This site is maintained and posted by a third party. No content on this site may be used or copied without permission. Unfortunately, the courts repeatedly refuse to respect the privacy of families, but the courts keep the names of the violators - the judges and court workers completely secret by using code names - presiding judge, petitioner's attorney, etc.
Here is some information on underlying problems on this case.
Before marriage, the future father and mother took 2 week-long trips in 2 years to their future home state - and before engagement there was an agreement to live there permanently. But permanent ended at 10 years. The children were born and raised outside Minnesota in that state. The father wasn't interested at all in moving back to Minnesota, and there wasn't any ultimatum or threat from the mother saying 'move or divorce.' There was plenty of money and opportunity for the whole family to travel to Minnesota numerous times a year, even by short flights. The mother complained about not being in Minnesota next to her parents, but didn't take or make the opportunities to have the whole family visit Minnesota more often. Her parents visited the family more often. After 7 years in one home, the mother and father looked at a couple dozen pre-owned homes over 1 year and made at least one offer. After that year, they put a lot of effort into a 1 year project of purchasing and planning a fantastic newly built home in the children's native state. They moved into the amazing home and location - and 1.5 years later 'permanent' and the 'family' was finished. Why would she spend all this effort on a finding and planning a home, and designing her own curtains for months, if she was set on moving to Minnesota? And why would she demand to have another child with her husband, even within a month of filing for divorce?
The mother always loved her father Roger more than her husband. Even months after marriage, the mother in her mid 30s asked her father for permission to move away from Minnesota, even though her father and her whole family knew of this plan for 2 years before marriage. When there were disagreements in the marriage, she would call her father and let him decide what she would do. At family separation, the father found out that one of her father's decisions in the last year of marriage was that the home was her domain to control completely and the garage and 2 family vehicles was the father's domain.
In the few months before the sudden family separation by a secret divorce filing, the mother put extreme pressures on the father to have another child with her - to be born 6 years after the last child and at the peak of risk for birth defects - with the mother at age 45. The father didn't think this was a good idea and was happy with his children that were close in age and old enough to participate more in recreational activities that they enjoyed with their father. The mother declared that the father didn't love her because he didn't want another child then. She told him that he wouldn't give his life for her. She demanded that he get a vasectomy if he didn't want another child. Somehow this would prove his love, which he indeed did have for her. Her cyclical fits of rage increased and the father asked her parents for help. This infuriated her more. She clearly repeated and threatened over 10 years with 2 rules that the father was never allowed to break and hadn't: 1. Don't say anything to her about female's problems, 2. Don't say anything negative to her about her family. Now the father had broken rule #1.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire
After the father called her parents the first time about the rage cycles, one of her sisters showed up for a sudden visit in early June 2005 after never visiting in 10 years, and her sister was saying that she was interested in looking at property to buy in that state. Looking back, this trip appears to be a deception and to trick the father into feeling that nothing was brewing and to keep Roger's July 2005 plans secret. In between her cycles of rage, there was some resolution and peace, and the mother wanting to have another baby also made the father feel that nothing major was brewing. A trap had been set, and more ambushes and secret actions were coming that the father wouldn't anticipate. The mother called the father's brother to try to dig up dirt, and then sent a thank you card to him, and the brother never mentioned any of this contact to the father, until after the secret filing.
On the day which ended up being the day of family separation in late July 2005, after being accused by his wife and Roger of not being a good enough father (because on vacation, for a couple hours every morning, the father drove to and worked out at a health club while the family was 'vacationing' at the in-laws), the father broke rule #2 by mentioning the history of Roger to them regarding her father damaging and breaking off relationships with most of his own relatives over the decades. This was at the end of a week visiting with her parents when every button was being pushed to get a reaction from the father. Then the wife and Roger took control of the children, she secretly flew back home with the children, and secretly filed for divorce immediately as Roger wanted. Days later, the custodian called the brother of the children's father to announce that she had secretly filed for divorce. She didn't even tell her husband, who she and Roger worked very hard to divert to his family's week-long lake reunion. And there were other secrets that she didn't tell her husband for days until he was 1 hour from home in the other state. Her father Roger was with her and they weren't going to allow the husband back into his home or allow him to see his children. Roger was a retired lawyer.
Looking back at the secret actions and lies, it was as if someone had researched, or just thought in evil ways to gain the greatest legal advantage and complete captivity of the children, and of the father, to divert the father and make him not anticipate the traps set to capture him and money and property. Wickedly lying lawyers would help.
Much evidence indicates that the ambush and secret divorce was planned by her father Roger to repossess his daughter, and gain the greatest legal advantage by secret trap and ambush and endless lies, a pattern that continued for years in the custody battle. The family dissolution and captivity of the children was strongly demanded by her father Roger, as many witnesses and pastors confirmed. The custodian agreed to pursue marital counseling 3 times, at the beginning, middle and end of the 1 year period after filing for divorce and taking the children, but she reversed when Roger always demanded 'no father-mother' therapy. (sound familiar? 'no father-child therapy' has been their demand and achievement since Jan. 2007 and before). Roger was afraid that father-mother or father-child therapy would be successful with a neutral therapist, so both were blocked.
