| By Brian Rothenberg, Executive Director - Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:23 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Ohio Bloggers |
To Ohio legislators, a sexual predator bill is the equivalent of LeBron above the rim – a slam dunk that will sail through with plenty of air time in election year replays.
That’s why, despite the 1997 Ohio sexual predator law, legislators each session find new ways to tighten, toughen and tweak laws that go after the most heinous acts imaginable – sexual assaults on children.
The issue is a ratings grabber. Television shows such as DateLine NBC have become staples with their “To Catch A Predator” series, some of which was filmed here in southwest Ohio, while America’s Most Wanted’s John Walsh, whose son was a victim, has made passage of these laws his life’s work.
But the sad fact remains, that 90% of these sordid attacks happen among family members and acquaintances. And for all the tweaking, all the headlines, all the campaign material and all the ratings, Ohio courts still can look the other way at predators within the family. Enemy thy name is judicial discretion and the courtroom politics that accompany it.
So here’s an idea for the legislature: Instead of just focusing on 10% of the problem -- random strangers and where they can live -- how about some guidelines for rogue judges who allow unsupervised visits between a convicted sexual predator and a child. This may not be as politically sexy as Senator Kevin Coughlin’s Technicolor, lime green sexual predator license plates, but it does deal with 90% of the problem.
That’s right. Sexual predators can’t live by a school and have to report their whereabouts to local police, but judges have the discretion to order them into a home with unsupervised visitation rights with their kids.
Don’t believe me. Take a look at the custody case of Hoppel v. Hoppel where an Ohio Court not once, but twice, granted unsupervised visits with a convicted sex offender and the step-sister of his victim, and twice saw an Ohio Appellate Court return the case to Columbiana County Judge C. Ashley Pike.
According to court filings, John W. Hoppel and his first wife divorced in August of 1997. On April 30, 1998, Mr. Hoppel was convicted of a third-degree felony of sexual battery. The victim was John’s step-daughter.
Upon release from a two- year prison sentence, John was designated as a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s law and has to register to this day with the Columbiana County Sherriff.
Megan’s law, passed in 1997, requires sexual predators to register with law enforcement within 7 days of entering any county and within 7 days of changing an address. There are three levels of reporting:
- Sexual offenders who must report annually for 10 years.
- Habitual offenders, who must report annually for 20 years.
- Sexual predators who must report every 90 days for life.
It is this law that draws the most attention from legislators when they work on revising legislation for the annual election fast-break of voting on a bill that has the word “sex” in it and has the added benefit of no debate. Who, after all, would seek to defend heinous child abusers. No-one, of course. But the fact remains that these Ohio laws affect only a small percentage of the abuse problem.
The Columbus Dispatch last Sunday pointed out that 90% of child sex abuse cases do not come from contact with strangers but rather “a family member, coach, camp counselor or teacher.”
Dispatch reporter Mary Beth Lane’s story outlined how as the legislature rushes to add residency requirements to the sex offender rolls for every re-election season, sex offenders are being packed into densely populated areas that can meet the criteria legislators allow – sex offender ghetto’s if you will.
In 2003, Ohio passed a law banning offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools. Beginning July 1, legislators have added pre-schools and daycares to the list of banned areas. Local cities can add their own restrictions including parks and swimming pools – no doubt the next legislative bill set aside for some Ohio election season commercials down the road. And of course, who can forget gubernatorial dreamer Kevin Coughlin’s idea of Technicolor, lime-green license plates so we can gawk as these societal creeps drive by.
You get the picture. This is the drip theory of legislation. If you are really interested in shutting the door on access to sex offenders, you would close all loopholes at once. But if you know – as television execs know – that child sex abuse resonates when ratings matter or in this case every election season, you can see legislators drip it every few years for all the mileage they can get.
And that’s what makes this one case in Columbiana County even more outrageous.
If 90% of sex abuse cases come, not from strangers, but people who are known to a child -- people with access and the trust of a child -- how in the world can legislators overlook shutting down unsupervised court ordered contact between a registered sex offender and a child?
In the Hoppel visitation case, the Court originally ruled that John Hoppel could visit with his daughter only when his parents (the child’s grandparents) were present. But according to Court records, that wasn’t enough for John Hoppel. He and his parents went to court on July 31, 2003, and sought full, unsupervised visitation rights.
According to the transcript, unsupervised visits were granted despite the sex conviction:
“On September 19, 2003, the trial court filed its judgment. The court acknowledged that John had committed a sex crime, sexual battery, against his step-daughter …. Nevertheless, the trial court determined that [his daughter] would be at no risk of harm in having full companionship with John. The court relied on the fact that the sexual assault did not occur against [his daughter] herself.”
The Ohio Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, noting the significance of Hoppel’s sexual assault conviction which was overlooked by the Columbiana County Judge.
“The crime itself is a factor weighing against visitation, and the fact that the victim of the crime in this case was [his daughter’s] step-sister would undoubtedly elevate the importance of this factor among the list of factors found …. We find it difficult to conceive of any set of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to grant John completely unsupervised visitation in this case. The trial court’s decision might be somewhat more understandable had John presented clear and convincing expert testimony addressing the issues we have mentioned above. The trial court’s decision might have been more understandable if a guardian ad litem had recommended unsupervised visitation. The trial court certainly had the power to appoint a guardian ad litem in this case. It is curious that the trial court did not appoint a guardian ad litem when he perceived that the residential parent was not adequately protecting the child’s best interests, and when he clearly knew that the other parent had recently been convicted of a sexual battery against his own stepdaughter.”
In short the Court of Appeals was strongly hinting to Judge Pike that:
- Unsupervised visitation between a sex offender and his daughter, given his history with his step-daughter, required extraordinary scrutiny.
- An expert should have been appointed to study the situation and make a recommendation based on that study.
- There was something amiss in the trial judge’s decision calling his actions “curious.”
To be sure, domestic cases on all sides are highly emotional, and the Appeals Court did rule that the child’s grandparents were unfairly prohibited by the child’s mother from visitation and that John Hoppel could visit with his daughter if supervised by his parents or his second wife.
But the Appeals Court also seemed to be hinting at deep concern over the judgment of the trial court. And, as is often the case in the shadows of Ohio governments, the curious confluences of this case have further tentacles as John W. Hoppel’s ex-wife, Rhonda, says that her ex-husband comes from what she alleges is a prominent Columbiana County family with a relative serving as an elected County official.
What happened next is even stranger. A few years later, the child’s mother moved to Louisiana, necessitating a court date to review the visitation terms. Court transcripts determined that Rhonda Hoppel was not notified of the next court session.
“There was no discussion at the hearing of John’s prior sexual assault conviction or the May 26, 2004, Opinion by this Court,” said the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a new case filing. The Court went on to say in a September 24, 2007 decision:
“The magistrate referred to John’s standard visitation rights throughout the hearing, despite the fact that he did not have standard visitation rights… There was no discussion about appointing a guardian ad litem for [the child] which was recommended in our earlier opinion. The magistrate then modified the visitation schedule according to the wishes of John and his mother.”
So once again, the Columbiana Court gave unsupervised visitation to a registered sex offender with the step-sister of his victim.
And once again, the Court of Appeals smacked the hands of the trial court but this time over procedure.
“The record reflects that [the Mother] had no notice of the hearing. A magistrate with little or no knowledge of the case was appointed to handle the matter but failed to retrieve the prior court records from this court before conducting the hearing, failed to heed our prior opinion which contained very specific rulings about visitation, failed once again to appoint a guardian ad litem for [the child} and failed to consider or even mention John’s prior conviction for sexual assault in considering how to modify this visitation.”
So there you have it. Twice, the same Ohio court ordered unsupervised visitation for a sex offender who can’t live within 1,000 feet of your local school. Not a lot of good a Technicolor, lime green license plate does when the judge orders kids to ride inside the unsupervised convicted abuser’s car – right? Are we missing something here?
So here’s an idea for some meaningful legislation down at the election year studios of Broad and High: How about requiring supervision of all sex offenders in domestic situations unless and until a Court appointed expert (not a Judge) finds that a child is safe in their own home. After all, home is where the problem lays 90% of the time.
It might not be as sexy as Technicolor, lime green license plates, or look as good on direct mail literature, or even make good TV on your October commercials, but the enemy here is within folks – and our legislators seem to be fighting the bulk of this war on the wrong outside turf.
You can’t provide a solution to 90% of Ohio’s sex abuse cases, when you are solely focused on 10% of the problem – over, and over, and over… That’s a 10 percent solution at best.
Comments are closed for this post.
Another product of Mike Battle and Children’s Services neglect of Duties. Mr. Battle was forced out of his position at children's services due to his part in 3-year-0ld Trustin Blues death.
My objection to a completely unfair decision to award custody to deadbeat dad, via Judge Milazzo
Courtesy of Children’s Services caseworker Annie Hauck & Mike Battle
Ad Litem played by Eileen Lackey, her last name fits her to a tee. I wonder if she earned a little extra on this one?
Job & Family Lawyer and james cresswell’s other lawyer, no one informed me of, who had no business in this so-called private case Miranda T. Pirich. I wonder if she earned a little extra on this one?
Mr. James Garvin a Lawyer, need I say more $
& Judge Lipps Head of Juvenile Court Judges, don’t know yet, but sure did get a bad feeling, you know the one you feel when your bank account is empty.
I obtained some of this feeling when I was denied my right to make a closing argument, again at this hearing too after hearing Mr. Garvin and Miss Pirich spit out numerous lies and twisted statements again, again having the last word saying mother has had time to coach her, meaning Sabrina, which was not their right according to trial procedures.
