CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 30, 2007 08:31 PM UTC

Colo $ Multimillion Divorce Industry Driven by Special Interest Groups: The Perfect Business Model

  • 46 Comments
  • by: tiltawhirl

  As, perhaps, everyone knows, divorce in our society is a particularly unpleasant affair –not only for the parties and their children– but also for the courts and attorneys involved.  Our legislators have established reasonable laws and procedures, but they have also created substantial ambiguities that have fostered a thriving divorce industry populated by attorneys, accountants, psychologists and other “experts” who often charge two to three times the hourly rates of their peers. As a direct and proximate consequence, unnecessary pain and suffering is created by a divorce industry, which profits by promoting conflict.
  A serious, albeit low-profile, problem in Colorado, which has been in the making for many years, has brought irreparable harm to children and parents of divorce in Colorado and has unjustly enriched a select few.  Colorado Special Interest groups have managed, not only to influence legislation that grants them immunity and enhances revenue generation (see here) but, also to staff the court rule-making committees and, perhaps even, to have lawsuits against them intercepted in the federal court (see here).
  To take one example –“child and family investigators” (CFIs), appointed pursuant to C.R.S. §14-10-116.5–  are a relatively short list of psychologists who hold themselves out as experts in high confict divorce. 1 They are among the only group of practitioners that is both exempt from licensing board oversight and from civil liability because, according to the Division of Regulatory Agencies, there would be no one willing to do their dirty jobs without such exemptions and immunity. (see here at pp. 46-48 (of 97)).  Judges, who are overwhelmed with busy dockets, frequently delegate the fact-finding portion of their duties to CFIs and almost always adopt (read: rubber-stamp) their recommendations. This expedience comes at a high cost: monitoring professional practice standards and code of ethics of CFIs is left to the appointing judges.  Independent research has revealed that this model has resulted in improper alliances between individual CFIs and individual judges and, which has resulted in appointments, reappointments and free reign without oversight or accountability of any kind.  (see, e.g., here).  Indeed, CFIs are given extraordinary power over parents concurrent with immunity from any civil or criminal liability to the maximum extent permitted by law, and this provides fertile soil for corruption.  Although the courts that appoint child and family investigators are charged with ensuring compliance with the standards, our district judges are disinclined to remedy injuries or even address complaints regarding these experts. There are very, very few instances, where a judge in Colorado has exercised oversight or discipline of a CFI.  On the other hand, many of the complaints filed against CFIs are quite disturbing.(see, e.g, various complaints  filed with Colorado’s Psychologists Examiners Board and allegations re: “Dr. Bill Fyfe” or allegations re: Alvin Brodbeck and Elode Brodbeck (“the Brodbecks”)). The industry is well-organized, well-heeled and underwritten by malpractice insurance carriers, such as the Fireman’s Fund Specialty Insurance.  And no wonder.  A CFI can earn as much  as $43K in just ONE case. (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Yates).
  At the center of this thriving industry is the Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee (MDIC), the de facto lobbying arm for the Colorado Bar Association’s Family Law Section.  The MDIC jointly sponsors monthly symposiums for judges at the Four Points Sheraton in Denver and at lavish hotels in Keystone, Vail, Breckenridge and other resorts.  They purportedly congregate to share information and provide presentations about high-conflict divorce when, in fact, the discussions often focus on how to enforce fee collection; how to strengthen civil immunity, and how to generate more revenue. 

    The Perfect Business Model
  Once part of the courts’ rosters, these psychologists have no advertising costs, are not accountable to their “clients” for services rendered, have no accountability to the State’s regulatory agencies and have no collection costs (because the non-paying or slow-paying parents either are jailed or are deprived of contact with their child[ren] or both).  The success of this model can be measured by the loyalty of the attorneys 2 and judges who continue to appoint them as CFIs, who are able to rely on the court to enforce fee rates that are several times the usual and customary rates in the community.  Cronyism and corruption is fueled by high fees, guaranteed referrals, court enforcement of payments and the absence of accountability. 
  Because there is no executive overview in this model, complaints to Chief Justice Mullarkey will result in a referral to her Standing Committee on Family Issues. (See e.g., this memo from her). What she doesn’t tell the complainant is that over two-thirds of that Committee are staffed by MDIC (read: lobbying group) members. (See here).  Moreover, this is the Committee responsible for drafting the CFI standards, which are published as Chief Justice Directive 04-08


________________
  1 Interestingly, our legislature has also created the court-appointed special advocate (CASA) program under Title 19 and has set higher standards, greater accountability and only relative immunity for volunteers.  Although any judge or magistrate may appoint a CASA volunteer in any action brought pursuant to Title 14, court appointments of child and family investigators are usually made pursuant to C.R.S. §14-10-116.5 and usually name one of a short list of psychologists who charge two to three to seven times the community rate for their peers.  A CASA volunteer appointed under Title 19 is prohibited from accepting any compensation, and directors of CASA programs believe that performance of such duties and responsibilities is incompatible with the role of a court-appointed special advocate/child and family investigator.

  2  Ironically, they and the divorce attorneys with whom they work are the primary beneficiaries of the high conflict that they promote.keywords = Colorado Psychologists Board of Examiners, Grievance Board, Division of Regulatory Agencies, Amos Martninez, Gayle Fidler, MDIC, Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplianry Committee, Interdisciplinary Committee, Susan Elkins, Robert Smith, David Littman, Bill Fyfe, Bill J. Fyfe, William J. Fyfe, William Fyfe, Ed Budd, Edward Budd, Bob LaCrosse, Robert LaCrosse, Dee Brodbeck, Elode Brodbeck, Tom Olbrich, Thomas Olbrich, Bill Strong, Mark Wilmot, Carol Reinert, Jefferson Center for Mental Health, JeffCo Center for Mental Health, Alan Levy, Tom Meehan, Thomas Meehan, Carol Reinert, David Kieffer, Jane Wells, Shelly Bresnick, Loretta Hansen-Higa, Judith Silver, Charles Hazelhurst, social worker, social workers, counselor, counselors, psychologist, psychologists, therapist, therapists, special advocate, special advocates, child and family investigator, child and family investigators, parenting coordinator, parenting coordinators, custody evaluator, custody evaluators, Colorado, complaint, complaints, grievance, grievances, discipline, licensing, license, licensed, Marian Camden, Beth Henson, Elizabeth Henson, Robert Smith, Bob Smith, Albert Bonin, Albert M. Bonin, Lesleigh Monahan, Barbara Salomon, Gina Weitzenkorn, Debbie Mills, Les Katz, Angela R. Arkin, Angela Arkin, Joan H. McWilliams, Russel Murray, Doris B. Truhlar, Marie Moses, Terri Harrington, Brenda Storey, Frank McGuane, Helen Shreves, Stan Lipkin, Stanley G. Lipkin, Jaqueline St. Joan, Robert Malman, Bob Malman, Steve Lass, Dave Johnson, David Johnson, Kathryn Beck, Jackie St. Joan, Ellen Squires