Dr. Sanders concluded in his report in Oct 2005 which Judge Michael Mayer received, "It would be very important that husband and wife resolve these issues together and family members separate themselves from this. It has been shown repeatedly that the most common cause of marital alienation is incomplete separation from family of origin and this appears certainly to be playing out in this couple."
Dr. Van Anrooy stated in Sept 2005, "divorce won't solve anything" in this family. As she and every judge should admit, divorce actions normally multiply and enflame problems by many times, and prevent the root problems from ever being resolved, especially a 'sudden divorce' filed in a secret ambush attack on the family, with endless lies to gain the greatest legal advantage.
This is a sick abnormal relationship between the middle aged custodian and her elderly father Roger, which their former pastors observed and commented, “I know, we picked up on that." "this is Daddy’s little girl, she almost gets giddy and laughing and Daddy puts his arm around her, and she’s the poor little martyr and his dear little darling, it’s almost sickening.” “I just can’t picture her functioning in a circle of other people and getting along.”
“She’s not really close to other people, besides her Dad. She dotes on him. It’s abnormal. It’s really abnormal. She’s so full of venom. It’s just repulsive. And she goes from one extreme, the whole emotional gammot with anger, surmising things, jumping to conclusions, she is going way overboard”
As her former pastor wrote in a file evidence letter to Judge Mayer, she "is under the strong influence of her father and will not work at repairing the marriage unless her father advises her to go in that direction."
Roger repossessed his daughter when few others would tolerate him. In her 20s, she ran marathons with him. The custodian always idolized Roger, for many years saying that Roger is the model parent. But Roger has a reputation as a ruthless man for decades with his family and with some church members. Following are comments by Roger's wife's only sibling Laura: Roger "rules the roost," "do exactly as Roger wants," "not friendly," "snide," "not much connection" to two of his children and his only sibling, "battling," "hitting his son," believes "don't have problems," "don't forgive," "they have to have as much money as they possible can," "cousins not real happy with him," and with Roger's wife's parents "there was never a friendship," "never got along," "parents didn't like Roger for their daughter," "I know what my parents went through when they got married." This audio evidence online was served to Judge Michael Mayer and given to psychologists on the case years ago, but was ignored by them. The evidence shows a history of decades of family alienation by Roger, the custodian's closest friend and court accomplice who also paid her legal fees.
Roger worked for the Internal Revenue Service fighting to take people's family farms to pay inheritance taxes. For some reason, he was retired by age 57 or 58. The goal of the custodian was to retire by age 55. She is drowning in wealth and can retire now - using her grand theft in Judge Mayer's court. The biggest worry of this millionaire custodian and millionaire Roger should be how to go through the eye of a needle (Matt 19:24). Abusing Kids for Cash won't help any of America's corrupt child custodians, judges, lawyers and court related workers go through the eye of a needle either.
The custodian is the only child of four who is really close to her father. Roger has been at war with two of his children and in-laws at times. One daughter ran away to Mexico to get married because Roger hated her future husband. Most of Roger's relatives had been cut off or had little relationship, as Laura, the only sibling of Roger's wife's confirms in audio evidence to the court which Judge Mayer ignores. The custodian talked with Roger when he was taking baths in the home and she wore a very thin revealing evening shirt. There are other behaviors and evidence that won't be mentioned here. Witnesses confirm that Roger has certainly taken emotional advantage of her in this family dissolution. There is good reason to investigate whether Roger had taken advantage of the custodian in her younger years. Certainly that would explain much of what has happened and continues to happen, and to cover up and keep secret.
As mentioned, under cross-examination pressure, Beth Harrington admitted very reluctantly that the psych test scores of the custodian in two years show that she has a very high score in the middle of the compulsive personality disorder range and "very elevated" scores in histrionic, narcissism and validity 'lie scales.' The custodian is an expert in compulsive hysterical lying to police. Her parents taught her that using the police was the way to resolve personal problems. Prior to family separation, the father was told how the custodian's parents called the police to complain about their neighbor's backyard that had areas trampled by the dog and didn't look nice. The custodian's parents didn't invite neighbors into their house and didn't hold birthday parties for their own children, and likely didn't talk to the neighbor about their backyard. The compulsive disorder is very strong in her family. The custodian ate meal bars for meals while the children ate regular food, but the children knew what she was eating, and would likely follow her pattern someday. Her sister was obviously very thin for several years (but in many younger years her sister had a little more than normal weight). Prior to separation, the custodian would say that her sister went for a walk after meals to throw up her meal in a private place and her mother worried about the sister's bone-thin appearance, and then a broken ankle. There is a long history of serious psychological problems in her family, that have come out of hiding over time and that the court and the psychologists have ignored. This was rule 2. don't say anything negative about her family.
Good rule, but how do things ever improve if the problems are ignored and kept secret?
Ignore and keep secret are some of the greatest weapons of corrupt court-related workers too?
To conclude on a softer note, it may not be important to assign a diagnostic label, and might not help especially with self-image. Many people are on a wide scale, so pinning many with the disorder label isn't useful, except to sell more medication. Of course some people have objective test scores in the disorder range and need the medication. And knowing the names of the problems is useful for improving problems, that is the most important action.