INVESTIGATION REPORTS SUBPOENA
05/26/2004	-	PRAECIPE FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SUBPOENA FILED BY DONALD R HOFFMAN
05/27/2004	-	Subpoena – Business Records issued personal service returnable 06/01/04 05:00P.M. as to SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
05/27/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 01/01/04.
05/27/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED – DEB.
06/01/2004	-	Affidavit of Business Records from SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE filed. Business Records received. DONALD R HOFFMAN notified.
06/02/2004	-	Subpoena – Business Records returned, residence service , left with Agent/Officer – as to SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 05/28/04 . Served by 0391. Entered by 1125.
06/02/2004	-	( JUDY FORESTER )
06/03/2004	-	Order to Release Business Records signed. deb
06/03/2004	-	ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE CO SHERIFFS DEPT TO GEORGE MARTIN, HOFFMAN & HOFFMAN LAW OFFICE – DEB
06/04/2004	-	Memorandum received from Amanda Smith Wilson.
06/04/2004	-	RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT TO THE LETTERS TO THE COURT OF DR. ALBOTT AND CASE MANAGER LLOYD SWARTZ, RESPECTIVELY SENT MAY 26, 2004 AND MAY 7, 2004 FILED BY FAX
06/07/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB
06/10/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO LEONARD ROBINSON & DONALD HOFFMAN DATED 04/01/04.
06/10/2004	-	LETTER FROM DONALD R HOFFMAN TO LLOYD SCHWARTZ DATED 04/27/04.
06/14/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 06/14/04.
06/16/2004	-	#67 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY STATUS CONFERENCE OR TO REINSTATE UPON ORDER UNSUPERVIED PARENTING TIME. Filed by fax
06/21/2004	-	Order to Release Business Records signed. deb
06/21/2004	-	ORDER TO RELEASE BUSINESS RECORDS PRODUCED BY SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI – DEB
06/23/2004	-	ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE COURTS RECORDS
06/24/2004	-	ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JILL DYKES – DEB
06/24/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB
06/28/2004	-	POST OFFICE RETURNED AN ORDER TO REINSTATE UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME THAT JUDGE DID NOT SIGN BECAUSE OF A BAD ADDRESS FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
06/29/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 06/29/04.
07/01/2004	-	LETTER FROM FELICIA THEEL TO JILL DYKES DATED 07/01/04.
07/11/2004	-	#69 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT OF VISITATION RIGHTS
07/13/2004	-	Order Allowing And Assessing Fee signed. deb
07/13/2004	-	PETITION AND ORDER FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES FILED – DEB
07/29/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 07/29/04.
07/30/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB
08/04/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PETITIONER & RESP DATED 08/02/04.
08/13/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 08/12/04.
08/27/2004	-	LETTER DECISION FILED. DEB
09/03/2004	-	LETTER FROM M JILL DYKES TO JUDGE BRUNS DATED 08/31/04.
09/18/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 09/17/04. FILED BY FAX.
10/01/2004	-	Transfered from Div.12 to Div.05, New Judicial Assignment.
10/01/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO HAL RICHARDSON & CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 093004.
10/08/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/07/04.
10/08/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 09/30/04.
10/28/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO MR. SWARTZ DATED 10/28/04. FILED BY FAX.
11/01/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/29/04.
11/08/2004	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO PARENTS DATED 10/29/04.
12/02/2004	-	Recommendation of Domestic Case Manager, November 2004, ORDERS of the Court signed. EZW.
12/06/2004	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 12/06/04. FILED BY FAX.
12/17/2004	-	RECOMMENDATION OF DOMESTIC CASE MANAGER AND ORDER FILED-EZW
01/07/2005	-	SET – Hearing on 03/03/05 at 09:00AM. in division 05. STATUS CONFERENCE
01/07/2005	-	Notice of hearing for 03/03/05 Hearing issued .
02/09/2005	-	Notice of termination of assignment of support rights filed IV-D AFDC.
03/03/2005	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/03/05.
03/03/2005	-	Ct.Rptr:TAYLOR (SHC050303-081110).Petitioner appears and by DONALD R.HOFFMAN; Respondent appears pro se; Rikki appears not but by JILL DYKES, GAL. Also appearing: LLOYD SWARTZ, CM. Status Conf.-Resp.directed to provide current contact info.to C.M., to include physical address, phone number. -Resp.directed to inform C.M. of intent to file Motions before filing them with Court to get C.M.okay to file them with Court. -Resp’s request to remove C.M. and GAL is denied. -Court makes no changes to current orders except as set forth above. Resp’s parenting time with child will remain supervised at this time. -GAL’s request for fees granted. Advanced by County. Parties shall submit income statements to C.M., who will send court a recommendation as to assessment of fees to the parties.(cont’d.next screen)
03/03/2005	-	(cont’d.from previous screen) DYKES will journalize. EZW,Div.5.
03/10/2005	-	Order Allowing and Assessing Fee signed. EZW,Div.5.
03/11/2005	-	PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – EZW (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)
03/15/2005	-	LETTER FROM LLOYD C SWARTZ TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/14/05.
03/17/2005	-	NOTICE PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY M. JILL DYKES
03/18/2005	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE WILSON DATED 03/18/05. FILED BY FAX.
04/24/2005	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD C SWARTZ DATED 04/19/05. FILED BY FAX.
05/03/2005	-	Journal Entry signed. EZW,Div.5.
05/03/2005	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO LLOYD SWARTZ DATED 05/03/05. FILED BY FAX.
05/03/2005	-	Journal Entry filed. EZW
05/23/2005	-	OBJECTION TO THE CASE MANAGER RECOMMENDATION DATED MAY 11, 2005. FILED BY FAX.
06/28/2005	-	Filed by Fax – LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO SAFE VISIT STAFF DATED 060705.
07/18/2005	-	RECEIVED BY FAX A MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION ON 07/13/05 FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI. THIS IS BEING RETURNED TO HER BECAUSE THE $26.00 MOTION FILING FEE WAS NOT PAID.
07/19/2005	-	$26.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (21.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 5.00 DM Surcharge)
07/19/2005	-	#70 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI PRO SE, TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND VISITATION
07/19/2005	-	Order signed. EZW,Div.5.
07/20/2005	-	SET – Hearing on 10/25/05 at 02:00PM. in division 05. Special Setting, set by Court.
07/20/2005	-	ORDER- 1)TERMINATING CASE MANAGEMENT; 2)DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS M JILL DYKES AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM; 3)DISMISSING RESPONDENT’S (A) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF RESIDENCY AND (B) MOTION TO MODIFIY CUSTODY AND VISITATION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT; AND 4)SETTING A HEARING FOR RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PARENTING TIME-EZW
08/26/2005	-	DIVORCEWORKS Certificate of Completion for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI.
09/13/2005	-	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED BY BETHANY J ROBERTS AS ATTORNEY FOR CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
09/27/2005	-	Notice of hearing for 10/25/05 Hearing issued .
10/25/2005	-	Ct.Rptr:TAYLOR. Pet.appears and by D.R.HOFFMAN; Resp.appears and by B.J.ROBERTS; JILL DYKES, GAL, also appears. Hearing on Motion to Modify P.T. Court rules: 1)P.T. will remain supervised thru Safe Visit; 1x/week from 4pm-5pm on Sunday; 2)Resp.may have unsupervised T.C. w/minor on Tues.and Fri. evevning at 8pm for 1/2 hour. Resp.will initiate call. 3)Resp.and minor into Fam.Therapy as selected by GAL, Resp. to pay for it. 4)Review hearing set for 2/2/06 at 9am. 2 hours. ROBERTS to prepare JE. EZW,Div.5.
10/26/2005	-	SET – Hearing on 02/02/06 at 09:00AM. in division 05. REVIEW HEARING – 2 Hours Allowed.
10/26/2005	-	Notice of hearing for 02/02/06 Hearing issued .
10/28/2005	-	Order Allowing and Assessing Fee signed. EZW,Div.5.
11/01/2005	-	PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEES FILED – EZW (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)
11/16/2005	-	Journal Entry (Motion to Modify Parenting Time) signed. EZW,Div.5.
11/21/2005	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – EZW
01/30/2006	-	Case transfered Div 05 to Div 04,New Judicial Assignment.NEP
02/03/2006	-	ORDERDED HOME STUDY FOR PETITIONER’S HOME,PARTIES ORDERED TO CONTACT COUNSELOR FOR MINOR CHILD AND REPORT TO THE COURT PR IOR TO NEXT HEARING. CREDENTIALS FOR THE THERAPIST(MS BROWN) TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. SAFE VISITS TO CONTINUE ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PREVIOUS ORDERS UNTIL NEXT HEARING. ATTORNEY ROBERTS TO JOURNALIZE THE HEARING.JDJ
02/14/2006	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – JDJ
03/03/2006	-	SET – Hearing on 04/10/06 at 10:30AM. in division 04.
03/03/2006	-	Notice of hearing for 04/10/06 Hearing issued .
03/14/2006	-	NOTICE OF ATTORNEY CONFERENCE FILED
03/14/2006	-	SET – Counsel Conference on 04/14/06 at 10:00AM. in division 04.
04/14/2006	-	PARTIES PRESENT AND THROUGH COUNSEL. RESPONDENT APPEARED PERSONALLY. GAL, JILL DYKES APPEARED ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD. COURT ORDERED THAT SAFE VISITS ARE TO CONTINUE. RESPONDENT ORDERED TO RECEIVE AN EVALUATION THROUGH FAMILY SERVICES AND GUIDANCE CENTER. MATTER PLACED BACK ON THE STATUS DOCKET FOR AUG 9@9AM.JDJ