This is about 15 year old daughter who needed grief counseling last year after grandfather and uncle passed away within that year
10/11/07
I subpoenaed Sabrina to court twice over the last two months, the court also disregarded this, with Mr. Garvin and Miss Pirich stating again in their final argument Sabrina was lying and I had coached her into saying all the things she said, this was a false accusation and calling 15-year-old daughter Sabrina a liar instead of talking to her.
Everything I am about to say, I have the transcript for the (one-hour) trial.
I have the right to view and have transcribed Sabrina’s in-camera, this was requested but was not included for some odd reason with the transcript at a cost of $400.00
And original and other documentation to support everything this statement says.
Topic This is a completely unfair decision according to the evidence.
Specific Purpose I need to inform the court that this decision was based on violation of Rules and Procedures and negligence of duties. Children’s Services, the Ad Litem and the Court all played parts in this.
Thematic Statement This has been a complete injustice and is not in the best interest of the child.
** Over the last year Sabrina has begged to come home through tears, and the help of friends through 3-way calls (being cut off from all communication with the only family she has ever known in Ohio, she states James Cresswell verbally and mentally abuses her.
Sabrina states James Cresswell made her sit before the family and forced her to eat a number of cigarettes and she did not mention this in court because she states her dad convinced her no one would believe her because she already smoked. Imagine this after being told on and off you can smoke and then you can’t throughout the past year, with them even being bought for you
In July of this year 2007 Sabrina was home, it was getting close to the time she was supposed to return to Louisiana, she adamantly did not want to do this. Even threatening to run away.
We arranged a meeting with Miss Lackey July10 2007, Sabrina told her all that this man had done to her over the past year of knowing him. Again Sabrina was disregarded.
Sabrina wanted to runaway and hide from him, I talked her out of this, this was at least the forth time over the past year since meeting her dad, and I talked her out of running away.
Sabrina then asked me to file for a restraining order.
** I have never abused or neglected my children.
All of them know they are loved.
Investigation revealed no abuse or neglect in our home.
It was determined that Sabrina needed grief-counseling 5-06. Children’s Services Miss Annie Hauck took over our case at this point, instead of arranging in-home counseling, she came to me two weeks straight, the 1st, telling us she contacted James Cresswell, the next week saying if I did not let Sabrina meet him and go there she would put Sabrina in a foster home.
I went to her supervisor Mike Battle about this, he did nothing about it and has since been fired from his position with Children’s Services for allowing his case workers to mishandle cases even to the point of helping Trustin Blue being abused and killed.
Our problems last year were brought on by lack of finances.
Although I do have 50,000 saved right now from back child support owed. I just don’t know when we will get it.
This all started over finances and a time of crisis with two loved ones passing away.
** 1. I intend to show the court that the decision made here is completely unjust.
2. And that it came to be through violations of court rules and procedures.
3. And negligence of duties, and false information.
1 Rights Violated/ Right to Counsel denied
Sup. R. 3 States a Childs right to be represented by counsel at a hearing may not be waived
Juv. R. 30 States that a child must have representation, no one told Sabrina this or even asked her
If she would like to have counsel.
Sabrina specifically asked that Miss Eileen Lackey be taken off her case and not speak for her, this
request was denied.
Sabrina was denied any representation at this hearing and so was I
I had no counsel because Sabrina’s case was immediately closed after she left July 29th of 2006; Even though Children’s Services was supposed to follow-up on Sabrina’s mental health and make sure her new dad did what he said he would. This left me with no choice but to represent myself, I was told twice that Public defenders can not handle private custody cases, and of course since this situation was in part due to financial difficulties and could not afford a lawyer.
We were at a great disadvantage, Mr. Cresswell had two lawyers fighting for him, Miss Perich fought
harder for him than his own attorney Mr. Garvin. I was never informed she an opposing lawyer in this
custody case.
Juv. R. 19 States that this case was to be filed under a different case number, when siblings have different parts
Our Judge was not chosen at random as Rule states it would be. Sabrina does not have the same father as Erika, Andrea and Nina.
2 The entry for this decision was based on false evidence and Mr. Cresswell’s 90% purgeress testimony under oath The Judge decided later in the one-hour trial to contradict himself and decided I could not call Sabrina as a witness.
The weight of evidence in this custody case was absolutely contrary to the decision made.
1 The court ignored the fact that Sabrina cried through the entire in camera at the preliminary hearing, this is not normal.
2 The court completely ignored the fact that in writing and witnessed, this man neglected getting Sabrina a Psychological Evaluation and counseling. James Cresswell did not get Sabrina into counseling until the court suggested by the Judge he do so February 27, 2007, eight months later.
4 Mr Cresswell contradicted himself on the stand stating Sabrina was doing great emotionally and then deciding eight months later, because of her emotional issues that he got her into counseling.
