 District Court
Jefferson County, Colorado
Court Address:
100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden
Colorado
In re:
John P Slaton
Versus
Stacy Slaton, Daughter Slaton, Son Lowery
and Daughter Mohnhaupt
|
COURT USE ONLY
|
John P Slaton
Stacy Slaton
|
Case Number:06DR2673
Division Courtroom
|
Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion
to Modify pARENTAL AND Decision-Making
responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections in C.R.S. §14-10-124, §14-10-129 and §14-10-131
via absentee testimony
|
|
Comes now, Stacy Slaton, Mother of Daughter Slaton, Daughter Mohnhaupt,
and Son Lowery, requesting this Court to
modify Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion to Modify pARENTAL AND
Decision-Making responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections in C.R.S. §14-10-124, §14-10-129 and §14-10-131 via absentee testimony and states
the following:
1.
The last Order regarding allocation of
parental responsibilities was entered by the Court on 2006; this matter was to
be at 50/50 custody within a year of permanent orders.
2.
A Motion for substantial modification of
allocation of parental responsibilities has not been filed in the last two
years per §C.R.S.14-10-131. Per
Rule 121, Stacy Slaton has made numerous attempts to contact John Slaton
and Attorney June Anglin, who has withdrawn from this case. STACY SLATON’S DAUGHTERS Daughter Mohnhaupt
and Daughter Slaton, are presently endangered and are suffering emotional
trauma created by the forced sequestration of their Mother, due to the acts and
threats of Domestic Violence; as defined in §C.R.S.14-10-124 (4)(b)(c). Stacy Slaton, as their emotionally stable and
healthy Mother, deems the following
as the most appropriate way to resolve violations of natural law, and of civil
rights, to adhere to statutory rules, and to estop Constitutional crimes. Any court appointed broker services are NOT needed. Such services have proven to cause further
harm to children[1]. The rights of Stacy Slaton, Daughter Slaton, Son
Lowery, and Daughter Mohnhaupt, have been blatantly and maliciously violated.
The opposing parties and adjudicators in this matter hold no regard for
Domestic Abuse by Proxy[2], The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent,
the sacrosanct relationship between
Mother and Child, or the irreplaceable sacred bonds among siblings. The opposing parties and adjudicators have
not recognized the patterns of abuse to Stacy Slaton, her children, their
extended family, friends, and community.
This court has not taken steps to correct patterns of abuse in this
case.
3.
§14-10-124(4),(II),(b),(c)
If a party is absent or leaves home because of an act or threatened act of domestic violence committed by the other
party, such absence or leaving shall
not be a factor in determining the best interests of the child. Stacy Slaton, Daughter, Son, and Daughter
were subject to acts and threats of domestic violence. They continue to fall victim to habitual
domestic abuse, coercion, and threats by the other party.
4.
C.R.S. §14-10-124
(4)(a)
Whether one of the parties has committed
an act of domestic violence, has engaged in a pattern of domestic violence, or
has a history of domestic violence, which factor must be supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Recent
domestic violence theory and statutory authority citing patterns of abuse comprise
a preponderance of evidence in this case.[3]
5.
C.R.S. §14-10-129
(c) Documented
patterns in the history of this case and current environment of isolation of Daughter,
and of her sister Daughter in a separate environment, support that the preponderance
of evidence necessary to substantiate the validity of this Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL
AND Decision-Making responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections C.R.S.
§14-10-124, §14-10-129 and §14-10-131 via absentee testimony EXISTs.
6.
C.R.S. §14-10-131 the
retention of the allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger
the child’s physical health or significantly impairs the child’s emotional
development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.
9.
What new
arrangements are you requesting? Stacy
Slaton, Mother of Daughter Slaton, requests the following new arrangements:
ü Stacy Slaton
shall be the primary residential custodian of her daughter Daughter Slaton.
ü Stacy Slaton
shall have sole decision-making and shall consult with father regarding major
via e-mail.
ü Such
transition shall occur fourteen days from the date this motion is filed at 6:00
p.m. at the home of Desiree Moreno, 9161 W. 66th Avenue, Arvada,
Colorado.
ü The long-term
goal will be to increase John’s parenting time with Daughter as well as his involvement
in decision making.
ü John Slaton is
required to participate in a domestic violence and battering therapy program,
as recommended in the clinical textbooks, The
Batterer as Parent, by Bancroft, Silverman, and Richie[4],
and Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child
Custody, by Hannah and Goldstein[5]
before parenting time with Daughter can resume.
This following schedule shall serve as the
Parenting Plan and will avoid transition problems
·
John Slaton shall have parenting time starting
every other weekend from the end of school on Friday until the beginning of
school on Monday.
·
John Slaton shall have a dinner visit with
the Daughter Slaton on Wednesday of alternating week from the end of school and
curb-side drop-off at Mother’s residence at 7:00 p.m.
·
Beginning in the summer of 2014, weekend
parenting time schedule shall remain the same with curb-side pick-up and drop
off at Mother’s residence, beginning at 5:30 p.m. on Friday until 8:00 a.m.
Monday, If John is unable to comply with Monday return time, Daughter shall be
returned to Mother on Sunday evening by 8:00 p.m.
·
John Slaton shall have a one-week visit in the
summer, beginning in 2014. John will consult with Mother’s schedule by giving thirty-
day notice, a travel itinerary, and all other required information.
·
Stacy Slaton shall have Daughter on Mother’s
Day (when this holiday falls on Father’s time) beginning at 10:00 a.m. There
will be no return to Father until the next scheduled parenting time.
·
John shall have Daughter on Father’s Day
(when this holiday falls on Mother’s time) beginning at 10:00 a.m. with pick-up
at Mother’s residence and drop-off at 8:00 p.m.
