"You (Natalie Koga, Child Rep) and Meg Jackson were actively engaged in joining forces against my client and making comments about getting Dr. Goldstein (Father's hired gun) involved to ‘help out’ the problem; the problem being Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour’s desire to be a mother to her child….As an officer of the court, assure me that neither the father or anyone working on behalf of the father is paying you. "-Karen Conti, Former Counsel.
Rich, poor, middle class – no child in America is safe. These words of award-winning investigative journalist Keith Harmon Snow (author of The Worst Interests of the Child) refer to the abusive practices that regularly occur within the Family Courts and Child Protective Services (CPS) Courts. On their watch, each year hundreds of thousands of children suffer from abuse (including rape and prolonged torture) that would not have happened without this court system’s initial invasion and subsequent entrapment.
Removing children from their homes, separating children from parents, and creating conflict within the family unit is good business for the judicial officials and has become what the Family and CPS Courts do best.
Court officials heavily profit from these induced conflicts. They have learned how to milk the system for financial gain, by targeting the protective (fit) parent instead of the abusive (unfit) parent, resulting in children getting placed with pedophiles, sadistic sociopaths, and narcissists, in life-threatening environments. Although “the State” will pay the court officials if a low income or poor family is involved, the system forces protective parents who are middle class or wealthier to foot the bills for all court services. Either way, rich or poor, court officials have made a big business out of family conflicts, using children as currency.
Why would the courts target a fit parent instead of an unfit parent? Because there is no money to be made off of the unfit one. The Family and CPS Courts require one parent willing to participate with them, to care about the child’s well being and, most importantly, to make a commitment to the courts. Protective parents will do anything and everything the courts demand of them. Whereas abusive parents are more likely to give in after the court system’s first hurdle, demand, or when he/she sees the bills, simply saying, “Fine, take the child.” Why Family Courts and CPS Target Fit Parents
A legislative commission on Thursday approved several state programs it would like the Legislative Auditor to evaluate, including the health department’s Office of Health Facility Complaints and the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem program, both subjects of 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Investigations in November.
The Office of the Legislative Auditor said its evaluation will look into management, governance, oversight and processes of specific program areas.”
Coming soon: a time-line & catalogue of Judge Alfred Levinson’s illegal orders in this case. Rolling Meadows Cook County, Ilinois. Case #09 D 331 278
Judge Levinson said he didn’t care because he’d be retiring soon. Investigative Journalist Michael Volpe had this to say: “Other than complicating an already complicated situation, what purpose did appointing the child rep Natalie Koga serve, when you’ve already had a custody evaluation and CPS looked at it and they determined who the problem parent was? The child representative was the third or fourth court professional to be assigned to this case and besides making an already complicated matter even more complicated having so many court professionals holds no logical purpose. Because that’s where corruption thrives – when you can make a situation complicated. Dr. Stanton Samenow, not only in Chris Mackney’s case, would come in as a so-called independent arbiter but end up communicating, and often being paid, exclusively with one side. He would pretend as though his so-called expert opinion was objective while being bought and paid for and that’s what it appears happened in this case as well. Not only with Dr. Fisher, but Natalie Koga and others in this case. The veneer of independence is one of many reasons why I believe all court ordered professionals should be outlawed immediately. They are not merely a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars but counter-productive and often actively work to create conflict in cases in order to justify their continued involvement.”– Michael Volpe, Author of Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney’s Kafkaesque Divorce
Dr. Daniel Fisher’s Misconduct, with Michael Volpe
“When a court ordered professional begins working for one side, as Dr. Fisher clearly was in this case, it is the worst of both worlds. You have a hired gun with the veneer of independence. It is something I have seen and documented repeatedly. Dr. Stanton Samenow, not only in Chris Mackney’s case, would come in as a so-called independent arbiter but end up communicating, and often being paid, exclusively with one side. He would pretend as though his so-called expert opinion was objective while being bought and paid for and that’s what it appears happened in this case as well. Not only with Dr. Fisher, but Natalie Koga and others in this case. The veneer of independence is one of many reasons why I believe all court ordered professionals should be outlawed immediately. They are not merely a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars but counter-productive and often actively work to create conflict in cases in order to justify their continued involvement.”–Michael Volpe, Author of Bullied To Death: Chris Mackney’s Kafkaesque Divorce
Dr. Fisher was reprimanded by the State of Illinois for similar Dual Role Misconduct in a prior case. “The foregoing acts and/or omissions are violations of the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” Fisher_Redacted
The APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 states that psychologists should refrain from entering into multiple relationships…or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.
“It is considered unethical to switch back and forth between an evaluative and psychotherapeutic role,” consultant on the case David Stein, Ph.D., the chair of the Forensic Psychology Committee of the California Psychological Association, wrote in court papers.
