So Much for Parental Rights
by Linda Sanders, Paralegal



Last autumn, The Rocky Mountain News published two stories about how important it is to protect the relationship between mothers and children1 and fathers and children2 even when the parent is imprisoned.

“Just because a parent made a bad choice (i.e., stole a car, dealt and/or used illegal drugs) doesn’t mean they’re exempt from parenting their kids,” states Ann Adalist-Estrin, director of the National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated. These imprisoned mothers get overnight visitation because it “gives mothers and children much-needed one-on-one time to make, mend and maintain relationships .”

Oh to be a felon with protected parental rights!

Whereas a review of this website demonstrates that many Colorado judges facilitate one parent's artifice in using the child[ren] to annihilate the other parent, I ask, “How do felons have more rights than law-biding parents?”

Title 14 –I’m sure readers of this web site are familiar with this body of law– is applied totally under the discretionary rubric of “best interests” as opposed to Title 19 – The Children’s Code. The Legislature has made plenty of suggestions in Title 14 (see CRS 14-10-104.5) regarding parental rights – but all such suggestions can be, and are, routinely ignored by a judge (which looks pretty suspicious to me). In contrast, Title 19 imposes very strict parameters upon the court when deciding how long to keep a parent from a child:
C.R.S. 19-3-604 identifies all the conditions necessary before a parent’s rights can be affected, to wit:
(a) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent abandoned the child in excess of 6 months;
(b) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent’s identity is unknown;
(c) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit through alcohol abuse or drug abuse;
(d) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent has diagnosed and on-going mental health problems;
(e) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent has physically abused the child or a sibling;
(f) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent has been, is, or will be incarcerated;
(g) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent has sexually abused the child;
(h) Clear and convincing evidence that a parent has tortured the child or a sibling.
Unlike Title 14, Title 19 purportedly limits the courts ability to damage the relationship between parent and child. Additionally, under Title 19, a parent’s rights still cannot be terminated if the offense is a single event or if the parent is “unlikely” to improve. Of particular note, the legislature has limited the length of time for termination of parental rights to 3 months – even if the elements for termination have been met, C.R.S. 19-3-606.

Now for Title 14.

Julie Hatton, of Colorado Springs, is neither a felon, a drug user, an abuser, a prostitute, alcoholic, or – you get the picture. Her bachelor’s degree and clean background check qualifies her to perform community service at a children’s facility – “Headstart” - which was ordered by El Paso County (retired) District Court Judge Rebecca Bromley as punishment for talking to one of her children on the telephone.

The forbidden contact was imposed by Bromley at the request of father who paid a psychologist ––“Dr.” Mark Wilmot (who is currently under investigation by the Division of Regulatory Agencies)–– to provide the court with a justification to exact mother, Julie Hatton, out of the lives of her 3 children.

After a 2 hour interview with mother, Wilmot produced the requested recommendation: He reported that the children and Julie were “enmeshed” and their relationship should be terminated. Julie’s multiple experts, Alan Davis, LPC, MA, Dr Mirium Blum, PhD, and Dr Anne Brtek, PhD, provided rebuttal evidence indicating that Wilmot used bogus science and quack theories upon which to arrive at the desired conclusion. The Judge – Rebecca Bromley – dismissed the evidence provided by Julie’s experts and substituted her own conclusions, stating, “The Court is allowed to use its common sense and experience in life in making its decisions. The Court is not required to have an expert opinion to bolster every finding of fact that it makes.”3 This “finding” resulted in an order that enjoined mother and children from communicating in any way whatsoever for two (2) years.4

During the 2.7 years of exile from her children, the oldest daughter contacted her mother by phone. Father learned of it. Because mother did not hang up on her daughter ––or reject her daughter’s communications–– father asked Judge Bromley to hold mother in contempt and imprison her. Mother was imprisoned July 16 – 19, 2007.  In addition to jail time, Bromley ordered 100 hours of indentured servitude (community service) – with “Headstart” – a government sponsored pre-school program for which Julie’s credentials (a Bachelor’s Degree and clean background check) qualified her for taking care of small children. In effect, notwithstanding Julie’s allegedly dubious parenting skills and purported inability to interact with her own children,  the Court ordered Julie to raise other people’s kids for free.