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “Colo $ Multimillion Divorce Industry Driven by Special Interest Groups: The Perfect Business Model”

  1. Larimer County in Colorado has a flat fee for CFI analysis of $1400, and according to a judge there that system works well for them.

    I encourage all counties, or as an addendum to Chief Justice Directive 04-08, to put a similar cap on CFI fees.  Such a cap recognizes the legislative intent that these reports be short and to the point concentrating on the factors within the best interest of the child statute (14-10-124), and limits the abuse of opportunity by professionals given this assignment.

    1. Why is there a cap if the “state” pays….but no cap if the parents are forced to pay?

      Does this mean that “indigent” parents receive inferior services/time spent by the CLR/CFI than those parents who are ordered by the court to pay the fees?

      It seems terribly unfair that some parents incur fees of
      $1,200 per appointment…and others (even those whose income is merely $1 above indigency) can be saddled with fees up to $30,000-$40,000. 

      Can anyone tell me how it could possibly be in “a child’s best interest” to have their entire “college fund” wasted on the fees of a CLR/CFI? 

      1. Can anyone tell me how it could possibly be in “a child’s best interest” to have their entire “college fund” wasted on the fees of a CLR/CFI?

        The answer is, it’s not in a child’s best interests.  It is pure greed.  I have no idea how these people sleep at night, except, perhaps, because they feel that divorcing parents got what they deserved by inviting the court to intervene to settle their dispute in the first place. 

        If what you say is accurate, as a direct and proximate result, CFIs and CLRs become grossly and unjustly enriched and our society, consisting of these kids, who aren’t going to college, becomes poorer.

  2. This is a huge deal as this person has uncovered and now exposed the horribly and impressively corrupt people in the CO family courts.

    I have had the exact same experiences with the court ordered psychologists, where they were holding the custody of my child as ransom for full payment while I was under extreme duress.

    More to the point, I was threatened by two separate CO court appointed psychologists… meaning they told me that if I didn’t pay them they would recommend that I lose all my custody!

    Unfortunately, I don’t have these threats on tape, because I thought it was a one time thing by one psychologist, but boy was I wrong. In light of these ongoing corrupt individuals, I recommend anyone and everyone who is going to go through a parental custody evaluation secretly audio record all sessions with these people. Hopefully someone will catch them. Not sure if this will make a difference, as they are all immune from any wrongdoing, which is also extremely wrong.

    A system of NO checks and balances breads corruption.

    Most all CO appointed family psychologists are corrupt and only care about money and respect. I add respect, because if you disagree with anything they say or challenge them in any way about what you, the parent who has done nothing wrong but get sucked into the family court system solely because your ex-spouse is trying to get sole custody, they will fabricate stories in order to retaliate against you in court recommendations.

    Finally, since the CO Family court judges ALL solely use these psychologists opinions as fact and rely on them for doing all their work, basically the court appointed psychologists RUN the CO family courts. The judges are just their puppets, their ATM and their cover. The children suffer, as the parents go broke trying to just have equal access to their children, and in some cases, any contact with their kids, all of which is just plain criminal and court sponsored child abuse.

    Of course there are cases where the parent should not have contact with the other parent, but simply disagreeing with an arrogant psychologist or not paying them outrageous amounts of money are both NOT reasons for losing custody.  It’s supposed to be about parenting skills, not money or respect. How about some respect for the actual parent.

  3. The State Board of Licensed Professional Counselor Examiners has been rendered impotent and ineffectual by the courts who usurp their jurisdiction when selecting therapists to peform parenting evaluations and reports.  As a result, Colorado has yet another (non)regulating Board and an industry that has carte blanche to commit fraud, exortion, and ethics violations with impunity. While this industry continues to prosper and proliferate, many parents and children are left unprotected and subject to their many abuses.

    A pattern emerges in the State Board’s response to various ethic’s complaints filed against corrupt practitioners.  “Dismissed as we do not have jurisdiction in this matter.”  For a closer look at the failings of this Board, go to KnowYourCourts.com  (http://www.knowyourc…) 

  4. …and think that she is on the take, or gets business from the court because she opines in a certain direction is ludicrous.  As to income, she would laugh at these assertions, she struggles mightily to live modestly.

    I have edited one of her reports and the only “bias” was her conclusion at the end. There is an accusation further down of “lying.”  I’m not going to say that that is impossible or has never happened, but I would put my money on the party (litigant or CFI) that doesn’t have a big emotional dog in the fight. 

    No doubt shit happens from time to time.  But in the overall, it probably works about as well as any human endeavor.

    And what is the alternative? State investigators?  More tax payer funded costs.  And I can assure you, if that were the case, there would still be pissed off people.  Probably crying for private investigators…..

    1.   The answer, plain and simple, is accountability and transparency.  Right now, there is no accountability (see below) and you can’t even look at divorce records in Colorado to find out what’s going on or who’s doing it. (See http://www.knowyourc…).
        The only entity, who is arguing in favor of a continuing lack of accountability and for more expansive immunity is the lobbying group, MDIC, and their representatives. (See e.g., http://www.divorceso… (search for the word “Smith” on that page)).  Anyone else, who is credible, is pointing out that there is *no* accountability (see, e.g., Colo. S. Ct. Commission on Families in the Colorado Courts Final Report, August 2002 (http://www.knowyourc…) (arguing, “A committee should be created, consisting of the various court-related personnel to develop standards of practice in the court context . . . The committee should address the following: . . . assure that the statutory provisions place court-appointed professionals’ accountability for complying with the standards of practice with their professional regulatory board or agency.” ); The Role of the CFI and CLR in Colorado First Ed. (Robert M. Smith ed., CLE in Colo., Inc., Supp. 2005) (http://www.knowyourc…) (“Colorado mental health professionals serving in some court-appointed roles are generally seen as being exempt from grievances[read: regulatory oversight]” Id. at В§ A1.7.6); Division of Registrations, Mental Health Section 2003 “Sunset Review” (http://www.knowyourc…) (acknowledging an unresolved pervasive problem with unaccountable appointees under C.R.S. §§ 12-43-215(7), 14-10-116 & 14-10-127 and recommending that the courts (rather than D.o.R.A.) should take remedial action. Id. at numbered pages 40 – 42 (appearing as pp. 46-48 of 97)).
        Frankly, I can think of no reasonable defense for secrecy and lack-of-accountability for an industry of folks who, many of whom are very wealth and, who have the ability to decide the destiny of families.

      1. Although, The fact that there is no accountability for these court “professionals” and it has blossomed into a racket-it is just the tip of the iceburg.  The only dog that the state should have in the hunt is “the best interest of the child” but they shot that dog a long time ago in favor of the money dog (federal incentives) that are created under CSE(title IV part D program), see
        http://www.custodyre…

        This simply allows the state to make money by seperating parents from their children and making one parent a paying visiting parent.  This flies in the face of all contempory studies that show that children do the best when they are allowed equal access to both parents. 

        Other states are beginning to recognize that the divorce/ custody  industry needs overhauling.  Colorado is way behind on any efforts to change.  Perhaps it is because it has a higher per capita ratio of lawyers and court “professionals” than many states that have  3 to 10 times the population of Colorado. Go to the link above and read “see through the CSE (Title IV-D program)smokescreen”-its an eye opener.

  5. The entire system is about nothing more than greed.

    The best interest of the children plays no role in the Colorado Family courts and the CFIs want to keep the conflict rolling for as long as humanly possible to keep the funds rolling in. Unless they have taken the big payoff in the beginning from one parent, in which case you’ll at least get a report in a timely manner, you’ll lose your kids, but it at least it won’t be drug out for over a year.

    The Family Court Judges are complacent on their best day and any inkling of common sense has left them. The reality is, that the child goes to the highest bidder, the cash cow if you will. In Colorado if you are in a custody battle and you or the courts have interjected a CFI in to your case, your children are for sale. A parent’s alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, criminal record or psychiatric conditions carry no weight to a Colorado CFI or a Judge, as they simply rubber stamp any recommendation made by a CFI even when corruption is apparent, even when other professionals in the same field working on the same case have concluded that “Money changed hands in this case”. The Judge will ignore it, as they have no desire to take on work that they have sucessfully pawned off onto counselors.

    In the mean time, children are being split from their parents, often times, put with the alcoholics, drug addicts, pedophiles, abusers. Why? Because they had the cash on hand.

    For those who think that there is no corruption – you have never been through the family court system with CFI involvement or your post would be right below mine.

    These CFIs and their acts are being listed on the Internet, the most complete list I have seen to date is knowyourcourts.com and I only wish I had seen it before I spent my first day with Custody Evaluator Carol Reinert.

    Luckily, I quickly found many parents that have been through very similar circumstances, luckily we have the Internet, luckily parents are finding us and getting the “Rules of Engagement” before they ever speak with a CFI the first time. They are getting the real information that they need, not to combat the ex’s but for both of them to combat the CFI, as they are the real danger to their children and their families.

    If a Professional handed you a disclosure and the first page in bold red letters said

    “I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR KIDS, MY GOAL IS TO EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY BANKRUPT BOTH PARENTS”

    would you still think it was a good idea?
    There’s information no one else is going to share with you.

    1. I’m sure that in any system there are bad apples, but I’m willing to bet that most CFI’s are not “in it for the money” and make recommendations in the best interest of the child. In my District, CFI’s appointed by the court receive a retainer that is under $1,000. Indigent parents can apply for state aid to pay the CFI, who accept these cases at a reduced rate.  The appointed CFI’s are lawyers, psychologists, social workers, and therapists. Judges take their recommendations seriously, but often make small and large changes in their rulings based on their own opinions and experience. I’ve heard some dumb CFI recommendations, but I’ve never heard of a CFI being “bought”, or of having judges in their pockets. I’ve also never heard of a single child being kept from a parent based on unpaid CFI fees. CFI’s regularly get stiffed by one or both parents and no CFI is getting rich off of these cases. I’d be very surprised if these things are much different in other areas of the state. 

      Could more be done to screen CFI’s and improve standards for appointments? Probably. The State came up with “The Role of the Child and Family Investigator” last year and more screening and accountability standards are being discussed, but this is a relatively new system. The goal is to get more information to the judge than he/she is able to glean from the bench.

      Many people who cry corruption, cronyism, or greed simply didn’t get the results they wanted in court.  They shoot the messenger instead of looking at what they did to bring about the result. 

      1. I have met licensed professional counselors who appear to be very honest and caring individuals and that is obviously why they chose their profession.  I can understand their indignation about the seemingly blanket criticisms being thrown at their profession here.  As with any profession, however, there are good and bad individuals. Unfortunately today, there are enough bad CFI’s in Colorado to warrent this discussion. For your benefit, a collection of formal complaints has been displayed at KnowYourCourts.com for your perusal.
          http://www.knowyourc…

        These complaints alleging misconduct, ranging from fraud and extortion to ethics violations, against CFI’s in Colorado represent a small fraction of individuals employed by the courts for family counseling and evaluations we agree. If you do examine these complaints,however, you will notice that all but one were dismissed primarily due to the assertion by the State Psychologist Licensing Board that they have no jurisdiction. In other words the courts have usurped their jurisdiction under present law and these individuals now are granted total impunity to any and all allegations of misconduct including ethics violations. This leaves the parents and children totally at the mercy of corrupt practitioners in some cases and that is what we have addressed at KnowYourCourts.com and have attempted to address here.

