How did the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court take away the children from an ’Äúexcellent mother’Äù?

In short, they used pro-abuser PAS theory against her and then cheated her again by hiding the court evaluator's PAS reports from the Appeals Court. Because of those actions, the mother never received a full trial on the sexual abuse issues. The trial judge ignored every transgression of the alleged abuser, all the trial testimony and evidence - and then took away the mother's children. His decision does not explain his reasoning - because he can't.

Here’Äôs what happened in this case:

¬Ý

1. Child abuse expert Dr. Jacqueline Kowalski determined with ’Äúpsychological certainty’Äù that a three year old girl had been abused by her father and brought the allegation to Judge Ron Panioto’Äôs court.

¬Ý

2. Judge Panioto turned to Dr. Richard Gardner’Äôs debunked, pro-abuser PAS theory and appointed Dr. Michael Borack, a ’Äúparental alienation’Äù expert, to investigate the abuse allegations and report his findings to the court.

3. But Dr. Borack did not investigate the sexual abuse allegations. PAS evaluators almost always attack the protective parent. Dr. Borack did exactly that, following Gardner’Äôs methods right down to the deprogramming of the children and recommending full custody to the alleged abuser. Borack ignored his two court appointed deprogrammers, Drs. Boat & Olafson, who called the mother ’Äúexcellent’Äù and ’Äúhonest’Äù and like Dr. Kowalski, reported non-coached disclosures of ’Äúpossible sexual touching’Äù.

4. In deposition, the ethically challenged and incompetent Dr. Michael Borack was exposed as a fraud. Borack was forced to admit that he hadn’Äôt the ability to assess child sexual abuse, and did not, in fact, conduct an investigation into the abuse allegations.

¬Ý

5. Judge Ron Panioto, however, refused to reverse the effects of his PAS expert Dr. Borack, whose incompetent reports, recommendations and participation directly coerced the mother into signing a 2^nd Shared Parenting Agreement that gave the alleged abuser legal custody and majority visitation.

¬Ý

6. When the mother attempted to appeal Judge Panioto’Äôs decision NOT to reverse the Borack coerced agreement, Judge Panioto then also refused to supplement the official record with Dr. Michael Borack’Äôs PAS reports for the Appeals Court to read and consider. This shocking and blatant attempt to hide material so germane and central to the case served to cheat the mother from justice as the Appeals Court decided that Panioto had given them ’Äúno choice’Äù but to affirm him. Panioto protected himself at the expense of the children.

¬Ý

7. Judge Panioto squandered several months fighting off the mother’Äôs motion that he recuse himself from the case for reasons of bias. Three hours into the mistrial in February 2004, however, Judge Panioto did step aside but not for the reasons he stated. It had come to light only days earlier that his top aide Jayne Zuberbuhler had perjured herself in deposition testimony, and the Judge removed himself before the issue, and his personal knowledge of it, embroiled him.

¬Ýcincinnatipas.com

8. Judge Susan Tolbert recused herself because of her familiarity with this website, a public criticism of the Hamilton County Domestic Relations PAS Court. This website is a double edged sword. By exposing the Court’Äôs secret PAS world and failure to protect abused children, this website is intimidating and causes unethical people who cannot explain themselves to run. It also creates even more animosity from a morally bankrupt court system that lost its bearings the day Dr. Richard Gardner stepped into Cincinnati to train them.

9. Giving credit where credit is due, Judge Ron Panioto did make one attempt to correct his errors. He signed a pretrial court order allowing testimony and evidence that would include all the sexual abuse allegations going back to 1997. Never mind the coerced agreement, bring it all in.

¬Ý

10. New trial Judge Judson Shattuck ignored Judge Panioto's Pretrial Order and refused to bring it all in.¬ÝJudge Shattuck used the Dr. Borack coerced 2nd agreement signed in 2000, which Judge Panioto had earlier refused to reverse, to preclude all testimony and evidence regarding the alleged abuser’Äôs sexual molestation of the children.

Judge Panioto’Äôs decision therefore not to reverse Dr. Borack in 2001 ultimately led to a full pardon in 2004 of every sexual abuse allegation leveled against the alleged abuser. The alleged abuser was let off the hook, was never held accountable for his actions, and to the mother's horror received full custody of his alleged victims.

11. Judge Shattuck then conducted a Pretend Trial and rendered a decision in favor of the alleged abuser without citing any evidence, exhibits, witnesses or trial testimony. That's because his decision cannot be supported by the evidence, exhibits, witnesses or trial testimony. Shattuck then went home and fabricated his compensation reports and is currently under investigation.

The ’Äúexcellent mother’Äù did nothing wrong. She only tried to protect her children. In the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court, that can cost you your kids.

And did this mother.

Excerpts From The Ohio First District Court of
Appeals Ruling of March 12, 2003

Pink text used because they are such wussies.

"First, we note that the court-appointed expert's report is not part of the record certified to this court for review. The domestic relations court overruled (the mother's) motion to supplement the record, noting that the expert's report "does not appear at any place as an item filed with the Clerk of Courts in the subject matter, nor as an exhibit received in any evidentiary hearing or proceeding in this cause, and is not otherwise an original paper within the contemplation of App.R. 9." This court has twice overruled (the mother's) motions to supplement the record with the report. See App.R. 9(E). A reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not a part of the trial court's proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter. See State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus.

App.R. 9 and 10(A) impose a duty on all appellants to provide a complete record for our review prior to submission of the case. When portions of the record necessary for the resolution of assigned errors are omitted, this court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm."