Contact Us

Abstract of Items for Appeal

Contains a DRAFT list of the significant items upon which the Appeal will be based.

1. Incomplete/Improper Discovery.
   1. Incomplete release of medical/psychological data. Plaintiff was allowed to conceal couple's recent history in counseling with Dr. Simpson and Ms. Borncamp, in preference to one-sided testimony by Dr. Skinner (who was later issued a letter of reprimand by the local Psychological Association for her conduct in this matter).
   2. Failure to select new psychologist after demonstration of bias by Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud demonstrated bias against the defendant in the conduct of her examination. Dr. Freud also failed to consult with experienced Psychologist who had counseled couple -- in preference, consulted with Dr. Skinner regarding Defendant.
   3. No money/time to have independent expert review Dr. Freud's results. Court imposed debt limit and rapid trial date made it impossible to have an independent review.
   4. Plaintiff filed Note of Issue for Trial before delivering reply to discovery requests from Defendant.
      
2. Defendant's child denied fair relationship with his father and home environment.
   1. The early conference decision by the Trial Court to allow the Plaintiff to leave the marital residence and take their child was done without a fair hearing into the facts.
      
3. Defendant denied a Trial by Jury.
   1. When Note of Issue was filed all parties and the Court were aware of defendant's desire for a Jury Trial with respect to grounds.
   2. Defendant was confused on weather to file a Jury Demand while at the same time attempting to Vacate the Note of Issue.
   3. Trial Court failed to exercise reasonable discretion by not permitting a Jury when no prejudice would have resulted.
      
4. Plaintiff was allowed Expert Witness (Dr. Skinner) to testify. She had NOT been identified during discovery as an expert.
   1. Defendant delivered to Plaintiff a Notice of Demand for Experts during discovery. No experts were identified and no background information, training/education, or summary of expected testimony were ever provided to the defendant.
   2. Dr. Skinner clearly generated a "surprise" at Trial when she stated she was on the Board of Directors for the daycare center where Nick was in attendance. The Defendant had been visiting his Son at the center and had been barred to due to unspecified "disruptive" conduct.
   3. Prior to trial, the defendant had subpoenaed the Center Supervisor, Betty Walker, to be a witness on his behalf. There was no knowledge of the fact that Dr. Skinner (a Psychologist with many credentials) could have undue influence on Ms. Walker (not a college graduate).
      
5. Court denied request for mistrial based on letter of reprimand to Dr. Skinner.
   1. At the conclusion of Trial the Defendant received a letter from the Central New York Psychological Association reprimanding Dr. Skinner for her conduct in this matter. The Defendant had submitted a complaint to the Ethics Committee regarding Dr. Skinner delivering a diagnosis of his mental state based solely on a description supplied by his wife. No personal interview or observation was ever conducted. Dr. Skinner accepted the reprimand.
   2. Dr. Skinner, as the first professional to "weigh in" on the issues of custody, had and adverse effect on the judgments latter supplied by the Law Guardian and Dr. Freud. Indeed, Dr. Freud consulted with Dr. Skinner regarding her report.
   3. A show cause order (Exhibit VIII), was sent to the Trial Judge containing this information, but was returned unsigned.
      
6. Report of Dr. Freud, whose conducted was surrounded by controversy, was entered into evidence without her testimony or the chance for cross examination.
   
7. Court demonstrated bias in favor of Plaintiff.
   1. Plaintiff allowed to proceed with improper complaint.
   2. Defendant denied counsel fees/level playing field.
   3. Court interfered with and cut short defense presentation.
   4. Court finding for grounds was contrary to weight of evidence.
   5. Court denied repeated requests for objective Law Guardian.
   6. Court was not interested in hearing evidence by Defendant on custody.
   7. Court limited spending by Defendant, no such limit on Plaintiff.
   8. Court findings of fact failed to mention any of the adverse evidence
      regarding Plaintiff's conduct.
      
8. Constitutional Grounds - the may problems enumerated above are the result of a process which is inherently flawed. In this case a unique sequence of events culminated in a Judgment that is beyond human reason. While I certainly have no experience with "constitutional law" -- some of these items do appear to be significant.
   
   
   1. Right to Privacy & Integrity of the Family Unit - Certainly the family unit has a right to be together in the enjoyment of each other. A child has the right to have contact with their father and mother. A parent can voluntarily distance themselves from the home -- but before a Child is affected in this move solid evidence must be provided. Without the need for a hearing and evidence -- we give supremacy to allegation over evidence and make it very easy for any unethical/confused parent to take a child and place that child at risk.
      
   2. Rules of Evidence - The Law Guardian/Psychologists in these proceedings appear to act as "extra-judicial" angel/devil in these proceedings. They can present factual reports to a Judge without the need to undergo cross-examination, or even after a Trial has concluded. I do not question the value of the Law Guardian when acting as an advocate for the child -- but when they act in the role of fact finder, they must be subject to cross examination on their results.
      
   3. Right to a Jury /Right to a standard "beyond a reasonable doubt"- An individual stealing a car has more "rights" to due process than a child does before they are separated from a parent. A petty thief can be assured of legal counsel and a jury trial -- a parent can be separated from their child, and the child from loving parent in a old British "star chamber" proceeding. While a "preponderance of the evidence" may be correct for financial, business, or property matters (after all, it's just money) -- a child certainly should have the right to a "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" before a decision effecting their entire life is made -- and thankfully, the Court of Appeals has discovered that children are not property.
      
   4. Equal Protection under the Law - The sexual bias against a man in this entire proceeding is overwhelming. If we just reverse the sexes of the plaintiff and defendant, and review the evidence in this very matter -- such a result would never stand:
      

   Imaginary Scenario

Husband and Wife have been married for 6 years, husband has Master's degree and wife has B.S. degree. At time of marriage Wife has good paying job, husband works out of home part time and pursues a Master's Degree. Both Husband and Wife share in cooking/cleaning around the home. Wife has history of doing volunteer work in community with both elderly and homeless. She is involved in activities at the local church.

Husband does not want a child, but goes along when he realizes how important it is to his wife. They have a child, Wife goes back to work and Husband stays at home. Both are involved parents. After a few more months Husband enters into a relationship with another Women, and (over time) gives app. $20,000 for her business Wife is totally unaware of this, as Husband has wealthy family and private checkbook

A few months later Husband asks Wife for Divorce. Wife doesn't want a divorce, wants to stay together for the sake of their young child and work things out. Asks Husband about counseling and Husband refuses to go. Husband then begins to ignore wife around the home and begins coming home late at night/early in the morning hours. Wife finally gets suspicious and suspects an affair. During this time Wife loses here good paying job and begins working part-time from home. Decides to start a home business so she can spend more time with her son. Both parents are now caring for the child. Husband is also working outside home, but refuses to share in monthly expenses -- continues to press for divorce.

Husband then uses his money to go to a "new" psychologist, alone -- and several months later files for divorce. On the basis of just conflicting allegations, and the report of this psychologist, the Judge in the matter tells the Husband that he can move out of the home and take the child. Wife asks for a pool of money so that both sides can be represented by Counsel, this is denied. Husband's attorney allows him to run up a $10,000 legal bill (knowledgeable that mom & dad are good for the money), and asks that the Wife be held accountable for legal fees of her client. While Wife is driving an 8 year old car, husband is now driving a brand new Honda Accord, gift from his family.

In the final divorce Judgment, the Judge lauds the Mother's community involvement and desire to start a business to be with her child -- but orders her back to work (as being better for the family). The Judge also sets retroactive child support at a level the Mother could be making for the past year. The Judge fails to give the Wife any credit for the Master's degree earned by her husband in the marriage.