        Have you ever encountered a situation where absolute power did not corrupt absolutely?

         

        1. It looks like there have been 25 complaints made with 24 dismissals since 2001.  In addition, three practitioners are listed multiple times, reducing the total number of “bad apples” out of the 25. Maybe I’m missing something, but that doesn’t seem too bad considering the number of CFI appointed cases in the past six years. 

          1. Lauren, these complaints are not released to us by the Grievance Board  –they are exempt –don’t ya know– from the Colorado Open Records Act.  These few that we’ve been able to collect and post surely represent less than 1% of the total complaints filed.

            So, no, these are not a mere 23 or 25 isolated bad apples.  If we had access to all the complaints, you’d see a much different picture.  I note that the Sunset Review even complains about the volume of complaints that they have to deal with (See http://www.knowyourc… at numbered pp. 40-42 (pp. 46-47 (of 98)).

            Note also that the Grievance Board tried to browbeat us into self-censorship by misrepresenting the statute relating to their Open Records Act exemption (see http://www.knowyourc…) –obviously, they’re more interested in protecting this group than in protecting the public.

      2. Lauren, I don’t intend to sound patronizing but, I appreciate your posts (those that I’ve read in the last three weeks since I came online).
          Our focus has been on larger metropolitan areas (Denver & Colo. Springs), so I can’t admit or deny what happens in rural areas or in your county.  In the metro areas that are the subject of our study (and scrutiny), any parents, who have any assets, will be most assuredly be divested of those assets. This is a growth industry. It’s big business,  Almost axiomatically, if divorcing parents have any money at all and, if there is the dissolution is contested, a CFI (or CLR or PC or all of the above) is appointed.  Certainly, CFI/PC Bill J. Fyfe has been arguing for such expanded roles, power and court dependence on them (http://www.knowyourc…)  We don’t know about the indigent cases –I suspect it’s unusual for CFIs to be appointed in those cases b/c, under the applicable CJD, they only get $20 per hour –needless to say, very few would be willing to work for that. 
          The literature (set forth in my original post and, which we didn’t author) is very clear that there is no meaningful accountability.
          Also, in your post, you commented that, “I’ve never heard of a single child being kept from a parent based on unpaid CFI fees.”  Well, let us introduce you to one, Gordon Standyck.  The transcript is here:  http://www.knowyourc…(original).pdf  Ordinarily, I wouldn’t expect you’d want to read something like this but, because you made the statement, I hope you’ll take the time to do so.  But, to save you some time, the CFI (Thomas Meehan) testified that the father should have no contact with his daughter, because father had not yet paid him a $1,500 retainer (“I would say it is unwise to have the child visiting the father, since he is being entirely uncooperative with the court order. Uh, and I would say that, until he makes the first step towards being cooperative [i.e., pays me], there should be no contact between [the father] and his daughter”). Id. at 12.  Yet, Meehan repeatedly admitted under cross-examination, “I am not aware of any of the details of your case, Mr. Stadnyck.” Id. at 15.  Father testified that he had contacted Meehan on numerous occasions and offered to make payments.  Testifying for the CFI, who was the judge’s friend and had called him about the case at his home the Sunday night before (http://www.knowyourc…),  the judge said that, “He’s not in the loan business.”  (See this transcript at p. 131: http://www.knowyourc…).

        In short, these examples are just a couple that have fallen into our lap.  There must be hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of others that we don’t even know about.  Attorneys or parents, we suspect, recommend that, if they want to see their kids, they not raise any objections.  Other parents don’t know how to deal with these circumstances and haven’t found us to share their stories.  Many, whom I’ve spoken with, have sad stories but would rather just forget and we will never be able to tell their stories, because we have no corroboration (as a general rule, we only post information about which we have actual data, such as the transcript examples).

        In conclusion, those of us, who, “cry corruption, cronyism, or greed,” do so from a reasonably objective standard (rather than a purely subjective standard).

        1. You don’t sound patronizing at all, so no worries.  I appreciate your point of view and information provided.  I am certain there are always bad apples in every field, who violate the rules and victimize others. It is especially unfortunate when this occurs to children and families. I fully support identifying and eliminating, even prosecuting when warranted, CFI’s who commit fraud or make recommendations that are clearly not in the child’s best interest. I don’t assume; however, that every parent who makes a claim of corruption, bias, cronyism, or any impropriety, is correct in their beliefs.  There is something already awry when parents cannot work together to make decisions about their own children and choose instead to have a total stranger assess the situation and make recommendations.  Sometimes the problems are small, mis-communications are quickly resolved and the parents get back on track, but other times one or both parents are significantly impaired by any number of issues.  It is not surprising that these people will then feel victimized and make complaints about the recommendations made. 

          I would only caution you to remember that not every complaint is valid and I would suspect that a good number are not. 

          1. I agree that not every complaint is valid.  In fact, for us, weeding out those that are invalid is a difficult task.  However, I will point out here that it takes only *one* parent to create an acrimonious, contentious divorce.  If that parent is uncooperative with any and all aspects of the process then, by definition, the process is contentious.  Many (but not all) CFIs leverage this acrimony and, in some cases, manage (perpetuate) it, because without acrimony and without “problems,” they aren’t needed.

      3. One of the links I supplied you is rendered by ColoradoPols as a broken link, b/c it doesn’t recognize brackets or parens in a URL.  The transcript that I was trying to point you to is located on this page: http://www.knowyourc…

        1. and I’m only getting a blank screen when I try to open it.  When he says the father is being “entirely uncooperative with the court order” is he speaking of a court order that only states his need to pay his retainer, or is he talking of all of the court order pertaining to a number of things the judge has ordered?

