Chapter 6: The Child Sex Abuse Investigation Analysis
Chapter 6: The Child Sex Abuse Investigation Analysis
This chapter is a section by section analysis of the child abuse investigation described in chapter 5 and may be best understood by reading chapter 1 through 5 first. Hyperlinks to those chapters can be found above the header to this chapter.
The investigation report was approved on July 16, 2010. The complete report is viewable at this link.
To protect names, the report uses a variety of codes for the individuals. The use of codes is not consistent throughout the report, “OV,” “C,” or “Child,” is the 4 year old daughter, “FA,” “F,” or “Father,” is the father, and “MO,” “M,” or “Mother,” is the mother.
The report begins with an “Intake Narrative” which describes the mother’s allegation against the father.
The Intake Narrative. The intake narrative is information given to the Child Protective Services (CPS) case worker. It establishes the complaint, circumstances, and the initial investigation details.
The case worker recorded the sexual abuse allegation details as:
“On 5/7/2010 OV stated that FA touches OV down there. OV put her hand on her vagina. OV stated that it happens in the bath tub and on the toilet. OV demonstrated that when OV is on the toilet FA’s arm is in OV’s groin area. FA has his clothes on and OV did not have her clothes on. It is unknown if FA inserts FA fingers into OV. It is believed that there is a lot of friction due to OV having so many bladder infections. OV stated that it “hurt really bad.” It is unknown if FA is having sex with OV. OV stated that FA touches her every time OV visits FA.”
The Intake Narrative also noted that:
“OV does not want to go with FA because FA hurts OV. It is believed that FA has been touching OV for a year.
FA is into pornography. It is unknown if FA has shown OV pornography.
OV has been taken to the doctor for yeast and bladder infections. OV has had a lot of yeast and bladder infections. It is believed that OV has had a SANE exam because OV stated that her “pp” hurt.”
“It is believed a previous therapist to OV was going to testify because OV had reported sexual abuse by FA. It is believed that FA’s attorney got to OV’s previous therapist and scared OV previous therapist and OV’s therapist refused to testify.”
The last “Intake Narrative” entry above, noting a reported threat against a therapist to prevent testimony, became a red flag in the analysis. Certainly, a reported threat, to prevent child sexual abuse testimony, would indicate a matter for further investigation and documentation.
The CPS case worker did not record the name or qualifications of the threatened therapist in the allegation information. Throughout the remainder of the investigation report there is no reference to that therapist or any information the therapist could have provided.
The immediate questions crucial to a valid investigation should be:
1. Was there a licensed child therapist who experienced a sexual abuse outcry from OV?
2. Was that therapist threatened by anyone to prevent testimony in this investigation?
3. Why would anyone want to prevent the child’s therapist testimony for the investigation?
4. If a licensed therapist experienced and reported the outcry, would that not be sufficient justification for any mother to be concerned and behave accordingly?
5. If the licensed therapist was threatened, would that not be sufficient justification for the mother to feel her daughter’s complaint is not being properly investigated?
However, none of those questions were asked or investigated, and any information the “scared” therapist could have provided was not considered in the investigation.
If the therapist threat report had been investigated and proven to be correct, it would justify the mother’s anxiety? And, if the child’s Ad Litem was aware, how could the Ad Litem ignore such an issue that would obviously affect the mother’s behavior and not be in the best interest of the child?
If a licensed child therapist was reporting and confirming a child’s sexual abuse outcry, it would serve as evidence that the mother was not emotionally abusing her child, she was not delusional, but was actually respecting the evidence provided by a state licensed therapist, and was following the law in all her efforts to report and protect her child.
What is the truth?
The truth is that there were two licensed therapists and both documented the child’s outcry during professional therapy. And, all of that evidence and testimony was suppressed by the Ad Litem and CPS investigation.
