Utah judge sends kids to abusive dad
It's another example of the quackery of parental alienation.
Another judge, this one in Utah, ignored all sorts of evidence of abuse while handing three children to their abuser.
The judge is Commissioner {junior judge} Catherine Conklin of the 2nd Judicial District in Utah.
Below is a court hearing from a custody case: James Barnett Vs Amanda Barnett, and it occurred on September 13, 2022.
In this hearing, she is certain that the father has been alienated, but in a twist, she primarily blames his oldest child: a sixteen-year-old son.
She blames Amanda for not reigning him in, but she primarily blames the sixteen-year-old for convincing his younger siblings that his father is an abusive monster.
It’s no surprise that Commissioner Conklin is a member of the Utah chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).
As I discussed in my 2015 treatise “Making Divorce Pay”, AFCC has played a critical role in popularizing the use of parental alienation in custody cases.
By the time the AFCC had begun promoting PAS, the group had dropped the descriptor “syndrome” and merely referred to the problem as parental alienation—a group of behaviors by one parent designed to alienate the child from the other parent—which is far less controversial. Gardner had originally based his research on prior research done by longtime AFCC member Joan Kelly and psychologist Judith Wallerstein, and in 2001, Kelly published, along with AFCC member Janet Johnston, “The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome” in the Family Court Review, the AFCC’s newsletter.
A 2012 conference for New York AFCC on parental alienation described a number of behaviors that the alienating parent exhibits, including, “unfounded abuse allegation.” Actor Alec Baldwin claims to be a victim. In his book, A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey through Fatherhood and Divorce, Baldwin describes the exact same behaviors in discussing PAS. Baldwin argues in the book that he was alienated from his daughter by his ex-wife Kim Basinger.
In this case, the misuse of parental alienation is turnkey. All four children and their mother all say that James Barnett has been physically, verbally, and even possibly sexually abusive, but since this abuse is never substantiated, those allegations must be parental alienation.
I called Mr. Barnett on his cell phone, but he declined to comment.
Sydney Mateus is an attorney for Non-profit Legal Services of Utah, and she represents Mr. Barnett.
“There have been many allegations of abuse that have not been substantiated. There has been no proof that has been offered, no protective orders, no filed criminal cases, no CPS cases.” Ms. Mateus said in the September 13 hearing. “Ms. Barnett has perpetuated that they have to the point, that these kids are starting to believe it.”
“The kids are now reporting themselves to DCFS, to police. They’re reporting Ms. Read to the Better Business Bureau.” She continued. “We believe this is all a result of Ms. Barnett’s actions, and as a result, they are being severely psychologically harmed in her care. We believe this is severe abuse.”
I reached out to Ms. Mateus by email, but she did not respond.
Ms. Read is Jessica Read, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in the case; during the hearing, Ms. Read was primarily concerned with the sixteen-year-old not showing her enough respect.
Ms. Read declined to comment when I reached her at her office.
When Commissioner Conklin interjected later, she placed the primary blame on the sixteen-year-old.
“There have been allegations of abuse- both of Ms. Barnett and the children in this case- they have been investigated thoroughly by DCFS and by law enforcement.” Commissioner Conklin stated, parroting Ms. Mateus, “There is nothing that supports the fact that they are in danger with him. I think Ms. Mateus is right; in the best-case scenario, you have sat by and allowed your sixteen-year-old to become the Don Quixote of the family.”
Commissioner Conklin then went on to criticize the teenager for not having enough respect for the adults in the case.
In an undercover video with a manager, the teenager addresses this so-called lack of respect.
“She went on a tangent and yelled at me about me needing to show her some respect,” the teenager states in the video.
Even as Ms. Read claimed that the teenager was disrespectful, she made appointments to speak with him by phone and then did not keep them: as the text messages below show.
Ms. Read did not have any more contact with the oldest Barnett child until the hearing on September 13.
The evidence of abuse is rather extensive. Though Commissioner Conklin claimed in the hearing that visits between dad and children were going fine and then fell apart, video and police reports state that is not the case.
The kids made several videos of their encounters with their father; in each, he coerces, threatens, and engages in verbal abuse.
There are also at least two police reports. One is from June 3, 2022. Some of it is below.
The police report stated further, “{the oldest} contacted dispatch and reported that his father, James Barnett, was abusive and did not let him or his 12-year-old brother leave.”
That same report also noted, “The incident appeared to be part of an ongoing custody dispute between father and mother.”
This may be why police never substantiate anything because it’s written off as a custody battle.
Another police report from May 6, 2022, states in part below.
The report continued, “{the oldest} stated he asked Jim about his missing birthday money that went missing during his birthday. Jim got upset. {The oldest} stated Jim insulted him, told him he was a worthless son, and his siblings were dumb.”
Furthermore, Commissioner Conklin noted that the oldest, the sixteen-year-old, had accused his father of rape.
Commissioner Conklin dismissed this allegation, like all the allegations, but she did note that the “made up” event happened when the boy was thirteen.
In other words, he somehow made up this event, but provided enough detail to know how old he was when it happened.
Commissioner Conklin made a heavy handed and arbitrary order after this hearing.
She ordered the youngest three to live exclusively with their father and to have no contact with their mother or their oldest brother. This was to occur for at least thirty days.
Commissioner Conklin also took the unusual step of terminating the relationship between Ms. Read and the oldest child; she remains the GAL for the other three children.
Meanwhile, the oldest would live exclusively with his mother: they would have no contact with the rest of the family, according to Conklin’s order.
If Commissioner Conklin is right, everything should be splendid at Jim’s house: since Amanda and her oldest son are the problem.
On October 4, he appears to have called out the Weber County Sheriff’s.
The Sheriff’s Office has not yet provided the police report, but gave this statement, “I do have a report for that address on 10/04/22.”
We can piece together what happened based on a message one of the children sent.
I reached out to Commissioner Conklin’s chambers. but she did not respond.
I left a voicemail for Matthew Bartlett, Amanda’s attorney, but he did not respond.
The family faces Commissioner Conklin for another hearing on October 13, 2022.
There should be two litigants in the courtroom with their attorneys, if they have them... and the ruling of a judge on the evidence who knows the law. The 3rd party appointees are the problem in family court.
A divorce is the renegotiation of the marriage contract, division of property, time with the children and support. Those are business matters based on the roles of each parent, their relative incomes and thier individual and marital financial holdings. These are business transactions regarding disclosures of money trails and math, tax returns, bank accounts and investments. Take it to the civil courts.
Family Law Courts have become hiring agents too often for third parties hacks as they rob generations of wealth from families. I know grandparents who mortgaged their homes to pay Guardians Ad Litem, Evaluators and therapists. Judges should not relinquish their judicial authority to unregulated, cash only "therapeutic experts" on court lists. We have asked court administrators if they are responsible for the harm the contractors on their court lists do to children and families? That would be a, "No."
If one of the parties, breaks court orders, severly neglects, batters, rapes or murders their ex and or the children, that's a matter for the police and the criminal courts, not therapists.
It's another case of children being placed in the care of their abusers, which is all too common Michael.