04/14/2006	-	SET – Status Docket on 08/09/06 at 09:00AM. in division 04.
04/14/2006	-	Notice of hearing for 08/09/06 Status Docket issued .
05/09/2006	-	JOURNAL ENTRY REGARDING PARENTING TIME SIGNED BY JDJ
05/09/2006	-	Journal Entry filed. JDJ
06/12/2006	-	#71Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI PRO SE FOR ORDER TO ALLOW GRANDPARENT VISITATION EMERGENCY ORDER.
06/13/2006	-	#72 MOTION FILED BY BETHANY J ROBERTS TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT
06/14/2006	-	SET – Motion Docket on 07/27/06 at 09:30AM. in division 04.
06/14/2006	-	Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date July 27, 2006 09:30AM.
06/14/2006	-	PETITIONER’S RESPOSNE AND OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO ALLOW GRANDPARENT VISITATION EMERGENCY ORDER FILED
06/27/2006	-	Order for withdrawal of attorney, BETHANY J ROBERTS – JDJ
07/24/2006	-	TAKEN OUT OF SETTING ON 8/9
07/25/2006	-	CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
08/31/2006	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 08/31/06.
09/07/2006	-	SET – Status Docket on 10/16/06 at 02:00PM. in division 04.
09/07/2006	-	Notice of hearing for 10/16/06 Status Docket issued .
09/13/2006	-	SET – Status Docket on 09/27/06 at 11:30AM. in division 04. THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2006@ 11:30 A.M. COUNSEL, IF YOU DISCOVER THIS SETTING CONFLICTS WITH YOUR CALENDAR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE.
09/13/2006	-	Notice of hearing for 09/27/06 Status Docket issued .
09/27/2006	-	PETITIONER APPEARS IN PERSON AND THROUGH COUNSEL, MR. DON HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT APPEARS IN PERSON, PRO SE. THE CHILD APPEARS THROUGH THE G.A.L., MS. DYKES. THE COURT ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUS ORDER TO GET AN EVALUATION COMPLETED AT FAMILY SERVICE & GUIDANCE CENTER. CHILD’S PICTURE TO BE REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S WEBSITE. CHILD TO BE AVAILABLE ON WEDS & SUNDAYS AT 7PM FOR CALLS FROM MOTHER. ALL VISITS BY MOTHER WILL BE THROUGH SAFE VISITS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. MATTER CONTINUED FOR 30 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE. JDJ
09/27/2006	-	PSYCH. EVALS/ASSESSMENTS/RECORDS FILED
09/27/2006	-	JOURNAL ENTRY ORDER FILED – JDJ
09/28/2006	-	RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FILED
10/10/2006	-	PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER FILED – JDJ (CERTIFIED COPY SENT TO COURT ADMIN)
11/01/2006	-	#73 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE TO RESTORE PARENTING TIME.
11/01/2006	-	POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
01/29/2007	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED
01/29/2007	-	01/24/07. Filed by Fax
02/07/2007	-	SET – Hearing on 04/04/07 at 02:00PM. in division 04. ***PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS AN AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING**** DISREGARD ANY PREVIOUS NOTICES
02/07/2007	-	Notice of hearing for 04/04/07 Hearing issued .
04/04/2007	-	PARTIES PRESENT AND WITH COUNSEL. MS. DYKES FOR THE PARTIES MINOR CHILD. THE COURT ORDERED MS. DOMBROWSKI TO MEET WITH MS. CYNTHIA TURNBULL FOR EVALUATION. MR. HOFFMAN IS TO JOURNALIZE. JDJ
04/11/2007	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 04/10/07.
05/21/2007	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 05/21/07.
06/15/2007	-	JOURNAL ENTRY OF 4/4/07 HEARING SIGNED BY JDJ
06/15/2007	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – JDJ
06/29/2007	-	LETTER FROM JENNIFER OLSEN TO DONALD R HOFFMAN DATED 06/29/07.
07/11/2007	-	LETTER FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DISTRICT COURT DATED 07/10/07.
07/23/2007	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 07/23/07.
07/26/2007	-	COPY OF LETTER FROM SAFE VISIT ADMINISTRATOR TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 06/15/07 COPY OF LETTER FROM SAFE VISIT ADMINISTRATOR TO HAL RICHARDSON AND CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 07/24/07
08/06/2007	-	Transcript of HEARING, held 04/04/07 filed.
08/30/2007	-	EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCESS FILED
09/12/2007	-	SET – Review Hearing on 11/07/07 at 11:00AM. in division 04.
09/12/2007	-	Notice of hearing for 11/07/07 Review Hearing issued .
09/19/2007	-	FORMAL OBJECTION TO ANY THIRD PARTY INTERFERANCE AT SAFE VISIT FILED
09/20/2007	-	#74 Motion filed and entered by M JILL DYKES as GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO ALLOW DOCTOR TO OBSERVE SAFE VISIT
09/20/2007	-	ORDER ALLOWING DOCTOR TO OBSERVE SAFE VISIT FILED – JDJ
10/25/2007	-	LETTER FROM MARY ANN DUGAN TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 11/17/06.
