We think of the "founding fathers" as venerable, almost sacred persons - so wise and so patriotic. But in truth, they were rebels fighting the abuses of England against the American colonies. Not much focus is given today to the fact that they paid dearly for their uprising, even though they eventually won. Many of them lost their homes and land - the properties were burned in retaliation for their activism. Of course, many soldiers lost their lives in the American Revolution. They paid dearly for standing up for the noble causes of freedom from tyranny, the new democracy, freedom of speech, and the right to worship as they pleased. Whereas the British at the time put more and more authority in the Parliament to make decisions concerning rights and freedoms of British citizens, the rights and freedoms of the fledgling United States of America were embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Over time, the Bill of Rights and other amendments came into being to supplement the Constitution. The United States was unique in that it embodied the rights of its citizens in a document as opposed to persons, rendering our rights more indelible, supposedly, over time.

However, we took note of the display pointing to the seminal court case Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, in which the Courts, through case law, gave themselves the power of judicial review, or the power to review all laws with respect to the Constitution and to strike down any laws that, in their views, did not hold to the Constitution. This unforeseen awarding of the Courts to themselves the power to supercede the output of the legislative and executive branch was never intended by the founding fathers and never provided for in the planning documents of the origins of the United States. A recent example of the effect of judicial review is that of the Supreme Court of California's review of the majority vote of Californians in rejecting the legalization of same-sex marriages. In other words, the majority of persons in the state voted down the measure, but the California Supreme court overruled the majority in our great democracy and issued an edict rendering same-sex marriage legal. Regardless of your personal view of the particular issue of same-sex marriage, every citizen of the United States should be concerned about the Court's power to overrule the majority and the way in which it was exercised in this situation.

It is a mistake to continue to allow the Courts in this country to rule for themselves more power and unlawful protections. In fact, the situation needs to be reversed. The Courts are out of control today and they are destroying everything the Constitution was created to provide - the rights of individual citizens to take part in their government. Today, the Courts can take an individual's family, home, assets, and freedoms without having to justify its actions in most cases and without having to take any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The Courts have, again by case law, awarded to themselves a full cloak of immunity. No wonder our democracy is fraying at the seams today. And the Courts wonder why they have lost the respect of We the People . . .

Leslie Cumiford
President, CFJ

A number of loyal CFJ enthusiasts from Albuquerque carpooled up with us and held a public demonstration in front of the AG building from one hour prior to the meeting until we returned from the building. We were met in Santa Fe by an equally loyal set of CFJ enthusiasts from northern New Mexico, and the main message on our signs to the public was, "Honk if you are sick of judicial corruption." As usual, young and old, conservative and liberal - all types of persons - wholeheartedly responded. As was true in former demonstrations in Albuquerque, even the city bus drivers honked their horns to express their disgust at our corrupt system! Passing tourists and three newspaper reporters stopped to ask about details.

Inside, we waited for Gary King who was running a little behind schedule. From the time we entered the building, Gary's staff members were very courteous to us and went out of their way to make us comfortable. When Gary arrived, I was immediately impressed by a number of things. First, he included the Assistant Attorney General and his Chief of Staff in the meeting. Gary King was willing to get his staff involved. Second, we placed a large tape recorder in the middle of the table, and shortly after the introductions we asked if he minded if we put the meeting "on the record". I was sitting right next to him and happened to be watching him when Board member Lee Kittell asked the question. Without flinching, hesitating, or even blinking, Gary King said that it would be fine.

Gary made clear eye contact with each of us as we spoke in turn. My first impression of him squares with the comments prior to the meeting of those I trust, that he is an honest man who cares about the concerns of the electorate - he is "good people". Finally, when it came time for each of us to speak, he listened. It is the first time I have ever discussed the plight of New Mexico families with any government official without being interrupted by arguments, excuses, and self-justification.

Our expectations going in to the meeting were, to be honest, not very high. We hoped to be able to have an opportunity to be heard, but we really did not have a strong expectation that we would in fact be taken seriously. We considered this meeting to be simply window dressing, and thought that it would take several attempts before we would be treated with credibility. But armed with clear evidence of racketeering, retaliation, and a general failure of the New Mexico judiciary to uphold constitutional rights, we knew that eventually our message would get through.

At the beginning of the meeting, Gary King and his staff fed us what I call "the party line" - one echoed by Patricia Madrid before him and in letters provided to us by members from a myriad of state offices after they wrote seeking help with corrupt judges. We were told that the AG's office defends judges when they are sued and that the appropriate office for handling complaints about judges was the Judicial Standards Board. This point in the meeting was my personal favorite. Board members Janice Blevins and Bill O'Connell were sitting across from me and Board member Lee Kittell was beside me, so we were facing each other. When Gary King finished his statement, we caught each other's eyes and spontaneously laughed. It was the perfect response, since in the experience of all of us, the Judicial Standards Board is a joke and a complete waste of taxpayer's money!