The first therapist reported the outcry in a September 2008 email. After receiving the email response from the mother’s attorney, the first licensed therapist recommended a second therapist for the child. The second licensed therapist conducted a video recorded session with the child. During that therapy session, the child made a sexual abuse outcry.
The Ad Litem knew, before the investigation, that the second therapist’s video existed and that it contained child sexual abuse outcry evidence. The suppressed video’s existence was later, after the CPS investigation was completed, documented by court transcript on July 29th, 2010. And, the 425th Judge, Betsy Lambeth, went right along with that suppression of child sex abuse evidence.
In that court transcript, the father’s attorney and Ad Litem, claimed the interview was improperly conducted. The mother’s attorney tried to get the Williamson County 425th District court to view the video, but, it was ignored by the Judge and was not entered into evidence.
The Ad Litem knew that two licensed therapists worked with the child and both documented sexual abuse evidence against the father. It appears, the Ad Litem deliberately placed obstacles through undue influence to prevent any of that evidence from being examined, or heard in court.
It is absurd that the case worker would document a reported threat to prevent testimony in a child sexual abuse case and make no further inquiry. It is absurd for the court appointed Ad Litem, who is supposed to act in the best interest of the child, to ignore the reported threat to the therapist that was documented in the report which the Ad Litem signed.
What mother, observing that suppression of sexual abuse evidence, would not display anxiety and distrust for the legal system which is supposed to protect her daughter?
The Ad Litem’s influence will become more obvious as the investigation analysis progresses. The failure to investigate the reported threat, the absence of the threatened therapist’s testimony, the suppression of the second therapist’s video, are the effect of biased attitudes and manipulation appearing early in the investigation. Those circumstances invalidate the CPS investigation and cast doubt on any prior investigation.
Williamson County Family Courts
The Allegation Detail. The next section of the investigation report is the allegation detail. There are two allegations. The allegation claiming the mother emotionally abused the daughter by coaching the daughter to make false sexual abuse claims. And, the allegation that the father sexually abused the daughter.
The allegation details were written by the case worker. One might expect that an allegation would simply state the nature and circumstances of the suspected offense. However, the allegations prepared by the CPS worker appear to be conclusion statements supported by more statements condemning the mother and praising the father.
Please note the “SANE” exam, mentioned in the allegation against the mother, is a “Sexual Assault Nurse Examination.” These examinations are done for sexual “assault” victims. It is an examination that looks for physical damage to the victim, or infections. But, physical evidence is uncommon in child sexual abuse. Over 90% of child sex abuse exam show no sign of abuse. SANE examinations will not reveal sexual contact that does not leave physical damage or infections:
Here is the allegation against the mother:
“Ms. (name) has put her child through sane exams, physical exams and emotional distress since the divorce of the parents. The attorney ad litem with a PhD in counseling worked with this family for more than a year. It is her professional opinion that (daughter’s name) meets the Texas Family Code’s definition of Emotional Abuse.
TFC: mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning, ‘or’ causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning.”
Here is the allegation against the father:
“While there was a disclosure by the child, the story changed from the previous cases though child claims it happened one time only and when asked the same question in a different format the details changed. There is strong indication this child was coached to make the disclosure. FA passed a sex offender evaluation. MO never notified LE of the alleged abuse in any of the cases received on this allegation. The father was awarded custody of (child’s name) and the court had been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse. Based on information obtained during the previous investigations and this investigation the disposition if found Ruled Out based on the Texas Family Code of SXAB: Sexual Abuse (E) sexual conduct harmful to a child’s mental, emotional, or physical welfare; failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child, compelling or encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct as defined by Section 43.01, Penal Code, or (H) Causing, permitting, encouraging.”
When comparing the content and wording of the two allegations, it becomes apparent the investigation conclusions were written before the investigation was conducted. The therapist evidence suppression leaves little doubt that an inappropriate influence was affecting the integrity of the investigation.