·
Mother shall have Christmas Eve every year,
and John shall have Christmas Day every year with the same pick-up and drop-off
as Father’s Day.
·
No deviation from scheduled parenting time
will be made for Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving or any other holiday
·
§C.R.S.14-10-124
(VI) Mother has NEVER denied parenting time to Father, as evidenced in the
record of the Court.
Summary of case 06DR2673
The
first purpose of this document is to notify the court of patterns of domestic
violence in the current parental responsibilities and decision making environment
of Daughter Slaton, and continual acts of fraud upon the court, collusion, and
civil conspiracy, and entrapment. The
2005 custody switch in 00DR413 removed Son (Mohnhaupt) Lowery and Daughter Mohnhaupt
from their Mother, Step Father John Slaton and sister Daughter Slaton with no
significant reason to change the environment of the children. Furthermore, Stacy’s constitutional rights to
due process have been violated, and continue to be abrogated by the use of
coercion, intimidation, deprivation of the enjoyment for employment, and
extortion of her children as human capital for the profit of state and private
entities. The second purpose, once notice of crimes has been given, is to
appeal to this court to seek remedy for such crimes immediately in an Emergency
Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND Decision-Making responsibility
VIA ABSENTEE TESTIMONY in order to
avoid further legal action.
The
responsibility of attorneys and court officials is to protect children and to
moderate hostility in divorce. The
court has sanctioned the fraudulent activities in this case. If court officials fail to remedy the situation immediately, they knowingly and willingly violate
their oaths of office and can be held accountable for harm to parents and
children.
Stacy
Slaton has been entrapped, extorted, and deprived of her children by unlawful
child trafficking through an organized effort to eliminate her. False
testimony, consolidation of two custody cases under the same attorneys, Nic Jonson and June Anglin, bias
in this case, and subsequent patterns of domestic violence create a
preponderance of evidence of civil conspiracy.
10. Per C.R.S. 14-10-124 (4)(a) Whether one of
the parties has committed an act of domestic violence, has engaged in a
pattern of domestic violence, or has a HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, which
factor must be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
· John Slaton has knowingly and willfully engaged
in the, patterns of abuse, collusion to violate of Stacy’s civil and human
rights. See attached exhibit, which is a copy of
motion filed in 00DR413, regarding this matter.
· In 2003, John Slaton became a part of Stacy’s
family, and as a result, became aware of protracted, antagonistic litigation in
the post-decree, contested custody of Stacy Slaton and James Mohnhaupt.
· In letters from John Slaton while he was in
Iraq, John stated several times how he did not like what James was doing to
Stacy and the kids. John also wrote
statements that he wanted to kill James for what he was doing to Stacy and her
children.
· These letters also support countless
statements from John as to what an amazing mom Stacy is. These letters are full of John’s knowledge
that Stacy is a great parent. However, John Slaton chose to engage in a
conspiracy to remove Stacy from their daughter’s life rather than co-parent
with Stacy.
· John Slaton’s mother, Linda Slaton, wrote a
letter which also spoke highly of Stacy as a mother and as a human being. When the conspiring began, Linda Slaton
wrote a letter that was the exact opposite of her previous statement to this
court. This is very concerning and
suggests that at this time, Linda Slaton also became a participant in civil
conspiracy.
· John Slaton knowingly and willfully chose to
consolidate his divorce from Stacy Slaton with James Mohnhaupt’s attorney, Nic
Jonson, creating a conspiracy to disenfranchise Stacy Slaton from her children
and from the opportunity to work.
· Furthermore, using tactics coached by the
attorney and documented in Dr. Sharon Araji’s documentary, Domestic Violence Continued Contested Child Custody[6],
John Slaton and James Mohnhaupt have colluded to incarcerate Stacy Slaton, thus
attempting to sever the maternal bond and defame Stacy Slaton in her children’s
eyes. John Slaton and James Mohnhaupt
continue to participate in a relationship focused on eliminating Stacy Slaton
from the lives of Daughter Slaton and Daughter Mohnhaupt.
· Judge Roy Olsen of case 06M2394 cited on
several occasions, the important of Daughter and her mother having a
relationship, stating that there was no danger, or need for separation in this
case.
· John Slaton began a pattern of giving false
information to the Arvada Police Department shortly after the 2005 custody
switch in case 00DR413 and other tactics[7],
cited by attorney Herb Viergutz. During an altercation with Stacy Slaton in May
2006, John Slaton manipulated police by using tactics cited in the Araji video
to have Stacy arrested. John continued to use these tactics as a way to detain Stacy. On one occasion, John falsified information
to a police officer to have Stacy arrested so that she could not be present for
a hearing set in regards to an unfounded restriction, thereby delaying the
hearing. Ironically, this same tactic was used in the Keske case to
intentionally detain a mother from appearing in Magistrate Christopher
Voisinet’s courtroom.
·
Desiree Moreno, Daughter’s
aunt, has been allowed a relationship with Daughter when she is manipulated
into this conspiracy to come against her sister Stacy. Desiree is not allowed a
relationship with Daughter if Desiree chooses to have a relationship with her
sister Stacy.
·
This
pattern of using family to assist in withholding Stacy’s children is extremely
evident in the Affidavit Nic Jonson colluded to prepare for Desiree Moreno in
2007, using the children to intimidate Desiree into signing the affidavit,
which she did not prepare. Subsequently
in 2008 Desiree wrote a letter to this court to bring clarification.
·
Because
of collusion in this case, Stacy Slaton became disenfranchised and was placed
under constant threats of incarceration.
The pattern of aggression has occurred again with the false arrest and
detainment of Son Lowery in 2009. This
led to Son’s removal from the custody of James Mohnhaupt, resulting in a change in the circumstances of Daughter
Slaton. The initial removal of her mother, her brother and her sister from Daughter’s
home and the further subsequent removal of her brother have caused Daughter to suffer
a series of profound losses. Clearly, a preponderance of evidence indicates
that a pattern of abuse exists.
· If such patterns of abuse are allowed to
continue, anybody who has anything to do with Daughter’s mother Stacy will
become extinct in Daughter’s life, thereby robbing her of half of her
identity.
11. Governor-appointed,
Jefferson County Judge Margie Enquist expressed her doubts and confusion as to
the best course of action in closing statements of the 2005 Orders when she
switched custody from Stacy Slaton to James Mohnhaupt. Such ambivalence
undermines the intent of C.R.S. §14-10-131(c) to create a significant reason
to change the environment of the children. The retention of the
allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger the child’s
physical health or significantly impairs the child’s emotional development and
the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the
advantage of a change to a child.
·
Margie Enquist had clearly stated her
indecisiveness, ambiguity, and confusion in making a decision to change the
environments of Daughter, Son, and Daughter. The custody switch of 2005
violated statutory intent because the harm caused by a change of environment
from Stacy Slaton was not outweighed by the advantage of such change to the
children. There was no significant evident reason to change the environment of
any of Stacy’s children. The court
needs to remedy this situation immediately.
·
Margie Enquist stated concerns of the
validity of the recommendations from both Dr. Purcell and Dr. LaCrosse in this
case, (sections 8 to16 of the court transcripts). Margie Enquist stated that
she found it “simply astounding to me that— you think they interviewed four
people or maybe two people who have switched sides. Because it’s astounding how they would see
the same traits in Ms. Slaton in the first evaluation and then similar traits
in Mr. Mohnhaupt in the second and vice versa. And I don’t know what happened
there but it certainly seems that –I don’t know. They formed an opinion.”
·
Please refer to page 279 of Court Transcript
of August 2005. Margie Enquist stated,
concerning the matter of sexual abuse “Daughter said ‘Daddy touched me’, and
apparently nobody investigated whether that was Mr. Slaton or not. Nobody even
considered that. The first thing everybody jumps on is it’s the biological dad.” These statements by Enquist that nobody
investigated were false.
·
Enquist ignored the report made by mandated
reporter, Dr. Marsha Franklin, confirming that it was James who was being
sexually inappropriate. Enquist further stated, “That concerns me immensely
because she calls two people Dad, and then didn’t talk about the disclosure
later and then who knows what kinds of questions she was asked in therapy.” Margie Enquist knew that someone, in this
case, Marsha Franklin, had in fact, investigated, which is in direct
contradiction to Enquist’s statement. Judge Enquist was not concerned with
findings of any court-ordered “professionals,” except Jean LaCrosse.
·
Transcript further reflects Enquist stating “Maybe
that is the reason it was unfounded because it’s not the right dad.”
This statement supports claims that the Court is colluding with the Department
of Human Services by finding no grounds or substantiated findings, or conducting
definitive investigation, when the evidence is clear. This is a violation of
Jefferson County’s duty to protect.
·
Such failure to act on evidence comprises
neglect and abuse by Jefferson County and Child Protective Services,
substantiating reports by the Denver Post and 9News, entitled, “Failed
to Death.” Jefferson County has engaged in domestic abuse by proxy to Stacy, resulting in abuse to Son, Daughter
and Daughter. Such discriminations
denied Stacy’s rights as a protective parent, which are guaranteed by the Colorado
Constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States.
·
Accordingly, court professionals failed in
their duty to protect Son, Daughter, and Daughter, and to do what was best for
them. They violated Oaths of Office in August of 2005. Stacy’s children were taken as a result of
bias and unfairness, as supported by numerous errors. Yet another example in the orders of August
2005, the confused Margie Enquist erred significantly by mixing up the names
and genders of children Son and Daughter, creating confusion and making this
order voidable. Her befuddlement and
ambivalence preclude a determination that there was a significant reason to
change the environment of the children.
·
This order exposes a personal involvement
between James Mohnhaupt’s mother, Jean Githens, and Judge Margie Enquist. The order cited Githens as a party who
testified when Court transcripts of this hearing clearly prove that SHE NEVER TESTIFIED. Relationships among Jean Githens, Jean
LaCrosse, Nic Jonson, and this court were not disclosed prior to the 2005
hearing. Such failure to disclose reinforces and confirms Stacy’s concerns and
facts of bias, conspiracy, and collusion.[8]
John Slaton witnessed the unfair severing of his family, and decided to join
forces with the winning side.
·
This Order was signed with an “X”, faxed
between this Court and Nic Jonson’s office at 10:40 a.m., without knowledge to
Stacy’s counsel. Per David Bolocofsky, Stacy’s attorney, orders were final
sometime after 3:00 p.m. that day. John witnessed
James being given custody and sole decision making and the extremely negative
impact this uprooting had on our family.
·
John Slaton made a clear choice to
intentionally hire Nic Jonson to engage in the civil conspiracy and countless
crimes against Stacy Slaton and Daughter Slaton.
·
Stacy’s
daughter Daughter shall be returned to her mother within 14 days. “The right to the custody and control of
one’s child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should not be infringed
upon only under the most compelling circumstances.” Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia
Supreme Court (1995). No such compelling circumstances legally existed
against Stacy Slaton to justify severing the maternal relationship in this case.
12. John
Slaton has not complied with this parenting schedule since the Orders of 2006.
Magistrate Voisinet allowed John to place two substantially frivolous,
substantially groundless and substantially vexatious restrictions upon Stacy
and her children, causing continual emotional abuse for two years for the
children and her.