Tacted judicial reform and initiated judicial corruption investigations had done so (at least in the beginning) through the state attorney general's office. Tho his credit, Gary and his staff quickly adjusted to our reaction and did not push the issue. Later in the meeting, I assured him that other states who had enere was much more to the meeting, and we are working very hard to provide you with the digital audio of the recorded meeting so that you can experience it fre was nothing said by Gary or his staff that was outside of what we hear from elected officials in New Mexico all the time, and try to keep things in peror yourself. There will be some parts of the meeting that will be gratifying to you. Other parts of the meeting will infuriate you. Please keep in mind that thespective. (For example, our last meeting with four state representatives resulted in them telling us what to do next - we could have done that without their help - followed by a later description by one of the Representatives to others that we were "nothing but a bunch of angry parents". This in spite of the fact that we had a very professional presentation with audio, pictures, and a clear message that has been very well received in various parts of the state. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that we were interrupted so many times by them that we could not get a concept across. They simply were not listening.)

A door has been opened, and that in part because Gary King decided to listen. He deserves credit for that choice. I have said many positive things about Gary King and his staff in this message, but the jury is still out, and the words need to be followed by actions. If Gary King can do the right thing and call for a cleanup of the corrupt judiciary, in spite of the pressure I am sure he will be under from system "insiders" who want to maintain their little cottage industries and who have lived for decades in this state under no scrutiny whatsoever while they engage in racketeering, I for one would be happy to see him eventually take the helm as Governor as did his father before him. This is exactly the kind of Governor we need, and the kind we wish we had RIGHT NOW!

Leslie Cumiford
President, CFJ

This month’s message is longer than usual because I want to tackle an issue that has been weighing heavily on my heart as I consider the complex dynamics by which the family court cottage industry is getting away with attacking America’s families.

There has been a lot of media buzz lately about PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) because of the Alec Baldwin fiasco. I have mulled this issue for years and would like to share with you my view (and the one that CFJ stands upon) of this highly emotionally charged and divisive topic within the family court arena. My view has evolved over the last five years based on my experiences with hundreds of parents, children, and associated domestic relations cases, including a fairly equal amount of fathers and mothers caught in this system.

Let’s start with a key question: Do parents psychologically manipulate their children in order to receive a favorable outcome in court? Yes – there is no question about it. Not all parents indulge in this abusive and despicable practice, but a certain percentage of them certainly do. Both mothers and fathers have been guilty of this practice that damages children by throwing them into the middle of the conflict. But are the parents really the main culprits in this practice? It’s time to use the Eastern adage of asking the seven “why”s. What is the underlying cause of this behavior?

Next question: Is Parental Alienation Syndrome a valid psychological syndrome? No. The American Psychological Association does not recognize the validity of PAS as a psychological condition or syndrome. PAS was originally propounded by Richard Gardner, a clinical professor of psychiatry (not child psychiatry), an unpaid volunteer in the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at Columbia University (New York Times obituary, June 9, 2003, with corrected title in the Times on June 14, 2003) who had not had hospital privileges for twenty-five years.

Final question (and what I really want to communicate to all of you): How does the notion of PAS impact our issues? Many groups that on the surface look a lot like ours (the Center for Family Justice) wholeheartedly embrace PAS and lobby for its acceptance throughout our nation. They have chosen to focus on this one aspect of the complex issues facing us as a community today relative to the family and children’s courts while ignoring the huge flow of money and the white collar crime that this unregulated industry invites and protects. Sadly, PAS arguments (either for or against), put the blame on parents, and not on the cottage industry where it properly belongs. It is easy to put the blame on the ex-husband or ex-wife, but the blame for the wide-scale problem lies in a place much more insidious. Most of the time when negative blaming by parents goes on in cases over a number of years, it is prompted and/or fueled by attorney and evaluator comments to one or both parents in one-on-one meetings, and conversely by parents’ counter-salvos to unfair characterizations in court in order to sway judicial decisions regarding custody.

