The 2009 court appointed reunification therapist Dr. Powers repeatedly stated that he would try to get permission to do father-child therapy from the custodian, but the custodian forced Dr. Powers to an "agreement" of no father-child therapy. Dr. Powers admitted, "I was afraid that she would think I was setting her up .. for the father to see the kids."
Audio evidence is below the text. The Exhibit E audios were served with a supplemental affidavit to Judge Mayer's court on 10/6/2009, regarding the custodian's games and blocking father-child therapy again. Judge Michael Mayer has ignored and failed to respond to the specific evidence or take positive action. Instead, Judge Mayer continued to boast that he has no bias and therefore he can't be removed.
paragraph from the Summary page: The custodian has blocked all father-child therapy since Jan. 2007 and Judge Mayer and Beth Harrington have failed to give the custodian negative consequences. Father-child therapy achieved great success with Dr. Reitman in Nov. 2006 and resolution of the whole custody case with equal parenting. But the wickedLY LY'n LawYer Deanne LYn Dulas bullied and took control away from Dr. Reitman. The custodian and Judge Mayer are afraid that father-child therapy would be successful again, so they blocked all father-child therapy and parenting consultants since Jan. 2007, and still to the current date (end of 2012).
On May 11, 2009, Dr. Brian Powers wrote to Judge Mayer, "the children have still not had any therapy sessions after many months delay. I continue to have concern about delays in the children reestablishing their relationship with their father."
The father met with Dr. Powers for therapy from May to August 2009, 5 times in 3 months as Judge Mayer had hinted in court that he would like.
Since Jan. 2007, the custodian had refused and delayed for years in bringing the children to a 'so-called neutral' reunification therapist. Finally she agreed in early August 2009, after being court ordered for the 3rd time by Judge Mayer to take the children to Dr. Brian Powers - who was the "any therapist willing and able and recommended by Susan Devries and Moxie" (who are anti-father political activist and supervision center promoter), as Judge Mayer ordered the first time (Feb. 11, 2009 decree bottom of p.55)
And then she delayed the first appointment by a month until the end of August. Then she brought all the children one time and Dr. Powers saw the children all together, but no father. Then, in the audios below, Dr. Powers agreed twice with the father to try to do father-child therapy, and "early next week" and to "bring it up" for permission of the custodian. Then the custodian delayed 1 month with no appointments. The custodian forced Dr. Powers to make a secret "agreement with her" of no father-child therapy, and later Dr. Powers admitted he was afraid of "setting her up" "for the father to see the kids." Then she brought two children one time and refused to pay her half again as court ordered. And Dr. Powers quit - with no father-child therapy, as the custodian forced him to agree.
It is possible that the one child might have revealed in some way to Dr. Powers the "game" that was going on, if that child was allowed a second visit with Dr. Powers and met with children individually, as the father requested.
After he decided to quit, Dr. Powers stated, "If I had (omnipotent) power, I'd be dealing very differently. Truth is I have many restrictions, lots and lots of them." One of the children admitted to the father that he thought it was "a game, a game" that the children were playing (to do what the custodian wanted) to be mean to the father, "just to get you angry." While the custodian and two children under her emotional control, tell Dr. Powers that they're 'uneasy' with the father - the magic words to deny father-child therapy and relationship? When it was the opposite, because of the risk to their positions, the elementary teachers and one wife in the father's family were uneasy with the children, when they were young and most impressionable, because of the 'games' the children, and the custodian were playing using police and psychologists and the court in the alienation game. The children saw how much pleasure the custodian had in being nasty and setting traps for the father and it was fun for them too. Why not? the father could do nothing under Judge Michael Mayer, and the father had been stripped of influence. The custodian told the children we're a team (against the father) and tattle to me if you don't like anything (and she would exaggerate and lie in the greatest intensity to the court).
Regardless of the custodian's games, or in which direction uneasy could be in any family case, isn't an experienced court PhD therapist's main job to handle uneasy and observe the facts directly in parent-child therapy? Or is this business? to "maximize the amount of money with the minimum amount of hours" and effort. (Dr. Power's quote). The abuser is normally uneasy around the father who is being abused or set up with games and secret agreements.
