In this transcript at p. 138, at the end of a hearing where a father was found in contempt, because he offered to pay partial payments to a CFI (who refused, demanding the entire $1,500), Judge Kenneth Barnhill is asked by divorce attorney Madeline Wilson, "What about phone contact with dad is that also suspended or is that allowed?"  The judge answered, "I want [the father]'s attention. We'll suspend phone contact as well."  This act of compassion was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals (click here).  Did anyone consider what might be in the best interests of the little girl?
 

In ;This Transcript from Douglas County case #97DR704 (In re Parental Responsibilities of Stadnyck), CFI Thomas Meehan testifies that the father should have no contact with his daughter, because the father has 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 admits under cross-examination, "I am not aware of any of the details of your case, Mr. Stadnyck." Id. at 15.
 

In this transcript, Judge Kenneth Barnhill finds the father in contempt for "willful failure" to pay the special advocate a lump sum retainer of $1,500, instead of father's offered partial payments, because, "Mr. [Tom] Meehan [the special advocate] is not in the loan business." Id. at p. 131, lines 17-18.  In fact, Barnhill had already determined that the father was "guilty" before the so-called trial had even began and he issued his findings of facts before either party testified. Id. at 23-24.  Among these findings is that the father had the funds [and the audacity] to file a federal case and also that the father had the funds to visit his other daughter in Maryland. Id. at 24.  Apparently it mattered not that Barnhill had permitted the mother to move from Colorado to Maryland and ordered that, if the father chose to exercise parenting time, that he would have to fly to Maryland at his own expense. Id. at 108.  No doubt, had the father failed to exercise that parenting time, he would have been accused of taking no interest in that daughter's life and, in fact, would have forfeited certain legal rights (e.g., the right to object to termination of parental rights under C.R.S. § 19-5-105 (3.1)(b);  the right to seek relief under C.R.S. § 14-10-115 (3)(b)(III) "in circumstances where the noncustodial parent has failed to exercise parenting time rights," inter alia).

In this 45-page transcript, Judge Kenneth Barnhill essentially orders the father to forfeit his rights to seek redress for perceived injuries in federal court (Id. at 15-18) and to beg to the special advocate --either Tom Meehan or Richard Spiegle-- "with hat in hand and on your knees . .  and apologize to him" in the hope that he might be willing to return or take on the case and to promise that, under no circumstances, will he sue the special advocate for anything, real or perceived. Id. at 29-30. The judge explains that the special advocate has such a close relationship to him, that he called the judge at his home on a Sunday evening to discuss the case. Id. at 23. He further explains that, "I don't know all the special advocates out there. I picked the one that I knew, that I trusted, Mr. Meehan. Because he's honest, he's not going to do a damn thing that he doesn't believe isn't appropriate, he's going to listen to you and he's going to listen to Ms. Taylor, he's going to listen to the girl, and then he's going to make his report. And his report will be honest, straightforward, and substantiated." Id. at 26. With this prospective analysis in mind, couldn't Meehan have gotten away with anything, if he wanted to?

 

Are CFIs truly concerned with the welfare of children? Are they qualified to make such recommendations?

In this undated 3-page transcript-excerpt, where names have been redacted to protect the contributor, the CFI is cross-examined by a parent, who describes a past incident and then asks the CFI is the incident is appropriate:

        Parent: I'm sitting on the couch with my infant son next to me.  [The other parent] runs across the room, jumps on me, starts hitting me, kicking me, bites me, swinging her fist next to the infant child in his basket.  Is that an act of violence in the presence of the child?

        CFI: No. I don't think that is an act of violence in the presence of the child.

last updated: 09/16/2007