5 This decision was based completely on James Cresswell’s word, he had brought no documentation of Sabrina’s evaluation or counseling in fact he did not even know the counselors name.
6 And the fact that Sabrina was doing well in school again was used against her.
7 Sabrina’s shots have never been neglected, and Mr Cresswell never asked me about it getting her complete shot record.
8 The court ignored Sabrina’s discharge diagnosis from May 2006, and ignored the fact that James Cresswell had discontinued Sabrina’s medication without a doctor’s order as soon as she left home July 29, 2006.
9 Mr. Cresswell Purgered himself on the stand under oath, saying he never gave Sabrina alcohol, when in fact Sabrina and the court entry stated he did. In fact Sabrina stated he gave her a ½ bottle of wine to get drunk on, Sabrina’s brand new step mom said goodnight drunkie.
10 He also purgered himself stating he does not let Sabrina smoke, when Sabrina told me even during the break this very day of the one- hour hearing he and his wife offered her a cigarette downstairs during break before she went into see the judge.
Sabrina stated sometimes she is allowed to smoke and sometimes she is not, when not allowed and caught she is severely punished smoking she is made to eat cigarettes.
11 James Cresswell purgered himself under oath stating he does not use physical punishment, Sabrina states one of the times she was not allowed to smoke, he caught her doing so, he took a big wooden board to her.
12 Again he purgered himself saying he has always paid his child support, the court was given IRS statements, Court contempt charges and a balance right now of 27,000 owed in back child support.
13 The court ignored the fact that Mr Cresswell violated the court order to let me pick Sabrina up on Spring break. No big deal and excepted mr. Cresswells lame excuse.
14 It was established that Mr. Cresswell had never filed a visitation form to meet his daughter, he had abandoned her her whole life, 14 and ½ years.
15 This decision was based on false accusations of untreated mental issues on my part, and the false neglected shot record for Sabrina, and the false statement that that I received 10,000 of the 37,000 in back child support owed, when I did not if the court checked this further, the director of CSEA Miss Barbara Yuegling can verify this, J&FS confiscated it, because around 4 years ago I had received public aid on and off for a total of about five years.
16 I was told I had the right to submit documentation as evidence, and yet Miss Perich objected to almost every piece including the contempt charges against Mr Cresswell and sworn statements all relevant to this issue.
17 At the beginning of the trial I was told I had the right to call Sabrina as a witness and yet when I wanted to call her, The Judge changed his mind, maybe Sabrina would have discredited mr. Cresswell’s testimony.
18 The court told me all the circumstances and evidence would be taken into consideration, this did not happen.
19 Sabrina’s grandpa and uncle dying last year, both of whom she was very close to, was not considered, the fact that she had recently entered her teens on top of this was not considered, the fact that this happened over financial difficulties was not considered. The fact that this is the first time in over 14 years of parenting we had ever encountered these problems was not considered. The fact that I had had established employment with St Joe’s MRDD facility for almost eight months made no difference, the same with establishing new residence for eight months.
Court Rules were Violated
Ham. Juv. R. 19, B Requests to modify pre existing orders shall be by motion.
Mr. Cresswell did not file required documents when filing for custody, he omitted original court orders of child support, and supervision and counseling required for him and custody orders. And he never filed and affidavit identifying missing documents or efforts to secure them.
Mr. Cresswell has never complied with the court order to have supervised visits with Sabrina and parental counseling for up to six months.
There was never a dispositional hearing on Miss Hauck’s threat to place Sabrina in a foster home.
There was never an order of temporary custody from the court and yet Sabrina and I were threatened time and time again by Miss Hauck, her supervisor Mike Battle and Mr. Cresswell if I came to get her out of this environment.
Loc. R. 1.10 States that in a custody case, within 75 days from the date of service the Plaintiff must file A request for custody investigation or on the 76th day the case would be subject to dismissal.
Loc. R. II 2 B states an investigation by a parenting specialist must be done in custody cases.
Mr. Cresswell never filed this required motion and this investigation was never done.
Loc. R. 1.18 There must be a motion filed to terminate a child support order, upon conduct of an oral hearing by the court in review of support.
James Cresswell has never filed a motion to modify change or terminate his child support order, and
yet Miss Hauck stopped his payments for him July 19th 2006 and since then the court order has been
terminated with a balance of 26,000 due even before this decision is made final.
3 Ad Litems negligence of duties
Our case has also been neglected and mishandled by Eileen Lackey the appointed Ad Litem.
Juv.R. VI 30D states that the Guardian Ad Litem has the responsibility of reporting conflict between the desires of the child and her recommendations to the court.
Miss Lackey met Sabrina February 27, 2007 she watched Sabrina sob through the in camera at the preliminary hearing.
15 minutes later she watched Sabrina literally drop to the floor sobbing uncontrollably, at the thought of going back to Louisiana with this man.