·
In
July 2007, within months of the first unfounded restriction (which lasted nine
months), Stacy Slaton and the children had begun their two-week summer
parenting time. They had never been allowed this summer scheduled time; since
the 2005 custody switch, due to the unfounded restriction in 2006.
·
The
second unfounded restriction occurred as a result of an incident in July 2007
when Officer Miklos of the Arvada Police Department engaged in actions to
further the civil conspiracy against Stacy Slaton and the efforts to kidnap her
children. Officer Miklos had been
previously involved in calls regarding John Slaton’s questionable behavior. She
used her badge, her uniform, and her authority to kidnap Stacy’s children.
·
On
or about July 21, 2007, an incident occurred between Stacy Slaton and her
sister. Police arrived THE NEXT EVENING
at approximately 11:30 p.m., and conducted an investigation to determine if a
crime had been committed or if there was a child welfare concern. They did not find any evidence to
substantiate that a crime had been committed or that there was a child welfare
issue.
·
On
or about July 24, 2007, Officer Miklos entered Stacy’s home without her
knowledge, consent, or a search warrant when Stacy was at work. Son, who was
thirteen years old, was responsibly caring for his sister Daughter. Officer Miklos, using her uniform to
intimidate 13-year-old Son, by entered the home and interrogated Son, without
valid cause.
·
Officer Miklos contacted Stacy via phone from
inside Stacy’s home to inform her that Stacy needed to be questioned about the
July 21 incident that had already been investigated with no findings. Officer Miklos made it clear to Stacy that
she was holding the children until Stacy returned; thereby, denying Stacy’s
right to have her attorney present during interrogation.
·
Officer
Miklos refused to release the children to the responsible adult that Stacy
designated in her effort to protect the children and reduce trauma to them.
Miklos’ reason was that the dads would not allow that, suggesting that Miklos
had colluded with James and John to interfere with Stacy’s parenting time, and
to unlawfully remove her children without cause.
·
When
Stacy arrived at the home, approximately five police vehicles were present at
the address to investigate a report that had already been unfounded. Officer
Miklos informed Stacy that she was being arrested. No officer present read
Stacy her Miranda rights, and Miklos ordered a fellow officer to take Stacy to
the Arvada Police Department to be processed for alleged crime.
·
Stacy
asked Officer Miklos to leave her home and Miklos refused, stating that she
needed to contact John Slaton in Commerce City and James Mohnhaupt in Evergreen
to come pick-up their children. Officer
Miklos said she would report to the police station once the children were
picked up.
·
Stacy
was then taken to the police department, finger printed, and photographed. Shortly after, and within a time frame that
was impossible for John to arrive from Commerce City and James to arrive from
Evergreen without prior knowledge, Officer Miklos arrived at the Arvada Police
station and released Stacy, without a citation, and with no reason for
detaining Stacy. Instead, Officer Miklos informed Stacy the District Attorney
would be contacting her. Therefore,
Stacy Slaton was held by the Arvada Police Department long enough for her kids
to witness her false arrest, be illegally removed from her home, and be
horribly traumatized by the civil conspiracy against their mother.
·
When
Officer Miklos told Stacy to leave the police station, Stacy feared for her
very life and that of Son, Daughter and Daughter.
·
Officer
Miklos engaged in a pattern of civil conspiracy designed to deny Stacy’s
constitutional right to be a parent, rights to life, liberty, and happiness,
and guarantees of due process and fairness. In doing so, she violated her Oaths
of Office and her duties to the Constitution.
·
The
Jefferson County District Attorney’s office never contacted Stacy Slaton. Stacy
went to their office on numerous occasions to find out how her case was to be
resolved, and she was told she was never arrested, because she did not have a
summons. She told them that she had been handcuffed, put into a police car,
fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a jail cell, and then released. The
district attorney had a difficult time locating information about this false
arrest. Upon research, the district attorney determined that this case had NO
substantial evidence of any crime being committed, and it was declined
immediately.
·
As a
result of these actions, Stacy was placed on her second unfounded restriction
by Chris Voisinet, who refused to hear this restriction for a period of more
than a year, as R.O.A. supports. Magistrate Voisinet violated §14-10-129(4).
·
Voisinet
maliciously slandered and blamed Stacy on court record for the amount of time
that had passed between when the restriction was filed and the day the court
heard the matter, despite repeated filings by Stacy’s attorney to have the
matter heard within seven days, as the statute required. Thus Voisinet committed fraud by the court.[9]
·
When
John realized he could no longer be given latitude from this court to restrict
Stacy’s time with the children, John moved to file contempt on Child Support
arrears, violating C.C.R.P. 107.
Despite James’ testimony to the court in John Slaton’s case and James’s case,
he did not want Stacy to serve jail time, Voisinet ordered nine months’ incarceration
anyway.
·
How
many parents has Christopher Voisinet incarcerated? What is the proportion of
incarcerated mothers to fathers? How
many families have suffered a severing of relationship with one parent by the
actions of Voisinet in the past decade?
·
Christopher
Voisinet assisted John and James to sever the sacrosanct relationship between
Mother and Children. This further
supports civil conspiracy and malicious actions of this court to use the
children, Daughter, Daughter and Son, to inflict domestic violence by proxy.
·
John
has violated Court Order to authorize Stacy to have access to the children’s
medical, educational, daycare, therapy, and extracurricular records, blocking
all attempts by their mother to get those records and to have any contact with Daughter
and now her brother Son Lowery. Stacy has requested this information through
mandatory disclosures and was also denied by the courts.
·
An
ex parte meeting took place during the last hearing for restriction and was
confirmed by James Mohnhaupt and Magistrate Christopher Voisinet. After a recess of Division Q, and Court was
back in session, Magistrate Voisinet stated that John Slaton, and John’s and
James’ attorney June Anglin were not present.