          1. he’s referring to an order to pay him a full retainer (not partial payments), as necessary to initiate a CFI investigation.  The implication is that, without the CFI implication, there could be truth to mother’s assertion that parenting time with father was somehow harmful.  The CFI posited that his involvement was necessary to ascertain the truth or falsity of her allegations and that, until father cooperated with the order (paid him the full retainer to begin that process), the father should have no contact with his child.

            If you’re not able to see the PDF, it may be that you’re using an older version of Acrobat.  Download ver. 8 free from http://www.Adobe.com/reader.

      4. In your post, you also wrote that you’ve, “never heard of a CFI being “bought”, or of having judges in their pockets.”

        Here’s the statement of a CFI, reporting about another CFI who defected and discussing, “how disenchanted she has become with the legal system . . .[which] . . . convinced her that custody litigation was not about the truth. . . although she has worked in the field of custody evaluation for 15 years, completing more than 400 evaluation and enjoying a good reputation, she elected to quit this type of work . . . she expressed disillusionment with the legal system and mental health professionals . . .  because of what she perceives to have been ethical violations of the most acreages [sic.] kind.  [She] stated that ‘money changed hands in this case that allowed the outcome that did not reflect the best interests of these children.  I can’t be a part of the system that can be bought and sold.’ ”  http://www.knowyourc…

        How many CFIs would dare to risk their careers by making such a statement. If this one did so, how many more are there, who remain silent?

        Also, the case of Harrington v. Fyfe, et al. (http://www.knowyourc…) is, indeed, a case where the judge, apparently, is in the CFI’s pocket (according to the Complaint (http://www.knowyourc…)).

      5. Unfortunately your statement that many people just didn’t get the results they wanted in court is as simplistic as saying that CFIs in Colorado aren’t being bought off.

        Fortunately for myself and my child. I got exactly what I was asking for. So explain that. I have custody of my child, as a matter of fact, the recommendation was that my ex only receive “Supervised visitation”. I could have taken my custody and gone home.

        Unfortunately what I experienced along this journey was out and out corruption. Does money pass hands, of course it does, to believe that it does not, is ludicrous. 

        So, because I am a person who has moral standards and feels that children should not be for sale, I work at educating parents.

        Because the reality is, children should not be pulled from normal loving homes to have sole custody given to a junkie, a drunk, a pedophile or an abuser and it happens.  Or sole custody is given to one parent, when in actuality both parents should have equal parenting time.  So did money pass hands or are the CFIs just vile individuals who enjoy hurting children.

        But you are certainly entitled to your belief that there is no corruption.

        And I am entitled to mine that says there is an innordinate amount of corruption in the CFI role.

        The role of CFI is not new, it just has a new name, in fact the complaints, insane recommendations, and yes corruption by CFIs, Custody Evaluators, Parenting Coordinators, Special Advocates or whatever name you want to strap on them this week have been going on for over a decade. And yes, they are talking about it, just like they did a decade ago.

        And yet, here we are, parents conversing with parents whose children are grown and gone discussing the same corruption that was taking place 10 years ago. I’m convinced they are right on top of “Fixing” this problem.

        $1,000.00 retainer, looks good in court, perhaps you would like to explain how so many of us got 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, $70,000.00 bills for our “Evaluation” Then had to spend another 70, 80, 90, $100,000 + in legal fees to undo a rubberstamped recommendation that had nothing to do with what was best for the child. Our collective experience has been that Judges are not interested enough to make changes, small or large.

        What fantasy district do you live in, we all want to move there.

        1. I think true corruption is the exception, you seem to believe it is the rule.  It doesn’t matter which district I live in, you’d probably see corruption anywhere you lived.

          There is a difference in price between a custody evaluation and a CFI evaluation.  I was referring to CFI evaluations.

          1. Again, it is not just me seeing corruption, I have spoken with parents from all over the entire state from Fort Collins to Durango and received a letter from a parent in Vail just this morning. Parents from cities up and down I-25, the facts are it isn’t just one parent, it’s a lot of parents, not all of them have lost custody, I am not the only custodial parent, in fact a good portion have kept custody, at a hefty price. There are simply too many to say that it rarely occurs. I think corruption with CFIs, is the rule, not the exception and I am not alone, many, many, many parents, again too many parents, also think it.

            And there is no difference between a custody evaluator or a CFI the term Custody Evaluator was discontinued with the term Child and Family Investigator replacing it.

            1.   . . . I spoke with a person earlier today, who does CFI work in Colorado.  That person explained that s/he “is very uncomfortable with most of the people,” in this business and concurring (beyond what I had said) that “most of them”  are unscrupulous and greedy. S/he explained, “that’s why I took a break from it for a long time, because it just made me sick.”  Obviously, I’m not going to compromise his or her identity, but I do hope that s/he logs onto ColoradoPols, creates an account and tells everyone in his/her words why s/he takes very little CFI work.  Yes, it’s a tough job but, if you have a heart of stone, you can make a hell of a lot of money and most do.
                I think that the explanation in the DoRA Sunset Review (http://www.knowyourc…) explaining the necessity of the exemption of accountability (and training requirements) for CFI’s is a tacit admission that the most greedy, unscrupulous sector of the mental health practitioner community has been unleashed upon our children.  After, if not for the money, who else would take the assignment?  The report states:

              “Perhaps even more troubling is the issue of special advocates. Section 14-10-116(2)(b), C.R.S., defines the scope of what a special advocate’s role is, but provides little, if any, guidance as to the qualifications for a special advocate. In fact, . . .[a]nyone can serve as a special advocate. . . .On the other hand, the justification for the exemption is valid.  Mental health professionals, who accept these appointments, are thrust in situatinos in which one of the parties is likely to be unhappy with the outcome. . .they are working with parties, who have already demonstrated their propensity to litigant and to seek the intervention of the legal system. . . [R]epea] [of the exemption] is inadvisable for at least two reasons.  First, these are high-risk appointments and many mental health professionals accept these appointment becuase they know they cannot be grieved. . . Repealing the exemption would very likley result in a diminishing pool of individuals willing to accept these crucial appointments.”