Sabrina still was not allowed representation.
Miss Lackey met with Sabrina in Louisiana for 15 minutes, Sabrina told Miss Lackey she was supposed to and wanted to come back home. Sabrina states she was not allowed to be alone with Miss Lackey.
Miss Lackey neglected her duty to tell the court of this conflict and Sabrina was still not offered representation.
Sabrina stated Miss Lackey had her mind made up already, Miss Lackey told Sabrina she was not going home and that her mother is mentally unstable.
Sabrina specifically asked that Miss Eileen Lackey be taken off her case and not speak for her, this request was denied.
I never had a chance to read the report by Miss Lackey; she laid it in front of me when immediately before we were seated before the judge.
Miss Eileen Lackey has had my daughter’s (Temporary due to financial difficulties) Andrea and Nina’s case for 12 months, she has never attempted a conversation with me, she has never sent me a piece of mail, she has never attended a visit between me and my daughters, Andrea and Nina, she has never attended a family meeting either.
The same thing is true of Children’s Services, they have never attended a visit with me or my children, Children’s Services were told in two different court entries to get Andrea and Nina into counseling, and two different entries to investigate contacting my sister. Neither of these was done until 11 months later, July 2007. Melba Marsh’s court apparently frowns on this sort of thing, but not Judge Milazzo’s.
I had talked to Eileen Lackey for the first time February 27, 2007; I approached her after the preliminary hearing outside after
She told me the only reason Andrea and Nina could not come home was because, she had no discharge information from Greater Cincinnati Behavioral, and I told her the case was closed, please check on it. She refused to follow up on this and left the court believing in her report I had undressed mental issues.
This Discharge Summary was accepted into evidence August 7th of 2007.
Sabrina requested a restraining order against Mr. Cresswell August 17th 2007, Miss Lackey and Miss Perich attended this hearing on Mr. Cresswell’s behalf and Miss Lackey called Sabrina a liar.
4 Children’s Services negligence of duties
This case was immediately closed even though it was agreed that Sabrina’s biological father would get her into counseling during this temporary placement and it was to be followed thru with, it was not done or checked on. Sabrina was left alone and isolated 1200 miles away and cut off from all communication with her home and family here in Ohio.
Letting Sabrina meet her biological father, as an alternative to putting her in a foster home was never addressed by the court. The record will show in August of 2006 that all the court stated on this matter was I trust Miss Hauck I have worked with her. The hearing for this threat was overlooked for Miss Hauck’s sake.
Mr. Cresswell could have never filed for custody of Sabrina three weeks after meeting her had this case not been closed for him.
Summary
We have been maliciously persecuted over the last year and punished for going through a difficult
time. I have had to do everything i.e. (specifically intended for my daughter Sabrina, in the temporary agreement) I have done all of this and the Ad Litem and J&FS has attacked me a year now keeping me under supervision with Andrea and Nina and hiding them from me, and more than likely completely neglecting their duties here too. Thank GOD Erika’s dad kept his word, this was to be temporary and Erika is back home.
The agency that was supposed to help has neglected their duties and so has James Cresswell. And yet they are both rewarded.
James Cresswell has no problems purgering himself under oath, what else is he capable of?
He has violated the court order of April 20, 2007 stating Sabrina is to have communication with her mother; he has cut all communication with all family here in Ohio.
He has traumatized Sabrina and she does fear saying anything anymore about his actions.
There is an undeniable foreseeable risk in leaving Sabrina 1200 miles away and isolated with this man and leaving him unaccountable to anyone.
Remarks
Sabrina’s sister Erika is back home the last entry for Andrea and Nina states when my lease is up
next month, I just need to get a bigger apartment.
Sabrina was promised by Annie Hauck there would be no problems in returning home July 27th 2006,
Mr Cresswell Promised Sabrina there would be no problem in coming back home July 29th 2007, with
Sabrina’s grandmother and my sister witnessing this in our living room
After Miss Lackey and Miss Pirich helped Mr Cresswell avoid a restraining order, James Cresswell
told me August 17th to come and pick Sabrina up and take her home. He had had his child support
order terminated, this was all he was concerned about.
I could take Sabrina home on the condition that I filed no more paperwork for child support or
custody.
Of course I could not get Sabrina in school because of the custody issue, this episode was also
ignored.
Another product of Mike Battle and Childrens Services neglect of Duties. Mr. Battle was forced out of his position at children's services due to his part in 3-year-0ld Trustin Blues death.
My objection to a completely unfair decision to award custody to deadbeat dad, via Judge Milazzo
Courtesy of Childrens Services caseworker Annie Hauck and Mike Battle
Ad Litem played by Eileen Lackey, her last name fits her to a tee. I wonder if she earned a little extra on this one?