It's all a game to the custodian, to Judge Michael Mayer and to the court's friends? Put fathers on strings like puppets and do what you want with them? a game for entertainment? String the fathers along, do this, do that, pay $100,000 here, $200,000 there, a few more times, dance like this, dance like that, maybe you'll get there, if we're ever done playing with you. And keep your eyes on the carrot on the string, while we ambush from the back. That's a pretty good description of abuse? and abuse of power. Ungodly power. System abuse. In one audio, Dr. Powers talked about system abuse, saying you have to remove the trauma to recover, and that Hennepin County admits in writing that the system has bias. The #2 Minnesota Senator Julianne Ortman wrote a 4/17/2012 letter asking for an investigation regarding much evidence of long persistent systemic bias and injustice, specifically in Judge Edward Lynch's 1st District including Dakota County, and can't 'rely upon appeals' to stop the injustice. Judge Lynch denied any bias in the system.
The father had asked Dr. Powers to see the children individually. A reunification therapist who wants to be effective will see children individually and with their father and without the custodian waiting and influencing the nearly teenage children in the lobby. Dr. Powers was aware of these problems and failed at all of these. But like some psychologists, Dr. Powers won't tolerate some people pointing out his errors or commenting on his strange 9/17/09 letter. The custodian knows that the children will be afraid to say or do some things when another sibling is in the room who could tattle back to the custodian. Any professional therapist knows these things. The custodian demanded all children together, or none for parenting time. Judge Mayer just ordered whatever she wanted - on a silver platter. Did the custodian also refuse to allow Dr. Powers individual counseling with the kids?
In 2008, secondary custody evaluator, Dr. James Gilbertson also failed to meet with the children individually, which is a most critical need. Dr. Gilbertson requested from Judge Michael Mayer in a letter 4/18/2008, the ability to have multiple and individual sessions with the children and with their father, together, and "in other combinations", two minimum. Judge Mayer denied Dr. Gilbertson's written requests to have individual sessions, ordered 1 session only with the father (it was all children together) and denied meeting in the father's home because the custodian's lawyer Deanne Dulas opposed most of Dr. Gilbertson's requested protocol, which was to try to have a fair and legitimate evaluation, and 'had concerns about an artificial setting.' Dr. Gilbertson and Beth Harrington met in the custodian's home with the children, but Judge Michael Mayer denied the requests to meet in the father's home, and Judge Mayer's bizarre statement that the father's home was the "most unnatural setting" (because due to Harrington and Judge Mayer's malicious actions the children hadn't been in his home for a while?).
Judge Mayer 'managed the case' so the children wouldn't be allowed the experience of a visit in their father's new home which they would have enjoyed. The father was renting a large 3 bedroom, 2 bath end unit townhouse (until late 2009) in a nice neighborhood next to a large county park which was far superior to the custodian's 2 bedroom 1 bath townhouse section near Roger's home, where the custodian was pretending to be living "penny to penny" and "suffering financially" (as she testified under oath). But she had a $130,000 a year part-time salary + child support. So Judge Mayer gave her over $460,000 in grand theft in money and tax benefits from the father and angrily demanded that "these children need to be in a house." The custodian could have rented or purchased a very nice large house, but she succeeded in getting a very deceptive response from Judge Mayer who knew her salary and huge assets and that she admitted that her father Roger was paying her legal fees. Complete and total deception and wildly bizarre emotions by Judge Michael Mayer. Millions of people would love to live on the custodian's pennies??? Through grand theft, Judge Mayer made the father a pauper and the custodian a millionaire, like her father Roger. Years before, the custodian said that she individually needed more than 2 million dollars saved to retire.
Judge Mayer said that he listened to a few of the audio evidence and that it was mild. Apparently he didn't listen to the audio of the expert he appointed and ignored. With domination of parenting time in sole custody, very little effort is needed to alienate children. Beth Harrington, Judge Mayer's custody evaluator wrote a letter saying that she wouldn't listen to more than one recording, unless she was ordered to do so. Dr. Reitman didn't listen to any of the recordings that were given to him, until he was taken into a court conference room with a lawyer a year later. Dr. Reitman admitted that the recordings showed parental alienation, especially Roger calling it bribery to take the children to the Mall of America. Dr. Reitman observed severe parental alienation at a higher level in person than on the recordings, the games the custodian was playing with police and counselors, and had warned Judge Mayer. Dr. Powers refused to listen to any recordings except for several played in his office to him. Dr. Powers was given a disk with the recordings that would play without effort as a CD in his car stereo, and he said that he would not listen to them. It's easier to sleep at night when the court workers avoid the evidence? because the judge didn't give the therapist the power to do the job, but let the custodian and her lawyer control the therapists.
Another example of the custodian controlling Dr. Powers is in his 9/17/09 letter to Judge Mayer. It must have been a major "agreement that I had with her" that the custodian forced Dr. Powers to be afraid of "setting her up." Do this, or I won't bring the children. [And you don't know me, because when you achieve my demands, I'll reverse (as is my proven history) and stop bringing the children anyway.] Somehow it appears that the custodian influenced Dr. Powers to recommend making private school conferences with teachers and access to school and medical records contingent on parenting time. Those are clear violations of access rights of parents in Appendix A in every divorce decree, but Dr. Powers wrote on 9/17/09 (bold emphasis added), "My sense is that if (father) is going to renew ongoing physical contact with his children, then his having access to those records [medical, school, other] would be very helpful. Also as physical visitation is renewed, (father) having appropriate access to doctor visits and school conferences seem appropriate." This looks like something the custodian would write and make Dr. Powers afraid to disagree. Dr. Powers delayed after requests from the father to get a copy of the letter. It is very strange (never heard of that before) to make access to records contingent on parenting time. The custodian achieved this recommendation letter to violate Appendix A, and then she did everything possible to coach the children's "game" and Dr. Powers, so he would quit, because she knew parenting time is contingent on father-child therapy, and now she had a recommendation to also make contingent, access to the medical records for which the father is billed. The court file already had examples of fraudulent claims by the custodian who didn't provide insurance statements and these fraudulent expense requests would continue.
Judge Mayer and the child support magistrates have ignored motions to remove monthly day care obligations for children who have been teenagers for a few years, and require no receipts from the custodian. Judge Mayer and the child support magistrates refused motions to order the custodian to obey the mandatory requirements on the expense request form which require providing the insurance statements. The custodian pays for health care bills up front, submits the credit card receipt to the court as the expense, and then collects insurance reimbursement, tax-exempt health care reimbursement and other tax credits secretly. A millionaire custodian is disturbed enough to try to profit off the health care costs of children. The custodian informed the orthodontist office (and others) not to give any records (including insurance records) to the father. The orthodontist office demanded that the father had to get a lawyer to get access. If her expenses were honest, that she signs under notary oath, and if she wasn't trying to profit off the health care costs of children, there wouldn't be a need for secrecy. And Judge Mayer thinks all her actions are just fine (and he has no bias?).
Dr. Powers communicated that he was a) innocent for the access rights letter to Judge Mayer, and also the father should not be upset b) for him quitting before any father-child therapy or c) for the "agreement that I had with her" and Powers' fear of "setting her up" "for the father to see the kids." Dr. Powers complained (was offended that) the father would comment regarding Dr. Powers recommendation to violate Appendix A rights of fathers, who are also paying 100% of the cost of raising children and medical through support payments taken directly from their income source. The custodian got what she wanted and she was done with Dr. Powers. Dr. Powers didn't want to listen, hear or understand how the custodian operates, or listen to the recordings on the CD.
On October 3, 2009 (4 days after Dr. Powers announced he quit) the father's sister dropped off gifts and some of the children's items to them at the custodian's home. The custodian called Judge Mayer's Eagan police because she didn't want any of the father's family to visit her house. There's a family secret going on that they aren't supposed to see? (and might be revealed in therapy?) The Eagan police called and threatened the father.
The father had enough of her "games" using and abusing the use of police (and other people). Eagan police 'don't care, don't care if she uses the police to alienate' - listen to the audio.
In 2010, Judge Mayer held a secret hearing for the custodian's motions, for which there was no legal third party service to the father. Judge Mayer failed to provide phone access to the father and gave the custodian sole legal custody (then Judge Mayer doesn't need to be 'bothered' with the custodian's access violations and fraud?).
The father continued to call the children and Motion for Children's Rights to see paternal family members and himself. Judge Mayer has repeatedly failed for years to issue an order regarding the specific motions for children's access and a parenting consultant with a proven neutral track record, for dispute resolution as required by law, (also in the 2011 and 2012 appeal). Judge Mayer has instead violated state laws to delay and crush/deny a support modification which is included in the 2012 appeal, even though he signed a pauperis order.
It's More 'Cash Before Kids', like a kidnapping, as long as Judge Mayer 'manages the case' to cover-up his violations and to reward the custodian.