Whoops, She Won't Do It Again...Maybe

I really don’t want to spend much time on this since it isn’t really my thing, but I received some interesting information that could pertain to the child custody dispute going on between Britney Spears and Kevin Federline from a lady named Bonnie Russell who, as noted here (last entry under “R”) publicizes the work of attorneys (mostly in a positive light, but not in the case of Ron Lais, who now resides at a correctional facility at taxpayers expense).

The following is noted in the FindLaw article about the Spears/Federline case (describing a condition Spears must meet to regain custody of her two boys set by Superior Court Commissioner Scott M. Gordon)…

The commissioner did say Spears must meet eight hours a week with a parenting coach, who will observe and report back to the court about her parenting skills.

Both parents are prohibited from making derogatory remarks about each other in their children's presence, and from using corporal punishment to discipline them.

(PA family law attorney Lynne) Gold-Bikin said the corporal punishment restriction is unusual, adding there may have been some evidence introduced at a closed-door custody hearing that led the commissioner to add it to the order.

Each must complete the court's "Parenting Without Conflict" class. The educational program, set in a group format and comprised of six sessions, helps parents learn the benefits of cooperative parenting, conflict resolution and problem solving.

And for anyone out there who wonders how “interested parties” manage to work their way into these cases and get family court referrals (such as the person or entity who could be chosen to assist with supervised visitation should Commissioner Gordon – holy litigant noncompliance, Batman! – decide a third party is needed, or the person named as the “parenting coach,” or the organization or individuals offering the educational program)…

California attorneys don't know the machinations behind-the-scenes when it comes to Supervised visitation.

Such as judges sitting on various non-profit boards and ordering litigants to use their non-profit for Supervised Visitation...although by law, the State says a volunteer is enough (here).

Attorneys fail to mention children whose parents are ordered to undergo Supervised Visitation remain at risk because there is no oversight to these quasi-government pass offs.

Or that all one needs to accomplish to become a supervised visitation monitor is a clean driving record and some evidence one has completed one domestic violence class. But oversight? There is none.

Which explains why mainstream news people are unaware some "monitors" have been arrested for bestiality.

(That would be Deborah Hildebrandt in Contra Costa County. Case number is D05-00622.)

I don't think attorneys are trying to hide anything. They don't know they don't know.

In 2001, in San Diego I investigated one supervised monitor and after reading the stuff I got from the Public Records Act, hot-footed it down to testify before the County Board of Supervisors. I passed out the evidence, (seven copies each) and suggested the county terminate contracts totaling over 300k for one fake therapist who ran a Supervised Visitation agency.

The county opened an investigation. The woman wanted the investigation to end so she terminated the contracts. The country investigated anyway, found financial problems and ordered she pay restitution. But what about the children? How did they deal with the woman who lies about her resume making custody reports upon which judges based custody decisions?

It was remarkably easy. County Supervisor Ron Roberts went on record stating they were getting reimbursed so all was well. Turns out the safety of the children was never, at least in the eyes of the Board of Supervisors, an issue.

This ties into some anecdotal stuff I’ve heard in the past about Philadelphia Family Court, and I’m sure it holds true for most other family courts in existence. As with other matters of law, you want to do anything you possibly can to settle a child custody matter before it ends up in court and thus ruled upon by a judge or jury.

I’m sure many of you feel the way I do about this; I don’t much give a damn about the prospects for the two knucklehead “adults” in this case; I don’t wish them ill, I just couldn’t be bothered.

However, there are so many dangers out there for young kids, to say nothing of these two boys, who, if they so choose, can find pictures online almost wherever they choose of their mother parading around in her underwear (as well as a few where she forgets to even wear that much clothing). I hope there’s a reasonably stable adult influence out there for them to rely on as they try to overcome the trauma inflicted on them by these two human sores masquerading as parents.