              The obvious question for me is, what kind of “professional” would seek or accept an appointment because they know they cannot be grieved?  Perhaps an unscrupulous professional?  Perhaps a professional, who would exchange a favorable parenting time recommendation (almost always adopted by the courts  –let me spare you from the case law) in exchange for sexual favours?  Perhaps a professional, who can put whatever contract in front of a parent that he wants, charge whatever he wants and violate the contract with impunity, because he believe that he cannot be sued (see e.g. RE: Bill J. Fyfe (http://www.knowyourc…))?

      6. LB: Many people who cry corruption, cronyism, or greed simply didn’t get the results they wanted in court.  They shoot the messenger instead of looking at what they did to bring about the result.
        =======================================================
        There is a palpable difference between those who simply “didn’t get the results they wanted,” and those who didn’t get the results they deserved on account of identifiable acts of lawlessness.  For instance, when a judge decides a case in which she is a defendant in tort, shouldn’t that shock the conscience?  Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “No man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third.”  Our state legislature went even further, imposing an affirmative obligation upon judges to recuse themselves in cases when they had a personal interest in the outcome: “Any judge who knows of circumstances which shall disqualify him in a case shall, on his own motion, disqualify himself.” As the Colorado Supreme Court explained a century ago:

        The first ideal in the administration of justice is that the judge must be free from bias and partiality.  Men are so agreed on this principle that any departure therefrom shocks their sense of justice. … We are equally certain that when … a judge is prejudiced or otherwise incompetent to hear or try a cause, but nevertheless, proceeds in that regard, the issues are not likely to be determined and the rights of the parties properly protected and enforced in a court over which he presides.#

        Can you honestly tell us that the losing party in this case doesn’t have something legitimate to gripe about?

        I’d like to think that most people (at least, those without a horse in the race, like Cuervo and Shiloh appear to have) have enough innate common sense to distinguish between the two.  Examples of honest and conscientious public servants do not negate the acts of a Mark Paschall, nor should we be blind to the fact that the Mark Paschalls exist. 

        1. Absolutely.  I said “many people who cry…” not all people.  There are legitimate claims, but there are also disgruntled parents who, for a myriad of reasons, do not get the result they want in court.  Many times they are responsible for the result but do not take responsibility for their actions. We must be careful to listen to those with grievances, but still be able to weigh the evidence in each case. 

          1. So why do we not hear or see any of those legitimate claims?  Why are they not addressed by any of the organizations that are supposed to provide oversite where those claims have been filled? No one is listening to the grievences or they are being ignored or covered up. That is the problem.  Wirl mentioned that Chief Justice Malarkey passed down the word that people have been complaining. It is kind of like, Oh-Oh we have been caught in the act and folks are starting to watch us. To me that just signals that there will be less light of day on the subject.  I could be wrong-but I have come to distrust anything that these “professionals” do.  That distrust comes from experience dealing with these people and the racket that they have going.

            “there are also disgruntled parents who, for a myriad of reasons, do not get the result they want in court.”

              The system is set up so that one parent will be the looser and one the winner. I just defies reason that in Colorado 90 to 93% of custody cases are decided in the mothers favor.  I wish someone could explain that to me.

             

      7. I fought my ex for 8 months to get a CFI for my children, and finally we got one.  He’s abusive, which is why I filed for divorce, but also a diagnosed sex addict, and I just couldn’t live through his attempts at recovery.  For a year, I had the CFI’s report recommending that I have full custody, and sole decision making for our 2 young girls, because of the abuse  Because our divorce took so long, the CFI needed to update his report.  I had evidence, from my ex’s financials that showed he had been active in his addiction for the past 16 consecutive months, and submitted that evidence on a Monday, the same day that the CFI stated to me and my attorney that he was strongly standing by his original recommendation, that I still have full custody and decision making.  The next Wednesday morning, 36 hours later, his updated report came out.  He had omitted the evidence I brought to him, falsified reports, misquoted the children’s counselor (which I confirmed with their counselor) and flip-flopped, recommending that my husband have 50/50 custody and 50/50 decision making.  We found out that after talking with the CFI and submitting the evidence, on Monday, my ex met with the CFI, later that afternoon.  We don’t know why, but evidently whatever happened in that meeting, the CFI changed the recommendation that he had stood by for a year, and led him to sabotage documentation in his report to justify his findings.  How could he do such a thing, knowing all that he knew!!?

        Although I’m sure there are some fine CFI’s, there are also those who can be unethically persuaded.  We didn’t get the outcome that we wanted, but that doesn’t mean that we deserved this horrific outcome! The truth is, my children deserved protection. They deserve to be treated right, and they deserve to live without fear.  They would have been better off, had I stayed in the marriage, at least I would have been able to intervene.  Now there is no one to step in and stop him.  No one can hear them.  No one is listening, until they come home.  And now if I complain, I’m just angry because I didn’t get the result I wanted?  Even one bad CFI is worth our attention.  Because one bad CFI keeps one child at risk.  You can’t really mean that “one” is not enough…”one” child is not worthwhile?  If there is “one” that you KNOW of, there are hundreds you’re unaware of…as you didn’t know about mine, until now…and they are wonderul and deserving of having a good childhood, with their spirits intact, don’t you think?

  6. Many people, particularly those in power, need to take notice and come to the aid of our children caught in the machinations of the system in divorce cases, and not merely passively participate in abusing children further via unprofessional, if not blatantly negligent work.  For examples, see dadstory.com among a growing number of sites dedicated to bringing to light current family court buffoonery sequestered under cover of statutory immunity of investigators and in the recesses of courtrooms that don’t allow outside recording devices.

    CFI Steve Gimpel, not even of consistent current professional licensure in recent years, claimed on the stand that he didn’t have a copy of a statute (the one on custody determination factors) just read to him while he held it in his own hands a moment beforehand, that he couldn’t remember a case in which he recommended the father get custody, and that the courts had let our family down.  He testified in all seriousness that his findings about medications and medical conditions superceded those of medical doctors. 

    CFI Edie Israel didn’t bother to show up in court at the appropriate time on a properly served subpoena, nor did she feel like honoring the order to produce her ink-blot picture and drawing-based anecdotal records.  According to her, they were only for trained psychologists and not subject to the law. 