11/07/2007	-	PETITIONER PRESENT AND THROUGH COUNSEL, JASON HOFFMAN FOR DON HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT MOVED TO RECUSE THE G.A.L. SAID MOTION WAS DENIED. RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED TO CONTACT MS. TURNBULL CONCERNING PSYCH EVALUATION AND TO SCHEDULE THE SAME. UPON SCHEDULING THE G.A.L. WILL BE ADVISED. PHONE CALLS WILL BE ON SUNDAY AND WEDNESDAYS FROM 5:30-6:30P.M. THE PHOLE WILL NOT BE ON AT ANY OTHER TIME. JDJ
11/09/2007	-	PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES FILED AND ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – JDJ (CERTIFIED COPY TO CRT ADMIN)
11/16/2007	-	AMENDED PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES FILED
11/16/2007	-	LETTER FROM CYNTHIA TURNBULL PHD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN DATED 11/12/07
11/27/2007	-	LETTER FROM M. JILL DYKES TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 11/12/07.
11/27/2007	-	Filed by Fax
12/16/2007	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 12/13/07.
01/03/2008	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 01/03/08
01/03/2008	-	Filed by Fax
01/15/2008	-	LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 01/15/08.
02/04/2008	-	#75 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE FOR IMMEDIATE ORDER RESTORING AND REINSTATING WITHOUT RESTRICTION CHILD AND PARENT ACCESS. A VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL AND CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS OF BOTH CHILD & PARENT. Filed by Fax
02/13/2008	-	#76 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE.
02/14/2008	-	SET – Show Cause on 03/13/08 at 01:30PM. in division 04.
02/14/2008	-	Notice of hearing for 03/13/08 Show Cause issued .
02/19/2008	-	Filed by fax – RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION
02/28/2008	-	REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE/ADVANCEMENT & ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE/ADVANCEMENT FILED – JDJ.
02/29/2008	-	SET – Show Cause on 04/25/08 at 11:30AM. in division 04.
03/20/2008	-	Three Praecipes for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE.
03/20/2008	-	Subpoena issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to MICHAEL L BURLISON
03/20/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER
03/20/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 04/25/08 11:30A.M. as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT
03/20/2008	-	Sheriff Process Fee ($10.00 cash) received and forwarded.
03/27/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 03/25/08 . Entered by 1153.
03/27/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT 03/25/08 . Entered by 1153.
03/28/2008	-	Subpoena returned, personal service – as to MICHAEL L BURLISON 03/27/08 . Entered by 0148.
04/02/2008	-	#77 Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION OF THIS COURT FOR THE HEALTH AND BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILD.Filed by fax
04/03/2008	-	SET – Motion Docket on 04/24/08 at 10:30AM. in division 04.
04/03/2008	-	Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date April 24, 2008 10:30AM.
04/03/2008	-	#78 Emergency Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR DEMAND RULING. Filed by fax
04/04/2008	-	HEARING SET FOR 4-24-08 ON RESPONDENTS MOTIONS HAS BEEN CONSLIDATED WITH HEARING ON 4-25-08 AT 11:30 A.M.
04/25/2008	-	PETITIONER PRESENT AND WITH COUNSEL, MR. HOFFMAN. RESPONDENT APPEARED PRO SE. THE G.A.L. MS DYKES ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RESTORE ACCESS TO THE CHILD. THE G.A.L. GAVE HER REPORT TO THE COURT FAVORING AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SAFE VISITS THAT ARE PRESENTLY ONGOING. THE MATTER WAS ALSO BEFORE THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION WAS SUSTAINED.THE PAR- TIES WILL BE PLACED IN THE ODYESSY PROGRAM. THE PARTIES WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM’S VISITATION AND THERAPY COMPO- NENTS. THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION WAS SUSTAINED FOR CHANGE OF VISITATION WITH THE MINOR CHILD. JDJ
06/18/2008	-	FAXED LETTER FROM CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI TO JUDGE JOHNSON DATED 06/18/08.
08/25/2008	-	Case transfered Div 04 to Div 13,New Judicial Assignment.NEP
10/15/2008	-	POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
10/15/2008	-	#79 EMERGENCY Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR ORDERS OF JUSTICE
10/17/2008	-	SET – Motion Docket on 11/13/08 at 09:30AM. in division 13.
10/17/2008	-	Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date November 13, 2008 09:30AM.
10/28/2008	-	#80 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE, FOR TEMPORARY ORDER ALLOWING MINOR CHILD TO ATTEND HER GRANDMOTHERS FUNERAL. Filed by fax
10/30/2008	-	SET – Motion Docket on 11/04/08 at 03:30PM. in division 13.
10/30/2008	-	Notice of hearing for 11/04/08 Motion Docket issued .