Ever wondered what family court corruption in Rolling Meadows Cook County Illinois really looks like? Natalie Koga didn’t even bother with a pretense of impartiality and professionalism in Judge Alfred Levinson’s Rolling Meadows Cook County courtroom. She promoted my ex-husband’s onslaught of eight petitions for sole custody, and countless other harassing motions, an abusive litigation-vortex. This vicious legal bullying lasted more than six years. She entered and exited Judge Levinson’s courtroom with every single one of my ex-husband’s six attorneys and sat next to them. She lied to the court at nearly every court appearance, much of it on the record. While texting with my ex-husband per cell phone bills, she avoided talking with or meeting with me.
Letter from my former counsel Karen Conti to Natalie Koga, Child Representative, dated August 23, 2013, confronts her with eye-witness to her collusion with opposing counsel.
Although I have just recently become involved in this case, I am concerned with some of your actions which I have witnessed and of which I have become aware.
First, at the last court appearance, my friend was sitting on a bench outside the courtroom and overheard you speaking to Meg Jackson (Father’s) attorney. You obviously did not know he was my friend. You and Meg Jackson were actively engaged in joining forces against my client and making comments about getting Dr. Goldstein, (Father’s Hired Gun Psychologist) involved to ‘help out’ the problem; the problem being Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour’s desire to be a mother to her child. Your disparagement of me personally was also noted which is unprofessional and petty.
Despite the 604(b) evaluator’s two reports finding that (Father) is an alienator and that (Mother) should have sole custody, you have ignored these facts and blindly advocated that (minor child) spend as little time as possible with his mother. At trial, you vigorously fought Dr. Finn’s recommendations. Bizarrely, in court you advocated that (minor child) be put into “after school” care rather than be allowed to have the option to walk the four blocks to spend time with his mother. Even after Judge Levinson ordered that (Minor Child) attend (High School), and (Father) attempted to sabotage his enrollment, you did not advocate for actions necessary for him to attend school there. On August 22, (minor child) refused to leave the (public library) to come home with his Mother and said “Stay away from me. You are not allowed to be with me. I have spoken with my attorney.” If you did, in fact, advise (Minor Child) of that, you have violated all ethical duties as a child representative and attorney. Why haven’t you been involved in resolving this problem and encouraging your client that it is better to spend three hours after school at his mother’s house than sitting in a public library?
My client advises me of the following additional facts:
You have encouraged (Minor Child) to call you whenever he disagrees with what his mother says or when he does not get his way and then you refuse to communicate with Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour despite the fact that she is the legal custodian. By doing this, you are encouraging disrespect of parental boundaries and assisting in the alienation that has already been established by Dr. Finn. Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour has repeatedly asked for a more orderly means of communication but you have refused to respond.
Dr. Hummel noted that you crossed professional boundaries at (Hospital) interfering with (Minor Child’s) (medical) care. In August, 2011, you engaged in wildly inappropriate physical contact with (Minor Child) by forcing him to hug you.
Since September, 2010, you have refused to communicate with Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour, who has historically been the primary caretaker and the sole legal custodian. The vast majority of conferences and telephone calls with (minor child) have occurred only when he was with Mr. Mehdipour.
At Ms. Nadig’Mehdipour’s request, you interviewed Dr. Naila Wilcox-Avery, and Dr. Rodney Avery. who told you that they had concerns that (Father) was physically abusing (Minor Child) and coaching him to make false abuse allegations against Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour. Those doctors have reported that your refused to listen to their concerns.
You have been disrespectful and rude to (Mother) in the presence of (Minor child) and have attempted to interfere with (Minor Child’s) medical treatment by telling him, “Your mom shouldn’t take you for these assessments.” You told (Minor Child) “I’ll yell at your mom and make her a better mom to you.“
You failed to communicate with therapist Stephanie Simpson for 11 months even though Ms. Simpson attempted to contact you repeatedly. Rather than speaking to Ms. Simpson., you filed a Rule To Show Cause against Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour.
I have not seen you once make a negative comment about (Father) despite findings that he is abusive, an alienator, and a parent who sabotages his child’s education. Strangely, you have nothing but negative things to say about Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour. While I have not always agreed with GALS and Child Representatives, I have never seen one who is so actively opposed to one parent’s involvement in parenting, despite her having sole custody.
I am told that you are not being paid. It defies logic that you are still so actively and aggressively involved despite this fact. Please assure me as an officer of the Court that neither (Father) nor anyone else on his behalf is paying you. Also, assure me that you are not going to use your offices to contact (Minor Child’s) high school and poison them against Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour. I do not see that you have any reason to contact them. You are not a parent and have no business asserting your will into this family’s issues.