Job & Family Lawyer at the expence of the taxpayers and james cresswell other lawyer, no one informed me of, who had no business in this so-called private case Miranda T. Pirich. I wonder if she earned a little extra on this one?
Mr. James Garvin a Lawyer, need I say more $
Judge Lipps Head of Juvenile Court Judges, don't know yet, but sure did get a bad feeling, you know the one you feel when your bank account is empty.
I obtained some of this feeling when I was denied my right to make a closing argument, again at this hearing too after hearing Mr. Garvin and Miss Pirich spit out numerous lies and twisted statements again, again having the last word saying mother has had time to coach her, meaning Sabrina, which was not their right according to trial procedures.
This is about 15 year old daughter who needed grief counseling last year after grandfather and uncle passed away within that year
10/11/07
I subpoenaed Sabrina to court twice over the last two months, the court also disregarded this, with Mr. Garvin and Miss Pirich stating again in their final argument Sabrina was lying and I had coached her into saying all the things she said, this was a false accusation and calling 15-year-old daughter Sabrina a liar instead of talking to her.
Everything I am about to say, I have the transcript for the (one-hour) trial.
I have the right to view and have transcribed Sabrina’s in-camera, this was requested but was not included for some odd reason with the transcript at a cost of $400.00
And original and other documentation to support everything this statement says.
Topic This is a completely unfair decision according to the evidence.
Specific Purpose I need to inform the court that this decision was based on violation of Rules and Procedures and negligence of duties. Children’s Services, the Ad Litem and the Court all played parts in this.
Thematic Statement This has been a complete injustice and is not in the best interest of the child.
** Over the last year Sabrina has begged to come home through tears, and the help of friends through 3-way calls (being cut off from all communication with the only family she has ever known in Ohio, she states James Cresswell verbally and mentally abuses her.
Sabrina states James Cresswell made her sit before the family and forced her to eat a number of cigarettes and she did not mention this in court because she states her dad convinced her no one would believe her because she already smoked. Imagine this after being told on and off you can smoke and then you can’t throughout the past year, with them even being bought for you
In July of this year 2007 Sabrina was home, it was getting close to the time she was supposed to return to Louisiana, she adamantly did not want to do this. Even threatening to run away.
We arranged a meeting with Miss Lackey July10 2007, Sabrina told her all that this man had done to her over the past year of knowing him. Again Sabrina was disregarded.
Sabrina wanted to runaway and hide from him, I talked her out of this, this was at least the forth time over the past year since meeting her dad, and I talked her out of running away.
Sabrina then asked me to file for a restraining order.
** I have never abused or neglected my children.
All of them know they are loved.
Investigation revealed no abuse or neglect in our home.
It was determined that Sabrina needed grief-counseling 5-06. Children’s Services Miss Annie Hauck took over our case at this point, instead of arranging in-home counseling, she came to me two weeks straight, the 1st, telling us she contacted James Cresswell, the next week saying if I did not let Sabrina meet him and go there she would put Sabrina in a foster home.
I went to her supervisor Mike Battle about this, he did nothing about it and has since been fired from his position with Children’s Services for allowing his case workers to mishandle cases even to the point of helping Trustin Blue being abused and killed.
Our problems last year were brought on by lack of finances.
Although I do have 50,000 saved right now from back child support owed. I just don’t know when we will get it.
This all started over finances and a time of crisis with two loved ones passing away.
** 1. I intend to show the court that the decision made here is completely unjust.
2. And that it came to be through violations of court rules and procedures.
3. And negligence of duties, and false information.
1 Rights Violated/ Right to Counsel denied
Sup. R. 3 States a Childs right to be represented by counsel at a hearing may not be waived
Juv. R. 30 States that a child must have representation, no one told Sabrina this or even asked her
If she would like to have counsel.
Sabrina specifically asked that Miss Eileen Lackey be taken off her case and not speak for her, this
request was denied.
Sabrina was denied any representation at this hearing and so was I
I had no counsel because Sabrina’s case was immediately closed after she left July 29th of 2006; Even though Children’s Services was supposed to follow-up on Sabrina’s mental health and make sure her new dad did what he said he would. This left me with no choice but to represent myself, I was told twice that Public defenders can not handle private custody cases, and of course since this situation was in part due to financial difficulties and could not afford a lawyer.
We were at a great disadvantage, Mr. Cresswell had two lawyers fighting for him, Miss Perich fought
harder for him than his own attorney Mr. Garvin. I was never informed she an opposing lawyer in this
custody case.
Juv. R. 19 States that this case was to be filed under a different case number, when siblings have different parts
Our Judge was not chosen at random as Rule states it would be. Sabrina does not have the same father as Erika, Andrea and Nina.
2 The entry for this decision was based on false evidence and Mr. Cresswell’s 90% purgeress testimony under oath The Judge decided later in the one-hour trial to contradict himself and decided I could not call Sabrina as a witness.