The influence of the Ad Litem is apparent in the allegations. The Ad Litem was acting to protect the father. The caseworker attempted to add credibility to the allegations by stating the Ad Litem is an attorney and had a PhD in counseling. Both of those statements are false. The Ad Litem is not an attorney and does not have a PhD in counseling. The Ad Litem does have a PhD in psychology.
The allegations clearly show biases created by the Ad Litem, or the Ad Litem’s influence, that would be destructive to any credible child sexual or emotional abuse investigation. The content of the allegations discredit the investigation’s integrity and validity, and denies the mother due process because the therapists’ evidence and medical evidence, which was known by all parties to exist, was suppressed.
The Persons List and Collateral Information. The next section is the Persons List. The list includes the mother, father, the daughter, the mother’s teenage son from a prior marriage, and two grandparents.
There was no report of direct interviews or information collection from any of the persons listed except the mother, father, and daughter. What was not noted was the mother’s teenage son was raised by the mother, has always lived with the mother, and is a high school honor student.
Under collateral information, the report listed the mother’s lawyer and the therapist who made the sexual abuse outcry video which was never considered by the investigation. This confirms the investigator knew of the therapist who made the video. But, the therapist who was threatened, the one who wrote the September 2008 email documenting the child’s sexual abuse outcry was not listed.
The exclusion of the therapist, who was reported threatened to prevent testifying, from the Persons List and Collateral Information is another red flag that discredits the investigation’s integrity and validity. That therapist and the second qualified and licensed therapist, who created the video that supported the mother’s concerns, proved the mother was not delusional and was not emotionally abusing her daughter, but, was following the law by reporting the outcries.
The licensed therapists, who professionally observed and confirmed the outcries, were evidence the mother was not delusional or coaching her daughter and was therefore not causing her daughter emotional abuse. They were evidence the emotional abuse allegations against the mother were unfounded.
Abuse/Neglect History. This section shows a history of abuse reports stating there have been three cases involving this family and the details are in the contact narrative.
IMPACT History for All Principals. This section list dates of prior cases of abuse reports for the family and the disposition. The case dates were April 18, 2008, September 5, 2008, and February 21, 2009. In all reports of child sexual abuse the principals were “ruled out.” The February 21, 2009 case included an emotional abuse allegation against the mother. In that February 21, 2009 case, the disposition for the emotional abuse allegation against the mother was “undetermined.”
Safety Assessment. The case worker writes in this section:
“There is concern that the child has been coached because she has been interviewed multiple times related to sexual abuse. All other interviews with OV she does state FA touches her, but when asked if anyone told her to say, OV looked up at MO. MO is bringing OV in for the CAC [Child Advocacy Center]. LE [Law Enforcement] was contacted and informed about the CAC. All safety concerns will be addressed.”
In the above Safety Assessment, the case worker presents the conclusion that if a four year old looks at her mother, when asked about what she has said during multiple interviews, then that child’s look towards the mother means the mother coached the child to make consistent false statements in multiple interviews.
The case worker ignores the possibility that a child, who is asked questions that imply the child is not behaving properly, may feel insecure and seek her mother’s reassurance. The Texas Attorney General’s web site cautions persons talking to children who make sexual abuse outcries:
The case worker does not provide any date, time, or place, or circumstances for when the question was asked. The manner of the questioning is unknown. The case worker is the only source for the case worker’s statement. Asking such a question to a child during an investigation is the act of conducting an investigation interview which, by Texas law, requires audio or video recording.
Texas Family Code 261.302(e) requires all child sex abuse investigative interviews be video or audio recorded. There is no record of a CPS interview indicating the child was asked such a question or made such a gesture. And there are no recordings, as required by law, of the previous investigation interviews concerning the child’s previous outcries. The detailed content of those investigation recordings, if they exist, should have been compared to the current investigation.
It is suspicious that there are no audio or video summaries or records of the previous interviews presented. Suspicious because the Ad Litem’s allegation claimed the mother has subjected the child to numerous interviews and Texas law requires such interviews to be audio or video taped.