11/04/2008	-	Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court hears from counsel and denies Respondent’s motion. Court schedules Respondent’s emergency motion for orders of justice for December 16, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. DBD
11/04/2008	-	SET – Hearing on 12/16/08 at 01:30PM. in division 13. Motion Hearing
11/04/2008	-	Notice of hearing for 12/16/08 Hearing issued .
11/05/2008	-	NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN
11/07/2008	-	REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
11/13/2008	-	LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL, MANAGING REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 11/13/08.
11/21/2008	-	JOURNAL ENTRY FILED – DBD
12/04/2008	-	EIGHT PRAECIPE FOR BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FILED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to JUDGE DAVID E BRUNS
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DREX FLOTT LSCSW CLINICAL DIRECTOR
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to M JILL DYKES
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to KARA HARRY DIRECT THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to LLOYD SWARTZ
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER
12/05/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records issued personal servic returnable 12/16/08 01:30P.M. as to CONNIE SANCHEZ
12/09/2008	-	$57.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (57.00 DM Transcrpt)
12/12/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR WILLIAM ALBOTT 12/10/08 . Entered by 1153.
12/12/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 12/10/08 . Entered by 1153.
12/12/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to CONNIE SANCHEZ 12/10/08 . Entered by 0883.
12/12/2008	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE BRUNS TO JUDGE DEBENHAM DATED 12/12/08.
12/15/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer – as to JUDGE DAVID E BRUNS 12/11/08 . Entered by 0885.
12/15/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to DREX FLOTT LSCSW CLINICAL DIRECTOR 12/11/08 . Entered by 1128.
12/15/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to KARA HARRY DIRECT THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT 12/11/08 . Entered by 1128.
12/15/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned, personal service – as to LLOYD SWARTZ 12/11/08 . Entered by 0885.
12/16/2008	-	MISC. Petitioner in person and by counsel, Donald Hoffman; G.A.L. Jill Dykes in person; Respondent in person, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court hears evidence and arguments of parties and denies Respondent’s motion as it is unsupported by the evidence introduced by Respondent. Based on evidence put on by Respondent, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the child to leave parenting time as it is presently set and in a supervised fashion. Any further motions filed by Respondent will need to specify factual allegations and legal conclusions to support the motion or the Court will entertain motions to dismiss the same. Donald Hoffman to prepare JE. DBD
12/16/2008	-	REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
12/22/2008	-	Subpoena Duces Tecum-Business Records returned personal service requested, no service, no response to notes left – as to M JILL DYKES 12/18/08 . Entered by 0572.
12/23/2008	-	LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL, MANAGING REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 12/23/08.
12/29/2008	-	NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 170 FILED BY DONALD HOFFMAN
12/29/2008	-	EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCESS FILED BY FAX
01/14/2009	-	PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES & ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED – DBD. (Sent Certified Copy to Ct Admin Office)
01/27/2009	-	#81 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,PRO SE, FOR COURT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND KANSAS APPEALLATE RULINGS IN THAT THE LAST OF ORDER OF THIS COURT (DECEMBER 16, 2008) IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AND DEMANDS THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ILLEGAL RULING IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE ANY ALL FURTHER STEPS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAWS SETFORTH
01/27/2009	-	Filed by Fax
01/27/2009	-	#82 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE
02/13/2009	-	$213.00 Cash recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (213.00 DM Transcrpt)
02/24/2009	-	SET – Hearing on 03/17/09 at 01:00PM. in division 13. (hearing to determine if Respondent needs appointed counsel) (1/2 hour)
02/24/2009	-	Notice of hearing for 03/17/09 Hearing issued .
02/24/2009	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 04/06/09 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (1/2 day)
