February 13, 2007 petition to Chief Judge Babcock (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado) abstract: memorandum acknowledging that U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, a former Colorado state judge, has been non-randomly assigned almost all suits against Colorado special advocates, all of which he has recommended for dismissal, and that he is connected with the lobbying group, the Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee (MDIC).

(Prior to the filing of this petition, a request by email was sent directly to Magistrate Watanabe to provide the presentation materials he used a MDIC luncheon event held at the Sheraton Four Points in Denver.  The Chief Deputy Clerk of the court responded by email with an admonishment not to contact the magistrate directly but, instead, to submit the request through the clerk's office. Later that day, the clerk responded with another email, stating that the request materials were, "not available").

February 2, 2007 petition to Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey concerning the "special advocate racket" in Colorado abstract: memorandum complaining about the lack of oversight of Colorado court-appointed special advocates and the continuing abuses, extortion, and criminal and tortious conduct that is being visited upon Colorado parents and their children.

January 16, 2007 petition to Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey concerning the "special advocate racket" in Colorado abstract: memorandum, containing specific evidences and examples, complaining about the lack of oversight of Colorado court-appointed special advocates and the continuing abuses, extortion, and criminal and tortious conduct that is being visited upon Colorado parents and their children.

Chief Justice Mullarkey's Oct. 17, 2006 Response to Citizen Complaint Regarding Court-ordered Child Custody "Experts" Abstract:  The Chief Justice expresses empathy for a complaint regarding a lack of accountability of court-appointed domestic relations "experts" but, then offers to refer the complaint to a Committee staffed mostly by the court-appointed domestic relations "experts" and members of their special interest group.   Compare Prof. Steven Lubet, When Judges Investigate Judges, appearing in the Chicago Tribune, June 03, 2004.

D.o.R.A. Executive Director's explanation regarding the limitations on the scope of oversight of the Division of Regulatory Agencies, dated July 14, 2006. See also the second page of this excerpt from The Role of the CFI and CLR in Colorado First Ed. (Robert M. Smith ed., CLE in Colo., Inc., Supp. 2005) ("Colorado mental health professionals serving in some court-appointed roles are generally seen as being exempt from grievances. This relates to a provision in the mental health statute (CR.S. §§ 12-43-101, et seq.) that states: 'The provisions of this article shall not apply to mental health professionals acting within the scope of a court appointment to undertake custodial evaluations in domestic relations cases in the courts of this state or to mental health professionals acting within the scope of a court appointment to undertake domestic and child abuse evaluations for purposes of legal proceedings in the courts of this state.' The mental health boards have tended to conclude that CFIs fall within the scope of this exemption and find that they have no jurisdiction in the matter."); and see this excerpt from the Colorado Division of Registrations, Mental Health Section's 2003 "Sunset Review" analyzing the statutory provision that exempts divorce industry specialists from licensing board oversight..

Sampling of grievances filed with the D.o.R.A. against Colorado court-appointed domestic relations "experts"

last updated: 07/10/2007