Safety Threat Concerns. The case worker writes:
“The child is being CAC’d. Past reports have not indicated concerns for the FA. However, there have been concerns of MO’s mental health after she completed a psychological related to anxiety.” (Note: “CAC’d” is a reference to Child Advocacy Center processes.)
The case workers reference to reports that do not indicate concerns for the father is an inaccurate statement. The father was required to undergo a psychological evaluation and that evaluation determined he had a sexual perversion tendency.
Only the mother’s mental health anxiety was mentioned as a safety concern for the child. But, the case worker and Ad Litem had a copy of the fathers psychological evaluation which indicated a sexual perversion tendency, knew the divorce was caused by the fathers sexual behavior, there was documented evidence of his internet pornography activity, and he had a long time extramarital affair that began before and continued through the marriage.
The mother’s anxiety would seem well founded according to the two licensed child therapists who documented the child’s sexual abuse outcries. Clearly, the Safety Threat Concerns seem incongruent with the facts and evidence, are biased against the mother, and therefore seem unfounded and contrived.
Risk Assessment. The case worker writes:
“There have been inconsistencies in the child’s story,”
The case worker gives no examples or historical documentation of inconsistencies in the child’s story. But, the narrative of this investigation report includes the summary of a recorded law enforcement interview with the child on May 21, 2010, for the investigation. In that summary record, the child herself describes sexual abuse consistent with the intake narrative and previous descriptions of the alleged abuse.
“therapists have no concerns,”
A blatant false statement. The licensed therapist who was threatened if she testified had concerns and expressed those concerns in an email dated September, 2008. That therapist was so concerned that she helped the mother find another therapist for a second opinion.
That second licensed therapist taped an interview showing the child making a sexual abuse outcry against her father. The video was confirmed, but, the court avoided viewing the video, avoided competently assessing the interview, and avoided requiring it to be entered into evidence. Those acts are suppression of child sexual abuse evidence, and evidence of the court’s racketeering participation. It is otherwise difficult to understand why the Williamson County 425th District Judge would not view the video or require it to be entered into evidence?
“Child appears coached.”
The only evidence supporting the coaching claim is the claim that the child looked at the mother when the child was asked if the mother told to her make the outcries. That is it. No other evidence of coaching has been presented except the false claim that the outcries are not consistent.
The investigation’s “Contact Narrative” documents the child’s actual interview at the CAC. The interview was audio recorded by law enforcement. A summary of the interview is in the investigation report.
In that qualified interview, the child relates sexual abuse activities as occurring in the bathroom or on the toilet. That story is consistent with all of the child’s other reported outcries. The case worker writes the child appears coached, but, does not provide a detailed justification for that assertion.
“There is indication MO is coaching OV to make disclosure/rewarding her for it – this behavior puts OV at higher risk.”
That statement indicates the case worker has concluded the mother coached the child. She then puts the concern in the context that the mother is rewarding the child for making outcries. But, there is no evidence or manner or form of reward presented, or suggested, for that conclusion.
“Child has been seen by multiple medical doctors and therapists.”
The case worker acknowledges the child has been seen by multiple medical doctors and therapists. However, she does not report the results of the doctors’ and therapists’ examinations.
The statement attempts to cast the illusion that all these therapists, and all these doctors have looked at the daughter and determined there is nothing for the mother to be concerned about. Therefore, the mother must be delusional and harmful to her daughter.
But, that is not true and the case worker had access to the evidence showing that conclusion was false. Two of those therapists and two medical doctors suspected there was sexual abuse to be concerned about. In fact, the evidence shows licensed therapists and medical doctors were quite concerned about the safety of the child with the father. That evidence was obviously deliberately suppressed.
“PA’s [parents] went through bitter divorce/custody.”