James Mohnhaupt responded, “They are meeting with the court.” Voisinet’s response was that court was in
session, thus acknowledging an ex parte meeting.
·
Additionally, failure to provide access
occurred when Son Mohnhaupt, n.k.a. Son Lowery, was incarcerated for
self-defense against James. Son was
released after 30 days’ detention when the Court dismissed this case in a Writ
of Habeas Corpus in November, 2009.
·
Stacy
was never notified, and Court granted Son a restraining order against James.
James, in turn, demanded a R.O. be placed upon Stacy even though James falsely reported he did not know how to
contact Mother. In another ex parte hearing,
a restraining order was placed by Judge J.K. Moore between Son and his mother,
who had been sequestered from him six months prior to James’ assault on Son. There never was imminent danger by Stacy nor was
there probable cause to suspect that there might be danger. James Mohnhaupt
once again controlled the court to interfere with Son’s relationship with his
mother while he was in state detention.[10]
This is yet another violation of
due process of Stacy and Son’s rights and is a further violation of Oaths of
Office by Jefferson County’s’ appointed PUBLIC OFFICERS.
·
This
is relevant to this case given the fact John Slaton was well aware of James’ abusive
behavior. John Slaton made the choice to support and become an accessory to
James’ crimes.
·
John
continues to be in violation of Stacy and Daughter’s parenting time since the
permanent orders of this Court in 2006.
Failure to provide any information to Stacy about Daughter’s removals
from the State of Colorado by uninvolved parties is tantamount to interstate
kidnapping of the parties who engage in such removal. Stacy requires full parental responsibility
and decision making of Daughter Lauren Slaton, as John has proven his inability
to co-parent and support a relationship with Stacy and Daughter. He has also
violated this Court’s trust that he will not support such relationship.
13. WHO ARE THE EXPERTS AND WHAT
DO THEY KNOW ABOUT Slaton/Mohnhaupt
CASE?
·
Mo Therese Hannah, PhD
·
Barry Goldstein, J.D.
·
Karen Anderson
·
Sharon K. Araji, M.Ed., PhD
·
Nicholas Bala, J.D.
·
Lundy Bancroft
·
Rebecca L. Bosek, PhD, L.M.F.T., L.P.C.
·
Mike
Brigner, J.D.
·
Claire V. Crooks, PhD., C.Psych
·
Margaret K. Dore, J.D.
·
Molly Dragiewicz, PhD.
·
Nancy L. Erikson, J.D., LL.M., M.A.
·
Marjory D. Fields, J.D.
·
Paul Jay Fink, M.D.
·
Ann Grant, M.A., M.Div.
·
Marvin Timothy Gray, J.D., M.A.,
C.D.S.V.R.P.
·
Paige Hudson, B.A.
·
Thomas E. Hornsby, J.D.
·
Peter G. Jaffe, PhD., C.Psych.
·
Jan Kurth, M.U.P.
·
Larissa Pollica, R.N., B.S.
·
Lois Schwaeber, J.D.
·
Jay G. Silverman, PhD
·
Rita Smith, B.A.
·
Evan Stark, PhD, M.S.W.
·
Erika Sussman, J.D., LL.M
·
Wendy Titleman
·
Garland Waller, M.S.
·
Robin Yeamans, J.D.
·
Annette Zender Joan Zorza, J.D.
A.
If you don’t know who these experts are in
the fields of law, psychology, child abuse, domestic violence abuse, and
related fields, then you lack the required knowledge to be involved in Slaton/
Mohnhaupt cases.
B.
If you don’t know what their scientific
studies conclude in the fields of domestic violence abuse, child abuse, and
contested child custody, then you lack the required knowledge to be involved in
Mohnhaupt/Slaton cases.
C.
If you do not honor your oath to the United
States Constitution by protecting the rights of Stacy Slaton, Son Lowry, Daughter
Mohnhaupt, and Daughter Slaton, you are willfully and knowingly inviting
litigation upon yourself. It is
summarily illegal and unlawful, and ultimately inhumane, to strip children away
from their mother without cause, without due process of law, and without
consent of those innocent people who have been unconscionably injured by those
who are required to protect them.
14. Why are you requesting a Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND
Decision-Making responsibility via absentee testimony Statutory
Authority for the following meets the requirements of §14-10-124, §14-10-129
and §14-10-131, C.R.S.
·
§14-10-129
(1) (a) (I)
Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph
(I) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (1), the court may make or modify an
order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever such order or
modification would serve the best interests of the child.
·
This is an
emergency motion to order via absentee testimony given the imminence of the
circumstances.
·
§14-10-129
(1) (a) (II) Does not apply
·
§14-10-129
(1) (b) (I)
Stacy
Slaton is not requesting restriction; she is respectfully demanding a Verified
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND
Decision-Making responsibility via absentee testimony unless, given
the following information, the court deems otherwise to restrict Father’s
parenting time under C.R.S. §14-10-124
(7).
·
C.R.C.P.16.2
(3) (A) Emergency matters may be brought to the
attention of the clerk or the Family Court facilitator for presentation to the
court. Issues related to children shall be given priority on the court’s
calendar.
·
§14-10-129
(1) (b) (II) Does not apply
·
§14-10-129
(1.5) Does not require a hearing
·
§14-10-129
(2) The
court shall not modify a prior order concerning parenting time that
substantially changes the parenting time as well as changes the party with whom
the child resides a majority of the time unless it finds, upon the basis of facts
that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at
the time of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in the
circumstances of the child or the party with whom the child resides the
majority of the time and that the modification is necessary to serve the best
interests of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall retain the
parenting time schedule established in the prior decree unless:
(a) Does not apply (b) Does not apply (c) Does not apply
(d) The child's present environment endangers
the child's physical health or significantly impairs the child's emotional
development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.