02/24/2009	-	ORDER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE FILED – DBD.
02/24/2009	-	AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED.
02/24/2009	-	Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
02/25/2009	-	MOTION/AFFIDAVIT SHOW CAUSE & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service issued to special process server.
03/13/2009	-	POVERTY AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
03/13/2009	-	#83 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR ORDERS OF JUSTICE
03/13/2009	-	VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUSTICE FILED
03/13/2009	-	#84 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE
03/13/2009	-	VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE FILED
03/13/2009	-	#85 Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR COURT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND KANSAS APPEALLATE RULINGS IN THAT THE LAST OF ORDER OF THIS COURT (DECEMBER 16, 2008) IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AND DEMANDS THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ILLEGAL RULING IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE ANY ALL FURTHER STEPS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT LAWS SETFORTH
03/17/2009	-	MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent does not appear. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Court finds Respondent’s Motion to Recuse was improperly filed but after consideration denies the Motion for Recusal. On evidence presented Court finds Respondent was personally served with Motion and Order to Appear and Show Cause scheduled for April 6, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. pursuant to K.S.A. 60-303(d)(4). Court appoints Kevin Cook to represent Respondent during hearing scheduled on show cause order. Court denies Respondent’s motion filed 12/29/08 titled, “Expedited Judicial Process”, Motion #81, Motion #83, and Motion #85, as none of the motions have alleged any new information or basis for overturning Court’s December 16, 2008, decision. Court will journalize order. DBD
03/18/2009	-	ORDER FILED – DBD.
03/20/2009	-	#86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT
03/20/2009	-	Journal Entry filed. DBD
03/24/2009	-	ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD.
04/06/2009	-	MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”. Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD
04/24/2009	-	REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
04/28/2009	-	LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL,COURT REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 04/28/09.
05/22/2009	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE DEBENHAM TO ROBERT DUNCAN II DATED 05/22/09.
06/16/2009	-	Transcript of HEARING, held 04/06/09 filed.
06/29/2009	-	LETTER FROM JUDGE DEBENHAM TO ROBERT DUNCAN II DATED 06/29/09.
08/28/2009	-	$52.00 Check recd from DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, (42.00 DM POST DIVORCE MOT; 10.00 DM Surcharge)
08/28/2009	-	#87 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY VISITATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ORTHODONTIC CARE AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT
08/28/2009	-	SET – Motion Docket on 09/17/09 at 10:30AM. in division 13.
08/28/2009	-	Notice of Hearing on MOTION DOCKET. Hearing date September 17, 2009 10:30AM.
09/17/2009	-	MISC. MOTION DOCKET. Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L. Jill Dykes present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. 1) Parties agree that Petitioner will have child looked at by 2 other orthodontist within 60 days and share estimates of cost with Respondent; 2) Both parties are responsible for half of all orthodontic care for the minor child; 3) Parties are to exchange MDRA within 10 days; 4) Respondent to file amended motion to modify visitation with counsel’s signature; 5) Both parties ordered to provide U.A.’s today; and 6) Hearing set for 11/13/09 at 11:00 a.m. on supervised parenting time. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD
09/17/2009	-	SET – Motion Hearing on 11/13/09 at 11:00AM. in division 13.
09/17/2009	-	Notice of hearing for 11/13/09 Motion Hearing issued .
09/18/2009	-	ORDER FILED – DBD.
10/16/2009	-	#88 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE
10/16/2009	-	AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO APPEAR & SHOW CAUSE FILED
10/22/2009	-	Praecipe for Summons filed by DONALD R HOFFMAN.
10/23/2009	-	MOTION/AFFIDAVIT & ORDER TO APPEARS & SHOW CAUSE issued as to CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI personal service issued to special process server.
11/09/2009	-	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FILED
11/09/2009	-	Filed by Fax