Another blatantly false statement. Surely there was stress, but, the divorce record shows the parents had an uncontested divorce. The mother was given uncontested primary custody of the daughter.
The apparent purpose of this statement was to create the illusion of a long and continuing battle over custody. The divorce was uncontested, the mother had primary custody and the father was paying over $900 per month in child support. There was reasonable stability until the daughter made her sexual abuse outcry.
The mother, with below average income, had custody of the child and was being paid over $900 per month in child support. The divorce was uncontested. Then, the child made an outcry and there was cause to suspect abuse. Two licensed child therapists confirm and document the outcries. An Ad Litem, who works closely with the father’s attorney and attended the University of Texas with the father’s new wife, is appointed to protect the child’s best interest. The child’s Ad Litem suppresses two licensed child therapists’ sexual abuse evidence while claiming the mother has no reason to suspect sexual abuse and is coaching the 4 year old child so the mother can “get her way.” But, the Ad Litem has not identified what the mother wants, other than safety for her child.
Investigation Information. The case worker marked “Y” for “Yes” in the answer box for the question: Was methamphetamine manufacturing discovered/confirmed during investigation? This case worker’s “Y” answer was false, there was no methamphetamine manufacturing evidence whatsoever for either the father or mother. The false answer shows a disregard for accuracy and the need to support damaging statements with facts that can be proven.
The Recorded Interview With the Child. The investigation section includes a summary of the daughter’s interview. The interview was conducted by law enforcement at the CAC on May 21, 2010.
The full summary is in the report. The following are extracts of the summarized law enforcement interview with the child:
“She was able to distinguish truth/lie however she only promised to tell the truth about what her father does.”
“Daddy touches her and hurts her. She said she was wearing clothes. It happened one time and it was at Daddy’s house. She was not sure what she was wearing. She said her Daddy takes his finger and then she said she didn’t know. She said he stuck finger where she goes potty and it happened one time.”
“She said she didn’t tell anyone else what happened. She denied anyone else talking to her about the finger in her.”
“She said she was sitting on the toilet when her daddy touched her. Her father was not wearing clothes but she was wearing a pink shirt only. His finger hurt her. Then she said it felt good. The toilet had a hole in it (lid was up). The bathroom door was closed, she was inside the bathroom. Then she was asked what the very next thing that happened was, she can’t remember. She doesn’t know what happened next. No one told her what to talk about today.”
The detective spoke with the mother after the child’s interview and summarized that discussion in the report. The reported dialog included some curious questions and answers.
The detective asked the mother why she did not contact law enforcement “out of the gate” when she discovered the pornographic material and “why she has known of multiple reports to CPS and never contacted law enforcement?” The detective made the comment that the mother could not cite “a website the father had been to.”
That dialog appears to confirm the discovery of pornography and previous CPS reports that did not include law enforcement. And, while not able to cite a pornographic web site the father visited, the mother has provided bills showing the father paid for pornographic website access. It could be unreasonable to expect a single working mother raising two children, one a toddler, has time to memorize websites.
Finally, the detective noted the mother appeared upset when informed the father must be contacted. He told the mother:
“There would be no way to address the allegations without speaking to the alleged perpetrator.”
The detective’s comment was prophetic because, in this investigation, law enforcement did not interview the father about the sexual abuse outcry made by the child to law enforcement during the child’s May 21, 2010 interview. Law enforcement did not speak to the father or ask any questions about that outcry. The absence of effort to investigate the child’s May 21, 2010, outcry is evidence that law enforcement assumed the claims against the mother were true, or they had some other reason for not interviewing the father.
The child remained with the father and she made an additional sexual abuse outcry to her mother on June 22, 2010.
Report of Additional Sexual Abuse – June 22, 2010. The investigation report includes an additional report of sexual abuse outcry from the daughter, occurring after the investigation was initiated. The mother took photos of bruises on her daughter that were noticed after the daughter returned from visiting her father and the mother contacted CPS. CPS contacted law enforcement.
