Discover more from Women's Coalition News & Views
6 Moms File Class-Action against Evaluator
MSM Looking for Input on Crisis
On Thursday, six mothers joined together to file a class-action lawsuit against a Colorado custody evaluator for fraud and breach of contract. The class of Plaintiffs may reach more than 60.
The mothers claim Mark Kilmer has exhibited systematic bias against domestic violence victims and towards domestic violence perpetrators.
Kilmer has repeatedly and deliberately omitted credible allegations of spousal abuse, child abuse and child neglect in his reports and recommendations to Colorado’s courts.
The suit states, “Kilmer systematically treats those accused of domestic violence or child abuse with an inordinate amount of sympathy in his work.” In other words, he spins the cases to the father.
Kilmer believes that women are almost always lying about abuse. He says, “In my forensic work…about 90% of the allegations [of DV and child abuse] I hear are false.”
Kilmer had been charged with domestic violence himself, and the mothers claim that fact plays into, if not causes, his bias. But that charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and Kilmer claims he has never been violent or biased.
Lauren is one of the mothers suing Kilmer. She is outspoken about the harm done in her case. She claims his evaluation was deficient and biased and accuses him of colluding with her ex.
Lauren taped Kilmer saying things which he omitted, distorted or lied about in his report. Her told her her parenting was “exceptional” but then accused her of alienating in his report. He said the father has bipolar disorder with psychosis and should not get 50/50. But he recommended equal custody.
Kilmer also omitted many CPS reports made by therapists and other professionals who were concerned about the children’s safety with their father. And he left out the fact that the father had endangered his children by driving 120 mph when the children were not wearing seatbelts.
Kilmer testified he had interviewed both the father’s and Lauren’s witnesses. But under cross-examination he admitted he had only spoken to the father’s mother.
These misrepresentations were all admitted to by Kilmer on the stand. It is unclear whether catching him in all his lies and distortions made any difference with the judge’s order of custody/visitation.
Another mother said Kilmer misidentified both her and her child in portions of his evaluation report due to cutting and pasting from another report he had issued earlier.
She said he also did not inform her that he had been suspended from the list of qualified evaluators judges could choose from. This suspension came after MSM reported about a case in which Kilmer characterized a father’s violence as an “aberration” and praised his “considerable positive parenting skills”.
Moral of the story: Evaluators and other court-appointees are spin masters. They almost always spin the report to reflect what the judge wants even if that involves blatant lies. So, mothers should always tape every encounter with evaluators and any case-related professionals. It may make no difference in the end, but at least you will have proof of the wrong-doing.
As in the last column, 4 Family Court-Enabled Child Murders in 2 Months in 1 State, MSM reports on supposed solutions to the problem of abusive “parents” getting custody.
They highlight legislation requiring court appointees to have expertise in domestic violence and child abuse. But it is obvious from the facts just in this article that is not the problem. The problem is the lying and spinning by the appointees.
Other legislation being proposed would bar courts from restricting a protective parent’s custody and visitation while reunifying a child with the allegedly or confirmed abusive parent—and that the reunification treatment must be proven effective.
But that also is not the problem. The problem is the protective parent, i.e. mother, is being falsely found to be abusive or alienating—so she is not viewed as a “protective parent”. This false finding serves to justify the “restriction”, i.e. switch of custody to the father, so that “reform” will not help.
Last—and also least—the formation of a task force is being proposed to determine types of training and best practices. But another investigation is not necessary, and even if new training and practices are implemented, it will make no difference since the overarching problem is judges deliberately ignoring abuse and wrongly giving custody to or reunifying children with unsafe fathers.
It’s awesome that these Colorado mothers are holding this custody evaluator responsible. Kudos to them!
It is unclear if the immunity normally granted to evaluators is an issue in Colorado. Hopefully the class will be certified and the case will move forward.
But the bottom line is: Judges Are the Masterminds of the Custody Crisis, and their appointees, including evaluators, just do their bidding. That means the only way to stop abusive and unfit fathers from getting custody is to take away judicial power.
ProPublica’s Hannah Dreyfus has asked for stories in which family court is endangering children by giving custody to abusive “parents”. If you submit your story, please let her know that the only crisis is mothers losing children to abusive fathers and that is due to systemic gender bias, not errant evaluators or judges.
And that the legislative reforms being suggested will not make any difference as a new system is needed. You can link her to The Women’s Coalition [womenscoalitioninternational.org] for more info on what an effective solution would be. Her email is: email@example.com.
Denver Gazette article:
UPDATE: WOMEN’S COALITION LAWSUIT
The Women’s Coalition is looking for a new attorney to file our Family Court Discrimination Lawsuit as the previous attorney did not work out.
We are searching for an attorney licensed in California, as that is the first state in which the lawsuit will be filed. An attorney with a specialty in class action or women’s civil rights is needed. Please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are interested in joining in the lawsuit, please fill out one of these forms. Names are kept confidential unless express permission is given.
Class members: If you fit the definition of a class member described above, please fill out this brief form. It asks just for your name, email address and location of case.
Class representatives: If you are interested in being a class representative as described above, please fill out this longer form. It asks for basic information about your case. [Note: if you fill this one out, don’t fill out the Class Member form.]
OTHER U.S. STATES
If you have a Family Court case in another state in the U.S. and are interested in participating, please fill out this brief form. It asks just for your name, email address and location of case.
If you have a Family Court case in another country and are interested in participating, please fill out this brief form. It asks just for your name, email address and location of case.
Women's Coalition News & Views is a reader-supported publication. Please consider a paid subscription of just $5/mo or $50/yr to support our important work of exposing, explaining, and ending the Custody Crisis! [Check alternate inboxes.]
You may also support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution through PayPal:
Join The Women’s Coalition & the global dialogue on social media: