DAD'S DIVORCE LAWYER THROWS PARTY AT DAYCARE CENTER, ENTICES WITNESSES FOR CLIENT WHO HIRES PRO-VIOLENCE CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATOR CHRISTOPHER LANE PHD

[READER COMMENT] "Betty Thompson and Ilona Grenadier don't feel this is a problem" because these two prefer to operate using the same maneuvers seen in Gerald Curran of Shoun, Bach, Walinsky & Curran in Fairfax County, Virginia. The tactics of Mr. Curran are documented at mommygobyebye-virginia.blogspot.com/2007/02/divorce-lawyer-throws-party-at-daycare.html. MOMMY GO BYE-BYE is dedicated to chronicling the damage to Virginia's children at the destructive hands of Virginia's inbred bench and Virginia's insensitive bar. "Losing Custody To Abuse Accusations" tells the truth. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Grenadier do not tell the truth. Thank you WUSA9NEWS for this expose of Virginia's dangerous family court system so shamefully resistant to reform. ~Veronique Wyvell, RN, Founder of MOMMY GO BYE-BYE: Mothers Against Unjust Law, 7831 Enola Street, #TA7, McLean, Virginia 22102, wrote on 2/19/2007

A Fairfax County, Virginia, domestic relations lawyer hosted a party at a church-based daycare center on behalf of his client, a spouse-abusing father seeking sole custody of his young son and partisan daycare workers who would testify in court against the boy's mother. Refreshments were served to teachers of the preschooler on church property and during school hours by divorce attorney Gerald Curran (of Shoun, Bach, Walinsky & Curran, where "Bach" is Beverly Bach, wife of retired Fairfax circuit chief judge Bruce Bach) and his female legal assistant in a scheme to recruit teacher-witnesses who would be willing to say bad things to the judge about the mother.

Such tactics by family lawyers who agree to represent deranged parents unnaturally engrossed with cutting children off from ex-spouses, though clearly unprincipled, over-aggressive, and suggestive of pathology (in both the legal practitioner and the alienating parent), are routinely overlooked by Virginia child custody evaluators and Virginia judges overseeing custody litigation when partner abuse is a factor.

In this case, the father, who previously had been charged and then found guilty of criminally assaulting the mother of his child, was restrained by an Order of Protection when Arlington County Circuit Court Judge James Almand ruled the couple's boy should reside primarily with the father. Judge Almand is a former member of the Virginia General Assembly and current advisor for the Virginia Code Commission (responsible for the wording of our laws).

In this case, the child custody evaluation, report, and recommendation by Christopher Lane, Ph.D., of Vienna, Virginia, had concluded the best interest of this child would be served by placing him in the primary custody of his abusive, violent, and dangerously controlling father. (Dr. Lane covers for William Zuckerman, Ph.D., child custody evaluator in Burke, Virginia, when Dr. Zuckerman vacations.) Child custody evaluators in Virginia often choose to ignore histories of family abuse; many judges rely heavily on the recommendations of custody evaluators, especially when court-appointed.

In this case, another fit, loving, and non-offending mother struggles to enforce visitation with her child, especially during the summer months. The father favors full-time day-care, for example, over mommy-care for their son, even in the summer. And the typical abuser, whether male or female, will make it his or her mission in life to interfere with parent-child contact, often with the full cooperation and support of the court.

Fit, loving, and non-offending parents are better off in most other states than Virginia. Utah law, for example, will protect children from third-party care with provisions stating that "parental care shall be presumed to be better care for the child than surrogate care and the court shall encourage the parties to cooperate in allowing the noncustodial parent, if willing and able, to provide child care" (#15 in Advisory Guidelines). And nearly two-thirds of America will protect children from violent parents with presumptions against the award of custody to batterers.

I ask you, how was it in this child's best interest for his fit, loving, and non-offending mother to endure not only a grueling five-day trial, followed by an expensive appeal in the Virginia Court of Appeals, but also the humiliating treatment by his church-backed daycare facility, the "surrogate care" presumed by Virginia law and Judge Almand to be better care for her son than mommy-care?

Want the "whole truth and nothing but the truth?": Child custody and visitation laws in Virginia are dedicated to concepts that maximize inter-parental conflict and minimize parent-child contact.

We can blame Virginia's inbred judiciary and a deformed judicial selection process in desperate need of reform.

Veronique Wyvell, RN
Member, Fairfax County Network Against Family Abuse
Founder, MOMMY GO BYE-BYE: Mothers Against Unjust Law
7831 Enola Street, #TA7, McLean, Virginia 22102
VWyvell@patriot.net

MAUL (Mothers Against Unjust Law) Goals:
Rebuttable PRESUMPTIONS Against Custody for Batterers
PPAs (Parenting Plan Agreements) before Litigation
Moratorium on CCEs (Child Custody Evaluations)
MINIMUM Parent-Time Schedules (UTAH Code)
JURY Trials (in Domestic Relations Cases)
PROTECTIVE Parent Reform Acts
DIGITAL Courtroom Records
ALI's Approximation Rule
TERM LIMITS for Judges