The detective called the mother and documented the communication. The detective’s complete dialog report is in the investigation. Below is a partial extract of the detective’s dialog with the mother:
“She [mother] said (child) told her only that she was walking into the wall because she was afraid of her father and that he was naked again.”
“(mother) was later playing with (child) when noticed the bruises, (mother) asked what happened, (child) said she did not want to talk about it. (Child) then said she ran into the couch and then amended to say she ran into the wall. (Mother) said she [the child] was changing the story because she is afraid of her FA’s retribution for having told (mother).”
“(Child) told (mother) that FA was naked in the bathroom with her again. (Child) said (father) sometimes sticks his finger in her afterward. This is after (child) is on the toilet on top of her father.”
Law Enforcement Interview with Father – June 22, 2010. In response to the additional sexual abuse complaint, law enforcement scheduled an interview with the father. Unusual because the child made a recorded sexual abuse outcry during the law enforcement interview on May 21, 2010, and the father had not been interviewed about that outcry.
A complete month had gone by since law enforcement interviewed the child and the mother. But, no interview had been scheduled with the father for the pending investigation. The investigation to determine if the father abused the child or the mother was coaching the child. And, during the interim, the father had unrestricted access to the child.
Law enforcement only responded, and scheduled an interview, after the child made an additional sexual abuse outcry a month later. There is no investigative record of law enforcement interviewing the child for the additional sexual abuse reported on June 22, 2010. So, it is obvious law enforcement simply assumed the mother was lying and coaching the daughter. The June 22, 2010, interview with the father corroborates that conclusion.
The June 22, 2010 law enforcement interview with the father is was summarized, by law enforcement and the complete summary is in the investigation report. Extracts of that summary are:
“03/08- He had (child) two days a week. He said he did not have her overnight until she was 3 y/o. She had strap marks on her legs, inner thighs: Detective Jones ordered a SANE evaluation and it was a R/O (ruled out) case as there was no evidence from the eval.”
“He denies any sexual oddities in his relationship with (child) though at this point in the conversation he covered his gonads with his hands. Once past this portion of the questioning his hand moved away from the groin area.”
“I advised (the father) to allow his wife to perform bath and toileting activities to avoid further accusations.”
The fact that law enforcement was comfortable delaying the interview with the father, after the child made the May 21, 2010, outcry, indicates a decision had already been made before any interview was scheduled with the father. The fact that the child was not interviewed again, after the June 22, 2010, outcry, also indicates a decision was made.
When comparing the questions law enforcement asked to the mother on May 21, 2010, against the nature of the questions asked to the father on June 22, 2010, there appears to be a bias against the mother. The father’s questioning took a historical explanation approach. The mother’s questioning required her to justify her behavior.
There was no mention of the concerns and evidence provided by two medical doctors (first doctor, second doctor), two licensed therapists, one who was threatened against testifying and one who video recorded an interview of the child making an outcry, and no interview of the child about the June 22, 2010, outcry.
At the end of the father’s June 22, 2010, interview, law enforcement advised the father to go home and let his wife perform bath and toileting activities “to avoid further accusations.”
These documented circumstances give reason to suspect law enforcement was heavily influenced by the child’s Ad Litem and the father’s lawyer.
The Ad Litem’s Final Recommendation to the Court. The way this is supposed to work is the CPS will investigate, with the assistance of law enforcement, and prepare a final report for the Ad Litem. The Ad Litem evaluates the report, prepares a recommendation, and takes that to the court for the judge to approve. Theoretically, throughout the entire process, the Ad Litem will act in the “best interest of the child.”
In this case, after conducting the investigation into the allegations against the mother and father, CPS determined the father did not sexually abuse his daughter and the mother coached the daughter to make sexual abuse outcries.
The CPS final recommendation was:
“The ad litem finds that there are concerns regarding (mother’s name)’s psychological state which may be harmful to (child) and causing (mother) to believe that her child has been abused when she has not. (Points to support this can be found in the investigation.)”