·
John Slaton has failed to comply with the
custody switch orders of 2005 and with the Permanent Orders of 2006, resulting
in parental interference, a change in the Child’s circumstances, and new facts for the court to consider. John
has utterly and habitually abandoned Stacy Slaton and all attempts to comply
with the court’s orders in this case.
·
John has failed to comply
with the parenting time of Stacy and Daughter for almost seven years. The right to family relationships applies
reciprocally between parent and child. Smith v. Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1414,
1418 (9th Cir.1987); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825 (2d Cir.1977).
·
James Mohnhaupt, who is a party to the case, has
failed to comply with the custody switch orders of 2005, resulting in parental
interference, a change in Daughter Slaton’s circumstance, and new facts for the Court to consider. James
has utterly and habitually abandoned Stacy Slaton and all attempts to comply
with the custody switch orders since 2005 and with subsequent Orders.
·
John Paul Slaton colluded and conspired with James
Jeffery Mohnhaupt of case 00DR413 while being empowered by this court to commit
legal abuse, to commit custodial kidnapping, to circumvent any boundaries or
protection against the use of malicious restrictions and malicious prosecutions. They have conspired to sever the
sibling/maternal relationships, and at times have tried to coerce Stacy’s
family and friends to engage in such crimes, controlling access to the children
as punishment or reward. Some of Stacy’s
family members have chosen to engage in these crimes, as a result.
·
Continued collusion between John Slaton and
James Mohnhaupt shows a pattern of conspiring to create separation and character
defamation between Mother and Children, which
pattern constitutes new facts for the court to consider in this case.
·
Given the fact John Slaton and James
Mohnhaupt have been allowed to abuse Stacy and her children by proxy, crimes of
civil conspiracy that ultimately led to kidnapping have been allowed to play
out in Division Q of Jefferson County Courts. Other people involved in
collusion to commit crime currently include Jean Githens, John Moreno, June
Moreno, Mary Edwards, David Riethmann, Jean Githens and Linda Slaton. James and John have used the children to
develop this conspiracy against Stacy and at time used the children to bribe
others to engage in these criminal activities.
Therefore the above parties should be included in future Judgments that
compensate Stacy and her children for their crimes.
·
Order of November 7, 2008, Court appointed
Doris Waters as child and family investigator to interview the children and
parents to report how unsupervised parenting time was progressing and to
monitor Stacy’s interactions with the children over a six-month period. Waters
met with Stacy one time to discuss the policies of the CFI investigation.
During the months after being appointed, Waters failed to monitor Stacy and her
children.
·
Doris cancelled several appointments with
Stacy; however she met with John and James.
Stacy has numerous emails from her attorney and therapist, as well as
phone records that support Doris Waters falsified contact with Stacy to this
court.
·
Waters instead did a legal analysis, based on
discriminations in this case as demonstrated in her report in which she cited
the Court’s Order verbatim. She failed to provide the monitoring and interviews
of Stacy, Son and Daughter as ordered.
·
Had Doris Waters been looking out for the
best interest of the children, surely she would have noticed the escalation of
James’ hostilities towards Son. Hence, the court chose to accept her so-called
“investigation” over another expert who had recommended “shared parenting.”
·
The Court gave “no weight” to Ben McCracken’s
expert testimony, and instead chose to criticize Stacy and allowed statements
of hearsay and perjury. Dr. McCracken had also witnessed interactions with
parties that testified in this hearing.
Instead, the opposing parties who had conspired to sever the maternal
relationship, and Christopher Voisinet, chose to criticize Stacy and to make
defamatory psychological statements as if they were the experts. Furthermore,
they mocked and belittled Dr. McCracken’s expert testimony.
·
This Order also found Stacy indigent, having
the State pay for Doris Waters’ investigation, so James could again retain a
financial advantage.
·
Stacy has researched Jefferson County’s
transparency site looking for a copy of this payment to Doris Waters (a board
member for the Jefferson County Courts). Waters’ involvement represents a
conflict of interest and collusion to sever the maternal relationship between
Stacy, Son and Daughter.
·
In fact, none of the experts appointed in
this case are on Jefferson County’s current Roster of Child Family
Investigators. The involvement of “experts” in this case to date has resulted
in a flawed, biased, and unconstitutional exchange of children as human
capital.
·
John has violated the trust of and failed to
comply with Judge Jane Tidball, which trust was to have this matter at 50/50
parental responsibility within a year.
This failure to comply endangers Daughter Slaton both physically and
emotionally, and constitutes new facts
for the court to consider.
·
Since Permanent Orders in 2007, several
parties have witnessed John Slaton grabbing gifts and photos of Stacy Slaton from
the hands of Daughter Slaton, in a hostile and aggressive manner, stating “We
don’t talk about her,” and throwing the photo album across the room. On
Christmas Eve in 2010, John Slaton grabbed a bracelet, which was a gift from
Stacy Slaton, from the hands of Daughter Slaton, and threw the gift into the
trash. John Slaton is creating an atmosphere of hostility, intimidation,
intentional emotional distress, physical and emotional harm, while violating 14-10-124 (VI) “The ability of the parties
to encourage the sharing of love, affection, and contact between the child and
the other party.”
·
Karlis Center reports state that Daughter has
been forced to call her mother “Stacy” and not Mom. In fact if Daughter even
talks about her “mommy Stacy”, she is intimidated by John, causing emotional
harm, psychological abuse, and irreparable damage to Daughter Slaton.
15. A significant change has occurred in the
environment of Daughter Slaton, resulting in the need for a change in parental
responsibilities.
