"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.