The CPS final recommendation simply cites the Ad Litem’s concerns and opinions and did not actually address the allegations or examine the evidence. That investigation posture was evident throughout the investigation and is consistent with the claims found in the Ad Litem’s unfavorable ratemds.com comments. The qualified opinions of two licensed child therapists, medical doctors, their evidence and the child’s outcries were all suppressed.
While the final recommendation states there are “concerns” regarding the mother’s psychological state. There was no consideration for the medical reports, therapists’ opinions, and the child’s outcries as justification for the mother’s protective behavior.
There was never a real investigation and the CPS final recommendation confirms the investigation results was the Ad Litem’s opinion and not factually based.
The Ad Litem recommended to the court:
Ms. (mother’s name) continually misinterprets directions, factual information and feedback. She has completely misconstrued events and misrepresented information and people to the extent that the guardian has serious concerns regarding her mental state. The guardian has not been able to decipher whether this is caused by (1) an intentional effort to lie in order to get what she wants or (2) a serious cognitive and/or psychological problem. Whatever the cause the effect is serious for the child therefore the guardian is recommending primary custody be given to (father) and that all educational, medical, and psychological decisions be made by (father).
The Ad Litem made this recommendation while knowing evidence, supporting the mother, was suppressed in the investigation. Specifically, a licensed therapist who experienced the child’s outcry was threatened if she testified. A second licensed therapist’s interview video of the child was suppressed. The father was never interviewed about the May 21, sexual abuse outcry from the child. And, there is no reason to believe anyone, except the Ad Litem, would suppress that evidence.
Summary. The analysis indicates the investigation was not conducted to determine anything about the allegations against the father. The convincer was the failure to interview the father after the child’s May 21, 2010, outcry to a police detective during a controlled interview.
There was no definitive conclusion against the mother, although, the child’s “numerous” interviews supported the mother. Other testimony, that supported the mother, was suppressed. It was by opinion, which contradicted licensed therapist’s evidence, assumed the mother coached the child.
What was not presented in the mother’s behalf is the fact of law that she, and anyone else who observed the child make an outcry, was required by Texas law to report that outcry. And the mother is being punished because she reported the child’s outcries.
Sort of a catch 22. But, the child would not be returned to the mother. No equal time between the parents. The mother was declared delusional or lying by an Ad Litem who has the same indications according to some clients. The mother would have no overnights and limited hour visits with her child.
It is impossible to accept this investigation as valid. It is better described as corrupt and inhuman. It crossed too many boundaries, ignored evidence, refused to address a threat to testimony, and has all the appearances of a managed sham investigation. The question is why would anyone want to control the investigation into sexual abuse of a child?
The Ad Litem had obvious reasons for influencing the investigation results. If the investigation found the daughter was being abused, the child would be immediately returned to the mother and the father would have been prosecuted. Then there would be no work or payments for the Ad Litem. But now, the money will keep flowing.
That brings us to what this is all about, money. If you have any doubts, just read through the court transcripts where the father’s attorney grills the mother about money. The father’s attorney demanded the mother apply for credit cards, obtain loans, and pawn assets, to pay legal fees the court conveniently redefined to be called child support. The mother is threatened on the witness stand with imprisonment by the father’s lawyer if she does not find the money to pay.
Judges are making sure their constituent lawyers get paid by simply calling legal fees child support. And, those legal fees would not exist if not for the Ad Litem. The evidence indicates our family courts are a racket designed to extract as much as possible from those who fall into the labyrinth. This family has paid hundreds of thousands and can expect the bills to keep coming.
This racket enterprise cannot exist without participation, or negligent acceptance, by our elected leaders to include the judges who preside over the family courts. And, as Tim Wright and Ken Anderson proved, there is no reason to believe corruption would only happen in Williamson County family courts.