    Judge Carol Glowinsky cannot tell the difference between petitioners and respondents, liberally mixing up the terms in her orders.  See the publicly accessible records in Boulder: 05DR1202.  She ruled that a “fair” hearing was categorically barring one side’s expert witness testimony, but introducing the other’s at the last minute, and not allowing any cross-examination of witnesses.  Judge Carol Glowinsky ruled in favor of contact between the non-custodial parent and children, then later published contradictory permanent orders that barred all contact on a practical level, refusing to answer motions for clarification.  This is called slow-rolling someone out of an answer.  Judge Glowinsky, by her own exclamation in court, didn’t capture court recordings for a large chunk of our hearings.  But if there was no court reporter, then why is there a fee to an outside agency for the records?

    Colorado’s idea of due process of law is to arrest a man over one fictitious claim to 9-1-1 of ‘he threatened “let me in or I will hurt you,” if I did not let him in’ (upon his return to his own house after police had already responded earlier and recommended that he return later after she cooled down).  Colorado; come on vacation, leave on probation!!!

    Colorado’s idea of a constitutional right to an appeal is to require $2500 for records already allowed on two previous findings of indigence of the parties.  Is all this how a civilized society cares for children and justice?  See http://www.dadstory.com

  7. Lauren-The sad thing is that there is a big problem with the system. Read my first post in this thread.  The system of the family courts in this state is BAD.  It is full of bias, greed, and yes corruption.  Over 40% of all litigation in this state is in the family courts. Wirl stated that divorce is an unpleasant affair for all concerned. If you are involved in a divorce you are emotionally bankrupt and the way Colorado family courts work (if you have children) you will soon be on the verge of financial bankruptcy. The courts order you to go through mediation-that costs you-and is really wasted money, time, and effort.  Lets face it-if one party refuses to mediate what is the use and the court can only order you to go-it can not order you to mediate.  Also if a couple could mediate their differences they would not be in an accromonious divorce.  Then the court will order a custody evaluation usually by a CFI-that costs you.  Judges tend to appoint the same CFI’s over and over again that submit the type of report that judge likes to see. That CFI will take in to consideration the judges bias, after all they like the steady employment. The amount of money paid to these professionals in my particular case would have paid for almost 2 years of college for one of my kids.
      It all boils down to one thing-Divorce is big business in Colorado and everyone who can get a piece of the action is against any change in the system.  Some states have recognized that divorce does not have to be this way.  Who would have thought that Iowa would be more progressive on the issue than Colorado.  Iowa is the first state to enact laws of presumed equal custody and shared parenting. There are other states that are looking at the Iowa model.  Colorado needs to stop ruining childrens lives with the draconian model it is using and adopt the civilized model that Iowa has.  All contemporary studies show that children respond the best when they have equal access to both a mother and a father.
    Don’t you think that is best?

    1. best interest of the child.  Fifty fifty is definitely a good presumption, and then other factors come into play; age of the child, safety issues, school and location issues, parental involvement, etc. etc. 

      Mediation is overused I agree, but generally it is an attempt to get the parties to resolve issues prior to the appointment of a CFI.  (There is also State funding for mediation for lower income parties) There should definitely be a limit to what CFI’s can charge though as I’m sure some will milk it over what is necessary. 

      What is the Iowa model you speak of?  You only mention a presumption on the outset of 50/50. What does Iowa do with conflict between the parties during divorce?

      1. Lauren see
        http://www.legis.sta…
        The big difference is that at seperation hearings the presumption of equal is used.  That is not the case in Colorado.  I know that in my case at the seperation hearing my X was given custody and I received EOW visitation without any investigation or comment. The divorce took over a year and when the judge made the custody decission he based it on the fact that the children were used to living with their mother and he was not going to change that.  Montana has also passed legislation that defines  what a fit parent is.
        http://data.opi.mt.g…
          Combination of the two would be a better system.
        The best interest of the child is a noble idea, but some have said that is like asking the meaning of life.  Unfortunately the best interests of the child has become a catch 22 in the state of Colorado. I ask you, do you really think that the family court system in Colorado really is operating in the best interests of the child?

        1. and when I see mistakes made, it is generally based on an inexperienced Magistrate, Judge, or CFI.  It is not based on a lack of desire for the best interests of the child.  Ultimately, the recommendations and decisions made are subject to human error, and so “best interest” will never be an exact science.  Arbitrary percentages won’t help much, because there are too many variables in each case to always be able to evenly divide the baby down the middle, so to speak.

           

          1.   Please consider contacting me offline (tipLine at KnowYourCOURTSdotCom).  I’ve watched with some interest your comments and it appears as `though you do some work in this industry and have a bit more faith in the system than, perhaps, we do.
              Hopefully, I’ve addressed most of your suspicions  –each time you’ve raised an eyebrow at some claim, I’ve provided you with some evidence to support the claim.  However, we recognize that there may be some change in the air.  One of us recently attended an “Advanced family Law” update for CLE for CFIs and walked away with a few  observations that surprised us, because they corroborated some of our own complaints and appeared to acknowledge the need for improvements.  However, despite the corroboration, none of the consonant statements does any justice to the nature of the trangressions alleged against Bill J. Fyfe (http://www.knowyourc…), Dee Brodbeck (http://www.knowyourc…), Carol Reinert, and others featured at KnowYourCOURTS.com.  Our observations from the CLE include the following:
              (I) Judge Lael Montgomery asserted a couple of important conclusions: (A)  We don’t need CFI’s in every case. We don’t need to put that expense on families. What judges need to do is listen to parents at a hearing and try to come up with a parenting plan without automatically assigning a CFI; and (B) In cases where a CFI is needed it might only be for a single issue, in that case the court order for CFI duties should have a narrow focus, and to keep costs down not automatically doing psych. evals.  Everyone is doing a full evaluation these days; that
            was never the intent of the statute.  CFI’s have a  responsibility to not do a full evaluation if one is not needed.
              II. The moderator observed that there exists a concern that CFI’s get way too much power and their opinions get rubber stamped.  He also commented on the lack of accountability.
              III. Judge Dupree commenting on whether parenting
            would get restricted in a contempt for failure to pay the CFI; “Are we going to take the kids away for contempt to pay the CFI, of course not.” [ed. However, that did happen in the Stadnyck trnascript cited in my prev. post, surpa].  She also commented that judges tend to appoint the same CFI’s over and over.
              IV. An audience member attorney-CFI commented that
            CFI’s lie about their record of recommendations on
            cases when pressed on gender or relocation issues.
            Unless one is inside the circle, one doesn’t know which
            CFI’s are father-friendly or mother-friendly.
              V. Theresa Spahn commented that there are groups of
            parents [i.e., the KnowYourCOURTS.com contributors] who are complaining about CFI bias and lack of accountability, and “knocking on the door” of Justice Mullarkey.