11/13/2009	-	MISC. Petitioner in person and by Don Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, in person. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter comes before Court on Respondent’s motion for unsupervised visitation and Petitioner’s motion for contempt. Parties have agreed that motion for contempt will be deferred pending Petitioner’s locating and removing all referenced items to the minor child on the internet. Matter to be reset if disagreement between the parties about removal of items referring to minor child and her likeness from internet. Court interview minor child – no record per agreement of the parties. Court suspends parenting time of Respondent due to Respondent’s continued use of her website and the internet to publish photographs of minor child and statements reference minor child. Court will entertain motion to reinstate parenting time once Respondent deletes all photographs and likenesses of minor child, any reference to minor child on her website and the internet, agree not to discuss Court proceedings with minor child and not to discuss divorce with minor child. Review set for December 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. T. Duncan to do JE. DBD
11/13/2009	-	SET – Hearing on 12/16/09 at 10:00AM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)
11/13/2009	-	Notice of hearing for 12/16/09 Hearing issued .
11/13/2009	-	#89 Amended Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, TO MODIFY VISITATION AND TO PROVIDE FOR ORTHODONTIC CARE AND MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT
11/13/2009	-	MINI DOMESTIC RELATIONS AFFIDAVIT OF HAL RICHARDSON
11/13/2009	-	CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET SUBMITTED BY FATHER
12/16/2009	-	Hearing continued at request of Respondent. Hearing reset January 8, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. DBD
12/16/2009	-	SET – Hearing on 01/08/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)
12/16/2009	-	Notice of hearing for 01/08/10 Hearing issued .
12/16/2009	-	ORDER FILED – DBD.
12/21/2009	-	Hearing for 1/8/10 rescheduled due to conflict in Court’s schedule to 1/22/10 at 1:30 p.m.
12/21/2009	-	SET – Hearing on 01/22/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)
12/21/2009	-	Notice of hearing for 01/22/10 Hearing issued .
12/22/2009	-	Hearing for 1/22/10 reset due to conflict in attorney’s schedules.
12/22/2009	-	SET – Hearing on 01/28/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review for parenting time)
12/22/2009	-	Notice of hearing for 01/28/10 Hearing issued .
01/29/2010	-	MISC. Petitioner in person and by Jason Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Motion #88 to find Respondent in Contempt and Motion #87 by Respondent to Modify Visitation before Court. Evidence presented – Court finds Petitioner has failed to prove an intentional violation of Court’s prior orders by Respondent and denies motion to find Respondent in contempt. Court finds minor child has serious concerns about parenting time with mother but they do not rise to the level that would seriously endanger child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health per K.S.A. 60-1616(a). Further, reasons for ordering supervised parenting time in 2004 were not presented in the evidence, minor child is 15 now and it is in best interest of child that both parents have relationship with child. Court orders unsupervised parenting time from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. every Sunday, starting January 31, 2010 – exchanges at LEC, parenting time to be exercised in public within boundary of Shawnee County, Kansas. Neither parent to discuss divorce, proceedings or other parent with child. Respondent allowed to call daughter every Tuesday and Thursday between 8:00 p.m and 9:00 p.m. for 1/2 hour. Respondent to pay her remaining balance at Odyssey. Court will review case on March 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to determine if parenting time should be expanded. Duncan to do JE. DBD
01/29/2010	-	SET – Hearing on 03/02/10 at 08:30AM. in division 13. (Review of parenting time)
01/29/2010	-	Notice of hearing for 03/02/10 Hearing issued .
02/12/2010	-	ORDER ESTABLISHING PARENTING TIME FILED – DBD.
02/26/2010	-	#90 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CONTINUANCE
02/26/2010	-	Filed by Fax
03/01/2010	-	Agreed Order of Continuance signed by Court. Hearing for 3/2/10 removed.
03/02/2010	-	SET – Hearing on 05/24/10 at 11:00AM. in division 13. (review hearing)
03/02/2010	-	Notice of hearing for 05/24/10 Hearing issued .
03/04/2010	-	HEARING DATE OF 5/24/10 WAS A CONFLICT FOR MR. DUNCAN – MATTER RESCHEDULED UPON AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES TO MAY 26, 2010 AT 1:30 P.M.
03/04/2010	-	SET – Hearing on 05/26/10 at 01:30PM. in division 13. (review hearing)
03/04/2010	-	Notice of hearing for 05/26/10 Hearing issued .
03/10/2010	-	REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
03/16/2010	-	LETTER FROM DOROTHY SEEL,COURT REPORTER TO CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI DATED 03/12/10