Let’s evaluate PAS from an economic viewpoint, then from a legal viewpoint. From an economic viewpoint, it is not ex-wives and ex-husbands that drive the insidious behavior, extending cases for years into the future, draining family resources for attorneys and experts on the payroll, leading to a courtroom free-for-all that so many parents are experiencing all over the country. For the most part, lawyers exploit the emotions of their own clients in order to extend the conflict and fill their pockets with our earnings. Judges come from the same community as the lawyers. Guardians ad litem do, too. These court officials are buddies – colleagues. They attend the same bar social functions and eat in each other’s homes. Other unscrupulous characters have flocked to the free flow of money. It is much like the insurance industry was several decades ago before the underlying con games and white collar crime were exposed and the industry became regulated to protect consumers. There is one big difference, however. The insurance industry was not paid by state and federal taxpayer’s earnings as are many members of the family and children’s court cottage industry. We are actually paying these persons through our government to commit white collar crime and rip us off by virtue of our love for our children. What a scam!

When one parent is accused of manipulating or making comments to a child, this information almost never comes from the child. It is propounded by an expensive psychological expert in the courtroom who is paid big bucks for making the statements. The worse the alleged parental behavior is portrayed as being, the more extended the case and the more money the expert makes. It is truly a disgusting thing to watch in the courtroom. Judges who do not give a whit about the truth rubber stamp the testimony as valid and refuse evidence that proves it false! I have never seen a single case of perjury allowed by a judge against a family court expert, although many of our members have court-quality evidence to prove that such behavior occurred. I have never seen a single complaint from our hundreds of members to the state psychology board, the state bar disciplinary board, or the judicial standards commission taken seriously by the respective organizations.

Since PAS is termed a “syndrome”, expert testimony is required to make the claim in court. The end result is so much obfuscation for the sake of the almighty dollar that such cases loose any hope of keeping parent-child relationships intact. There are parents – in our group both fathers and mothers – who will never see their children again because of such gross and intolerable (even criminal) behavior on the part of so-called specialists in the cottage industry. WE MUST CUT THE CORD THAT TIES PERSONAL WEALTH TO EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FAMILY AND CHILD CASES IN THIS COUNTRY! PAS does not help to do that; instead, it fuels the flame that sucks the assets from American families and unlawfully transfers them to the insidious cottage industry.

Supporting PAS is just as wrong as stating that all claims of domestic violence and child abuse are valid. We need to get back to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence in the courtroom. We need to punish, banish, and in some cases incarcerate members of the cottage industry, including judges, attorneys, and experts, who violate them. Some experts become rich by propounding false claims of parental alienation (without any evidence). Others specialize in propounding false claims of child abuse or domestic violence (without any evidence). The judges and complaint boards look the other way, allowing both types of shysters to free-wheel in the courtroom. Both succeed beyond their wildest dreams and become very wealthy. Neither give a whit about your concerns as a parent, or about the wake of extremely damaged children and broken relationships they leave behind. Children’s own words are so far removed from the decision maker in this system, with layers of unscrupulous, greedy “professionals” in between, that the system has no hope of discerning the truth in the way that it operates today. In fact, the current system actually encourages parental manipulation of children, as parents wrongly think that there is a misconception about the truth that must be corrected rather than a bald-faced grab for money with deliberate perjury by experts occurring in the case.

Finally, unmitigated support of notions such as Parental Alienation Syndrome and uncontested claims of child abuse serve to divide us and persuade us to fight with each other. If the fathers of this country would work together with the mothers of this country (the grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, and clergy, too) to get rid of family industry white collar crime, we would all be in a much better place. Tomorrow’s generation and today’s families would be spared from lives of misery at the hands of their own government.

We are one of the few large organizations in the country that is balanced in membership between men and women. It’s because we’ve got a message and a mission that both mothers and fathers can get behind. We have both fathers and mothers who have been alienated from their children. We have both mothers and fathers who are trying to actively protect their children from real physical and/or sexual abuse from the other parent. Our fathers (and mothers) who have been falsely accused of child abuse stand on the street corner to protest other cases in which evidence of real child abuse is being ignored. Our mothers (and fathers) whose abused children are not being protected by the system even though they have evidence stand on the street corner and protest cases in which parental alienation is being used as an excuse to separate a parent and child. This is as it should be, and shows a strong commitment to fighting white collar crime and unlawful behavior on the part of court officials, no matter what the particulars of the case may be. I admit, we loose some parents because they want us to be more one-sided. That’s okay. Our message is the one with the potential to transform the industry, thereby protecting all families from being singled out as prey for the cottage industry’s greed.

We strongly discourage blaming of the other parent and the making of allegations without court-quality evidence to back it up. We strongly discourage the use of experts to make allegations without concrete evidence. The experts, if used, should be there only to explain or interpret the evidence, not to create “evidence” that otherwise would not be in existence. This balance is sorely needed in all aspects of the fight that has to be waged to take back our families and to take back our government by exposing, regulating, and eliminating white collar crime in the family court cottage industry.

Please email and let us know how this message impacts you. It has been my mantra for several years now.

Leslie Cumiford,
President, Center for Family Justice