The weight of evidence in this custody case was absolutely contrary to the decision made.
1 The court ignored the fact that Sabrina cried through the entire in camera at the preliminary hearing, this is not normal.
2 The court completely ignored the fact that in writing and witnessed, this man neglected getting Sabrina a Psychological Evaluation and counseling. James Cresswell did not get Sabrina into counseling until the court suggested by the Judge he do so February 27, 2007, eight months later.
4 Mr Cresswell contradicted himself on the stand stating Sabrina was doing great emotionally and then deciding eight months later, because of her emotional issues that he got her into counseling.
5 This decision was based completely on James Cresswell’s word, he had brought no documentation of Sabrina’s evaluation or counseling in fact he did not even know the counselors name.
6 And the fact that Sabrina was doing well in school again was used against her.
7 Sabrina’s shots have never been neglected, and Mr Cresswell never asked me about it getting her complete shot record.
8 The court ignored Sabrina’s discharge diagnosis from May 2006, and ignored the fact that James Cresswell had discontinued Sabrina’s medication without a doctor’s order as soon as she left home July 29, 2006.
9 Mr. Cresswell Purgered himself on the stand under oath, saying he never gave Sabrina alcohol, when in fact Sabrina and the court entry stated he did. In fact Sabrina stated he gave her a ½ bottle of wine to get drunk on, Sabrina’s brand new step mom said goodnight drunkie.
10 He also purgered himself stating he does not let Sabrina smoke, when Sabrina told me even during the break this very day of the one- hour hearing he and his wife offered her a cigarette downstairs during break before she went into see the judge.
Sabrina stated sometimes she is allowed to smoke and sometimes she is not, when not allowed and caught she is severely punished smoking she is made to eat cigarettes.
11 James Cresswell purgered himself under oath stating he does not use physical punishment, Sabrina states one of the times she was not allowed to smoke, he caught her doing so, he took a big wooden board to her.
12 Again he purgered himself saying he has always paid his child support, the court was given IRS statements, Court contempt charges and a balance right now of 27,000 owed in back child support.
13 The court ignored the fact that Mr Cresswell violated the court order to let me pick Sabrina up on Spring break. No big deal and excepted mr. Cresswells lame excuse.
14 It was established that Mr. Cresswell had never filed a visitation form to meet his daughter, he had abandoned her her whole life, 14 and ½ years.
15 This decision was based on false accusations of untreated mental issues on my part, and the false neglected shot record for Sabrina, and the false statement that that I received 10,000 of the 37,000 in back child support owed, when I did not if the court checked this further, the director of CSEA Miss Barbara Yuegling can verify this, J&FS confiscated it, because around 4 years ago I had received public aid on and off for a total of about five years.
16 I was told I had the right to submit documentation as evidence, and yet Miss Perich objected to almost every piece including the contempt charges against Mr Cresswell and sworn statements all relevant to this issue.
17 At the beginning of the trial I was told I had the right to call Sabrina as a witness and yet when I wanted to call her, The Judge changed his mind, maybe Sabrina would have discredited mr. Cresswell’s testimony.
18 The court told me all the circumstances and evidence would be taken into consideration, this did not happen.
19 Sabrina’s grandpa and uncle dying last year, both of whom she was very close to, was not considered, the fact that she had recently entered her teens on top of this was not considered, the fact that this happened over financial difficulties was not considered. The fact that this is the first time in over 14 years of parenting we had ever encountered these problems was not considered. The fact that I had had established employment with St Joe’s MRDD facility for almost eight months made no difference, the same with establishing new residence for eight months.
Court Rules were Violated
Ham. Juv. R. 19, B Requests to modify pre existing orders shall be by motion.
Mr. Cresswell did not file required documents when filing for custody, he omitted original court orders of child support, and supervision and counseling required for him and custody orders. And he never filed and affidavit identifying missing documents or efforts to secure them.
Mr. Cresswell has never complied with the court order to have supervised visits with Sabrina and parental counseling for up to six months.
There was never a dispositional hearing on Miss Hauck’s threat to place Sabrina in a foster home.
There was never an order of temporary custody from the court and yet Sabrina and I were threatened time and time again by Miss Hauck, her supervisor Mike Battle and Mr. Cresswell if I came to get her out of this environment.
Loc. R. 1.10 States that in a custody case, within 75 days from the date of service the Plaintiff must file A request for custody investigation or on the 76th day the case would be subject to dismissal.
Loc. R. II 2 B states an investigation by a parenting specialist must be done in custody cases.
Mr. Cresswell never filed this required motion and this investigation was never done.
Loc. R. 1.18 There must be a motion filed to terminate a child support order, upon conduct of an oral hearing by the court in review of support.
James Cresswell has never filed a motion to modify change or terminate his child support order, and
yet Miss Hauck stopped his payments for him July 19th 2006 and since then the court order has been
terminated with a balance of 26,000 due even before this decision is made final.