05/17/2010-#91 Motion filed and entered by ROBERT E DUNCAN II for CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, FOR CONTINUANCE. Filed by fax

05/25/2010-SET - Hearing on 08/20/10 at 09:00AM. in division 13. (review hearing)

05/26/2010-AGREED ORDER OF CONTINUANCE FILED - DBD.

05/28/2010-Notice of Hearing filed. To be heard 08/20/10 at 09:00A.M. Filed by fax

07/06/2010-AFFIDAVIT OF ACCUSATION IN CONTEMPT FILED.

08/18/2010-#92 Motion filed and entered by M JILL DYKES for CONTINUANCE

08/18/2010-RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED.

08/18/2010-RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED.

08/18/2010-#93 Motion filed and entered by DONALD R HOFFMAN for HAL RICHARDSON, TO JOIN GAL'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

08/18/2010-AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MOTION TO JOIN GAL'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED

08/19/2010-Praecipe for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by JASON P HOFFMAN.

08/19/2010-Subpoena Duces Tecum issued personal service returnable 08/20/10 09:00A.M. as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER issued to special process server.

08/19/2010-Subpoena Duces Tecum returned, residence service, left with Agent/Officer - as to DR DAVID RODEHFFER 08/19/10

08/19/2010-ORDER DENYING CONTINUANCE FILED - DBD.

08/20/2010-MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter proceeds on review of Court's order of January 28, 2010, establishing unsupervised parenting time for Respondent. Dr. Rodeheffer offers testimony - matter continued to a date to be agreed upon for additional testimony. Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer's report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent's parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent's counsel is to review Respondent's cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent's cell phone - Respondent's phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner's home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order. DBD

08/20/2010-SET - Hearing on 10/19/10 at 09:00AM. in division 13.

08/20/2010-Notice of hearing for 10/19/10 Hearing issued .

08/26/2010-PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES & ORDER ALLOWING AND ASSESSING FEE FILED - DBD. (Sent Certified copy to Ct Admin Office)

09/13/2010-Case transferred from Div. 13 to Div. 03, New Judicial Assignment. JMS

09/13/2010-ORDER FILED - DBD.

10/19/2010-MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Sarah Davison. Parties continue presentation of evidence. Matter continued to 10/20/10 for Court to interview minor child. DBD

10/20/2010-MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman and Jason Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Sarah Davison. Court finds inappropriate under K.S.A. 60-1616(a) to allow minor child control over when parenting time with mother should occur. Based on Respondent's violation of Court orders by posting material on the internet which references her daughter, continuing to bring up court case and proceedings with minor daughter, and volatile and unpredictable behavior with minor daughter, Court orders supervised parenting time for Respondent of every other Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Petitioner, Respondent and G.A.L. to agree on individual who will supervise parenting time or submit names to Court. Minor child has cell phone and can initiate phone calls to Respondent. Respondent not to initiate phone calls, text or e-mails to minor daughter. Respondent prohibited from placing any likeness of minor daughter, materials, or documents referring to minor daughter on internet or allow others to link to her internet site, face page, twitter site which would allow anyone to go to a linked site with this information. Respondent not to be provided any copies of medical or therapy records of minor daughter. T. Duncan to do JE. DBD

03/09/2011-NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE OF RESPONDENT FILED.

03/30/2011-10 DAY NOTICE FILED.

03/30/2011-#94 MOTION FILED BY ROBERT E DUNCAN II TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR RESPONDENT

04/14/2011-ORDER FILED - DBD.

05/12/2011-Order for withdrawal of attorney, ROBERT E DUNCAN II filed – DBD

06/09/2011-BUSINESS RECORDS OF SHAWNEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DESTROYED. RECEIVED RECORDS 06/01/04