·
Jefferson County Sheriff’s
Department, Child Protective Services, and Honorable Judge J.K. Moore removed Son
Lowery from James Mohnhaupt’s custody in October 2009, seven months after
unlawful contempt citations were ordered against Stacy by John Slaton and James
Mohnhaupt. James Mohnhaupt gave false
information to the sheriff that Son had initiated an assault against James. In
fact, police verified that James pushed Son first, held Son in a headlock, and
wrestled Son to the ground, causing Son to fear for his life.
·
John was aware of James’
habitual abuse and neglect against Son. James brought Daughter Mohnhaupt to the
detention facility to further punish and intimidate both children. Given John
Slaton’s knowledge of James’ history of abuse towards Son and Daughter, John
Slaton knew that Son was defending himself; Daughter was being taught that such
abuse is acceptable and they were not allowed to defend themselves from abuse.
·
District Attorney Scott Storey did not press
charges against Son, but released him to Stacy Slaton’s sister, Desiree Moreno,
under a Writ of Habeas Corpus[11].
(Case Number 09JD00962) Police records confirm these facts.
·
Daughter is also being
removed from her brother and sister. This series of incidents resulting in the
removal of Son Lowery has created a significant change in Daughter’s
circumstances, creating further isolation and endangering Daughter’s physical
health and emotional development.
· The continued separation between Mother and
Child and among Mother and Children in the sibling environment is creating
imminent danger to Daughter Slaton. This Court has summarily allowed domestic
violence by proxy, substituting Son, Daughter and Daughter for Stacy Slaton in
the abuse dynamic. “DV by
Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with a history of using
domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he no
longer has access to his former partner. Calling this behavior “parental
alienation” is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic
behaviors employed by batterers.”
· Daughter Slaton, Daughter Mohnhaupt, Son
Lowery, as well as extended family members and life-long friends and their
children, have been exposed to latent anger against Stacy Slaton by John Slaton
and James Mohnhaupt and have been subject to the same forms of retaliation,
including coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge, used against
Stacy Slaton; all of which have been empowered by this court.
·
Neither John Slaton nor James Mohnhaupt has
the ability to place the needs of Daughter, Daughter and Son ahead of his own
needs §C.R.S. 14-10-124 (XI). The
presence of continued coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, and revenge
against both Daughter Slaton and Stacy Slaton, the ensuing isolation created by
removal of Daughter’s mother Stacy Slaton, brother Son Lowery, and sister Daughter
Mohnhaupt, and the severing of the natural
bonds have
created a change in Daughter’s
circumstances and require a change in custody from John Slaton.
·
John Paul Slaton has colluded and conspired
with James Jeffery Mohnhaupt of case 00DR413 and has been empowered by this
court to allow legal abuse, to commit custodial kidnapping and to circumvent
any boundaries or protection against the use of malicious restrictions and malicious
prosecution in the effort to sever sibling/maternal relationships, violating §C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.5) (III)
(VI), (VII) and (XI). This includes incidents where John has severed the
interaction and interrelationship of Daughter and Stacy, Daughter’s siblings,
and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests.
Karlis Center reports (previously entered as evidence of this court,
acknowledges the father’s violation of these statutes).
16. Orders
in 2009 resulted in this Court imposing excessive bail, and the denial of
lawful forms of bail, in violating of Colorado
Constitution Act II,§19 and 20: Excessive bail, fines and punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted the fact there was no court order for arrears, is a
violation of C.R.C.P. 107.
·
This Court did not comply with C.R.S.
§14-10-129 1(b)(I) when restricting, nor did it
comply with
C.R.S. §14-10-129.5(4)
when the restriction was
unfounded, because it did not refund or credit
substantial expenses incurred as well as make-up parenting time for unfounded restrictions.
Furthermore, this court ordered a second restriction within months, AGAIN
violating C.R.S. §14-10-129 1(b)(I), in
yet another unfounded restriction,
violating C.R.S. §14-10-129.5(4), for
a second time.
·
Stacy
was forced to make a financial choice to lease her time with her kids from the
Karlis Center so she could see them, or not see her kids to meet the child
support payment that was set above her financial means. C.R.S.§
18-3-502(1)(A), Trafficking in children
(1) A
person commits trafficking in children if he or she:
(a)Sells, exchanges, barters, or
leases a child and receives any money or other consideration or thing of value for the
child as a result of such transaction; or
(b)Receives a child as a result of a
transaction described in paragraph (a) of
this subsection (1).
(2) As
used in this section, "child" means a person under eighteen years of
age.
(3) Trafficking
in children is a class 2 felony.
·
The failure of this Court to
follow statute caused child support to stay in arrears, further allowing
violations of C.R.S. § 14-10-129
(3)(B)(XI) C.R.S. Mother’s due process, which is guaranteed by the United
States Constitution and the court officials’ oaths of
office.
·
Colorado Law prohibits the
incarceration of an indigent parent for child support. Magistrate Chris Voisinet declared Stacy
Slaton indigent for the purpose of appointing Doris Waters to be state paid.
·
Voisinet contradicted
himself by stating that Stacy Slaton could not pay $3,000.00 for
court-appointed CFI Doris Weeks. However, within weeks, this court stated that
Stacy would go to jail unless she came up with $14,000.00 in child-support
arrears. Based on Stacy’s history of child support payments, the court
deviating from statute and child support worksheets, and the court failing to
reimburse the costs of two years’ worth of unfounded malicious restrictions,
these arrears may not have even existed.
·
C.R.C.P.