Meanwhile, father abruptly sent the wayward daughter who contacted her mother to a boot camp in Utah, alienated from her brother and sister. Father's message to the younger children: “Contact Mom, you'll receive the same fate.”

Julie appealed the draconian order that forbade her from seeing her children because there was no legal basis for terminating her relationship with her children. She appealed the conclusion that the children were “enmeshed” with her because such theory has been repeatedly rejected as bogus and quack science by mental health professionals for years. Neither has Julie ever been convicted of a crime – or child abuse – or drug abuse or alcoholism. There is simply no basis for the alienation imposed by Judge Bromley. After the 2-year injunction expired – the Court of Appeals’ (“CoA”) ruling was finally entered. The CoA reversed Judge Bromley to the extent that they said it was improper for the court to assign father complete control over the contact between mother and children since a parent has a “fundamental and constitutional right to maintain a relationship with his or her children.”  Mere sophistry. Mother motioned to modify parenting time and was ignored.

In September 2007, about 6 months after the court of appeals’ ruling entered, Mother was allowed 2 hours of supervised visits a week. She objected to these restrictions – because there was no basis for it whatsoever. The supervisors reported to the court that there was absolutely no reason to supervise these visits. However, despite the reports, the court refused to modify the terms of mother’s visits because father did not want mother and children to resume any meaningful relationship.

In 2007, Mother hired an expert to assist her in fighting for her parental rights since she was getting no cooperation from father or the courts. The expert, Dr. Christopher Barden, asked mother to send him the children’s school and mental health records. Attempting to acquire these records has been a monumental effort – met with roadblocks from the court. (While Judge Bromley purportedly "retired" in 2007, she has maintained control over the case). One roadblock was the fact that the court (Judge Ronald Crowder) made a requirement that Dr. Barden sign an agreement to prevent Julie from seeing whatever records were produced on the children. Dr. Barden hesitated to sign such an agreement because he thought he was subjecting himself to a lawsuit – because preventing parents’ knowledge of their children’s records is highly unusual. One year later and even after Dr. Barden signed the “confidentiality” agreement – the records were still not made available to mother or her expert.

In December, 2008, Judge Iuppa told Mother that if she wanted her children’s records, she had to serve subpoenas on the individual entities to acquire the information (that a parent ordinarily is entitled to under Colorado law). When she did that – the judge said that she could not see the records – that the records would have to be sent to him – he would review the records and decide what to release to either mother or her expert. Then, inexplicably – Judge Iuppa ordered that Julie’s expert could not receive any records until and unless Julie paid the expert’s fee into an escrow account created by the judge.  Clearly – this is an interference with a private contract that overreaches the court’s authority over private dealings and indicates prejudice in violation of Canons 2 and 3.5

The impediments created by the court has resulted in suppression of evidence. In addition, the court has adopted father’s singularly untenable assertion that Julie cannot have personal access to her children’s medical/mental health records because it would violate the principles created by the rape shield laws, i.e., confidential communications between psychologist and child, citing People v. Sisneros, 55 P. 3d 797 (Colo. 2002). Sisneros has no application with a civil subpoena, such as here. Sisneros held that a victim of sexual assault could withhold her records from her assailant. Further, because father has enjoyed the right to review and discuss these records with the professionals involved – why shouldn’t mother? 6

All this begs the question: Why are these 4th Judicial District Court judges aiding and abetting a vindictive father in his crusade to destroy the relationship between a parent her children?

__________________________
1 http://rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/27/jailed-moms-earn-time-to-bond-with-their-kids/
2 http://rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/04/imprisoned-dads-need-time-with-their-kids/
3 See January 21, 2005 Order.
4 The order, entered on December 14, 2004, “restricted mother from any contact whatsoever with the children in any form, including but not limited to phone, letter, e-mail, and cell phone.”
5 The canons require impartiality and forbid a judge from lending his/her office to the financial interests of others.
6 See July 16, 2007 transcript excerpt.