              We will publish a full report regarding our impressions from the CLE on our Divorce Industry page of KnowYourCOURTS.com in the near future.  Also, we’re working on a law review article, which is tentatively entitled, “The Role of the CFI and CLR in Colorado: A Guide to Causes of Action, Arguments and Remedies,” which will be made available sometime in the next few months.

      2. The problem with the “best interest of the child” standard is that it is an engraved invitation to arbitrary decisionmaking, and that is the fetid environment in which corruption can and invariably does flourish.  The easiest way to fix this problem is to take discretion away from the judges.  It may result in the odd injustice, but it can hardly be worse than the current regime.

        1. The court in  Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1998) said this about the so-called best interests standard:

          Besides the constitutional infirmity, there is an inherent problem with utilizing a best interest analysis as the basis for government interference in the private lives of a family, rather than requiring a showing of demonstrable harm to the child. It permits the State to substitute its own views regarding how a child should be raised for those of the parent. It involves the judiciary in second-guessing parental decisions. It allows a court to impose “its own notion of the children’s best interests over the shared opinion of these parents, stripping them of their right to control in parenting decisions.”

          (quoting Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271, 1276 (Fla. 1996)(quoting Hawk, 855 S.W.2d at 582 (quoting Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 582 (Tenn. 1993))).

          1. when parents turn that decision making over to the judiciary.  When parents sit down with each other or through a mediator and devise their own parenting plan based on their child’s best interest, the judiciary signs off on their judgement.  No court or CFI can substitute in a finite amount of time for a parent’s judgement about the needs of their own child.  When one or both parents choose this route, they get an imperfect substitute. 

            1. Where I practice, the judge usually starts the hearing with something like this “YOU are the parents of the children involved in this case.  I am not the parent of those children, I am a stranger in your life and will make a decision based on the limited amount of information that is presented to me in this hearing.  As parents, you must put aside your personal difference and take responsibility for crafting an arrangement that is in the best interest of YOUR children.  That’s best done if both of YOU can reach agreement on issues affecting YOUR children.  I can guarantee you only one thing, if we go to trial and I make that parental decision for you, you likely will be both be disappointed in the result.”

              Smart clients/attorneys usually ask for a recess to see whether they can reach a settlement.

              Unfortunately, very few litigants actually hear what the judge says and prefer to fight it out in court rather than settle matters themselves. Most are convinced that there’s only one “right” way to see the case and they are sure to “win.”  Many are only interested in fighting with their spouse, don’t care about the impact on their kids, and use the court as a public forum for telling the world what a crummy spouse they chose.  As the judge predicts, they often end up deeply dissatisfied with the decision and the attorney they hired to solve their marital problems.

              2. . . . so I assume that you two are in the same county but, I completely agree and wish the hell it was made more often by more judges.  I believe that an intellectually honest attorney will do everything possible to advise his client to steer clear of resolving a dispute in court, even `though he may make less money.  When resolution is left to the court, not only will one or both parties be very displeased with the outcome but, also it’s an invitation for the State to intervene, intercede and govern every intimate area of personal life like few other areas of law can afford.
                  The problem is, as discussed in my original post, the attorneys make money (billable hours) off the acrimony (Grotman & Thomas, 1990).  In fact, one of my attorney-clients, who is a family law attorney, admitted to me that she has received calls from opposing counsel offering to perpetuate the acrimony in order to increase the billable fees for both of them.  Of course, she stated that she declines these suggestions whenever they come in.

  8. A judge may appoint a CLR/CFI sua sponte for any reason to “assist the court” in making a decision—but the judge doesn’t have to pay for the fees of the appointee—the parents get stuck with the bill. 

    If the judge is so incredibly inept that he/she cannot make a decision with the evidence before the court, the judge is unfit to hold the position and should be removed from the bench. 

    If the judge needs “assistance”—the judge should pay for the “assistance” he/she receives. If either parent requests this unnecessary expense…the requesting parent should pay for it.

    It is a certainty that if “the judge” had to pay for these “whores of the court” to “assist” him/her, there would be a far fewer appointments!

  10. Hosted in Breckenridge, Colorado on August 10 through 12, the “institute” is an annual celebration for all those folks, who make money off of Colorado’s children of divorce! This year’s “Institute” features:

  11. HOT TOPICS, a fast paced Friday afternoon session (back by popular demand!)
  12. Updates, updates and more updates!
  13. More than 12 informative sessions to choose from!
  14. Colorado’s top presenters in the legal and mental health professions
  15. Networking and social events
  16. A great location for the whole family! (for those families still intact)
  17. Presented by our state’s premier lobbying groups (the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association and the Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee) and the Colorado Bar Association CLE!

    18. Here is the brochure in PDF format.

    While we’re on the subject of everyone’s favorite legal junket, if you’d like to learn more about the problem of seminars or “junkets for judges” from H.A.L.T., click Here.  A year-2000 study by the Community Rights Counsel (C.R.C.) regarding the issue of junkets for judges is located Here and, in fact, an entire Web site dedicated to the subject of junkets for judges is Here.

    1. tiltawhirl, please help me find any information you can about Bill Fyfe. Links I try are all broken! Where can I find out what complaints have been filed against him??

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

57 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!