3 Ad Litems negligence of duties
Our case has also been neglected and mishandled by Eileen Lackey the appointed Ad Litem.
Juv.R. VI 30D states that the Guardian Ad Litem has the responsibility of reporting conflict between the desires of the child and her recommendations to the court.
Miss Lackey met Sabrina February 27, 2007 she watched Sabrina sob through the in camera at the preliminary hearing.
15 minutes later she watched Sabrina literally drop to the floor sobbing uncontrollably, at the thought of going back to Louisiana with this man.
Sabrina still was not allowed representation.
Miss Lackey met with Sabrina in Louisiana for 15 minutes, Sabrina told Miss Lackey she was supposed to and wanted to come back home. Sabrina states she was not allowed to be alone with Miss Lackey.
Miss Lackey neglected her duty to tell the court of this conflict and Sabrina was still not offered representation.
Sabrina stated Miss Lackey had her mind made up already, Miss Lackey told Sabrina she was not going home and that her mother is mentally unstable.
Sabrina specifically asked that Miss Eileen Lackey be taken off her case and not speak for her, this request was denied.
I never had a chance to read the report by Miss Lackey; she laid it in front of me when immediately before we were seated before the judge.
Miss Eileen Lackey has had my daughter’s (Temporary due to financial difficulties) Andrea and Nina’s case for 12 months, she has never attempted a conversation with me, she has never sent me a piece of mail, she has never attended a visit between me and my daughters, Andrea and Nina, she has never attended a family meeting either.
The same thing is true of Children’s Services, they have never attended a visit with me or my children, Children’s Services were told in two different court entries to get Andrea and Nina into counseling, and two different entries to investigate contacting my sister. Neither of these was done until 11 months later, July 2007. Melba Marsh’s court apparently frowns on this sort of thing, but not Judge Milazzo’s.
I had talked to Eileen Lackey for the first time February 27, 2007; I approached her after the preliminary hearing outside after
She told me the only reason Andrea and Nina could not come home was because, she had no discharge information from Greater Cincinnati Behavioral, and I told her the case was closed, please check on it. She refused to follow up on this and left the court believing in her report I had undressed mental issues.
This Discharge Summary was accepted into evidence August 7th of 2007.
Sabrina requested a restraining order against Mr. Cresswell August 17th 2007, Miss Lackey and Miss Perich attended this hearing on Mr. Cresswell’s behalf and Miss Lackey called Sabrina a liar.
4 Children’s Services negligence of duties
This case was immediately closed even though it was agreed that Sabrina’s biological father would get her into counseling during this temporary placement and it was to be followed thru with, it was not done or checked on. Sabrina was left alone and isolated 1200 miles away and cut off from all communication with her home and family here in Ohio.
Letting Sabrina meet her biological father, as an alternative to putting her in a foster home was never addressed by the court. The record will show in August of 2006 that all the court stated on this matter was I trust Miss Hauck I have worked with her. The hearing for this threat was overlooked for Miss Hauck’s sake.
Mr. Cresswell could have never filed for custody of Sabrina three weeks after meeting her had this case not been closed for him.
Summary
We have been maliciously persecuted over the last year and punished for going through a difficult
time. I have had to do everything i.e. (specifically intended for my daughter Sabrina, in the temporary agreement) I have done all of this and the Ad Litem and J&FS has attacked me a year now keeping me under supervision with Andrea and Nina and hiding them from me, and more than likely completely neglecting their duties here too. Thank GOD Erika’s dad kept his word, this was to be temporary and Erika is back home.
The agency that was supposed to help has neglected their duties and so has James Cresswell. And yet they are both rewarded.
James Cresswell has no problems purgering himself under oath, what else is he capable of?
He has violated the court order of April 20, 2007 stating Sabrina is to have communication with her mother; he has cut all communication with all family here in Ohio.
He has traumatized Sabrina and she does fear saying anything anymore about his actions.
There is an undeniable foreseeable risk in leaving Sabrina 1200 miles away and isolated with this man and leaving him unaccountable to anyone.
Remarks
Sabrina’s sister Erika is back home the last entry for Andrea and Nina states when my lease is up
next month, I just need to get a bigger apartment.
Sabrina was promised by Annie Hauck there would be no problems in returning home July 27th 2006,
Mr Cresswell Promised Sabrina there would be no problem in coming back home July 29th 2007, with
Sabrina’s grandmother and my sister witnessing this in our living room
After Miss Lackey and Miss Pirich helped Mr Cresswell avoid a restraining order, James Cresswell
told me August 17th to come and pick Sabrina up and take her home. He had had his child support
order terminated, this was all he was concerned about.
I could take Sabrina home on the condition that I filed no more paperwork for child support or
custody.
Of course I could not get Sabrina in school because of the custody issue, this episode was also
ignored.