107 a court order must be on record prior to
issuing a contempt of court order. At the time this contempt was filed there
was no order for child support arrears in this matter. In fact, both parties’ attorneys were working
to modify support to include the arrears; however, James Mohnhaupt refused to
cooperate and a hearing was set for a malicious prosecution of contempt. This court denied the lawful support payments
and James’ statements that he did not want Stacy in jail.
·
John Slaton and James
Mohnhaupt used this contempt to create blackmail, bribery, ransom, extortion,
child trafficking and exploitation, while causing intentional emotional
distress to Son, Daughter, and Daughter and committing parental interference.
·
Sentencing and Request for
Stay of Execution were bifurcated allowing the court to order an excessive
punishment. Margie Enquist granted a
stay of execution on grounds that the Court was inconsistent. However, Jane
Tidball denied this stay, thus causing Enquist to go back on her order.
·
The consolidation and
bifurcation allowed the court to play against itself in a violation of due
process protection against loss of significant liberty interest.
·
These cases were
consolidated for the contempt hearing, until the punishment of incarceration was
ordered.
·
The cases were then “unconsolidated”
in order to sentence a 9-month debtors’ confinement. This allowed the request for the stay of
execution to have two separate rulings and sever the maternal relationship.
·
When the court failed to
compensate Stacy according to the statutes, for the cost to lease Stacy’s
parenting time for two years, set Stacy up for entrapment. Complying with the crimes of entrapment C.S.R. § 18-1-709 in this matter would make Stacy Slaton an accessory to
such crimes as well as indicate that she consented to the violation of her
rights; therefore the court allowed an illegal contempt to silence Stacy, and
sanctioned bribery, extortion, ransom, false incarceration, and further
severing of the sacrosanct maternal relationship.
·
In 2008, attorneys had spent
several months figuring out the correct legal amount of child support, which
would have included arrears. Given Johns
failure to recognize this child support, a child support hearing was set, and
the modification was denied by this court.
Court further ordered Stacy to pay $918.00 in attorney fees to June
Anglin.
·
In a letter that included a
stipulation, dated April 10, 2009, and submitted as an exhibit to the court January
12, 2012, John attempted to bribe Stacy with the threat of incarceration,
stating John would agree to reconsider accuracy of child support figures (to
the amount denied by this court months before), if Stacy agreed to relinquish
parental rights “temporarily.” This amount,
of $262.24 is close to the figure previously denied by the courts.
·
John Slaton had child
support payments altered in this matter by having Child Support Enforcement
remove evidence of payments, therefore altering the arrearage of child support
in this case to John’s benefit. March
31, 2008 document shows arrearage of $232.15 page 2 shows arrearage on March 2,
2008 of $1,940.26 and on April 2, 2008 amount owed of $2,252.41. These documents have already been submitted
to this court as evidence, and have been ignored, constituting conspiracy and
collusion.
·
In regards to child support
for Son Lowery, Court should note, (13)
Emancipation. (a) For child support orders entered on or after July 1,
1997, unless a court finds that a child is otherwise emancipated, emancipation
occurs and child support terminates without either party filing a motion when
the last or only child attains nineteen years of age.
·
Child Support Enforcement is
still calculating a debt for Son, despite a motion to terminate child support
for him dated January 13, 2012. Stacy also
submitted a motion offering her inheritance from her grandfather’s estate to
pay this ransom. Jefferson County denied
the motion stating they did not need to be burdened with this matter.
·
Such actions are tantamount
to extortion, ransom, bribery, blackmail, C.R.S.
§18-3-502. These actions deny Stacy’s right to due process, particularly
when incarceration is possible. More
importantly, Stacy Slaton will never terminate her parental rights.
Intentional emotional distress was inflicted and continues to be inflicted on
Stacy Slaton and her children, and further indicates fraud and civil
conspiracy. This court has allowed Stacy to be sequestered from her children
and substantiates Stacy’s claim that she would never be absent unless there was
a threat of abuse, which is violent, by the other parties. The court has
practiced domestic violence by proxy by forcing Stacy to choose between
unlawful incarceration and abrogation of her Constitutional right to be a
parent. The court has allowed James Mohnhaupt and John Slaton to control,
coerce, punish, intimidate and seek revenge against Stacy Slaton. Even more
urgently, Stacy’s daughters are being forced to live without their Mother, who
comforts them, teaches them, and defends them from crime.
17. Stacy is asking this Court to implement C.R.S.
14-10-129.5 (2)(c) An order requiring the violator to post bond or security to
insure future compliance; and
to further hold James and his colluders liable for any expenses past and
present to Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter, to assist in returning their lives, sibling, maternal relationships and
family to a healthy status.
·
Stacy was awarded every other weekend from
5:30 p.m. on Fridays until 5:30 p.m. on Sundays. Stacy was also awarded a dinner visit during
the alternate week from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.
·
Per C.R.S. §14-10-129.5 (2) (e.5) Stacy is
entitled to one hundred dollars per incident of denied parenting time. Based on this statute, John owes Stacy
$64,400.00 per Permanent Orders of 2006.
·
Based on the court’s expectation
to have custody set for 50/50 by 2007, this statue would support, John owing
Stacy $108,000.00
·
John
continues to manipulate this court, and commits domestic abuse by Proxy by
using control tactics on all parties involved, endangering Daughter, Daughter
and Son. John continues to maliciously restrict Stacy’s parenting time, by
bringing false restrictions and using unlawful contempt of court charges with
no regard to the fact that the parent-child relationship is sacrosanct, causing
a lease, exchange of her children; refer to C.R.S. § 14-10-129 (3)(B)(XI) and C.R.S.§ 18-3-502(1)(A). This
on-going restriction of Stacy’s parenting time constitutes a change in the
Child’s circumstances and new facts for the Court to consider.
·
Stacy
further requests relief under 14-10-129.5 (c)
in the amount of Two Million dollars a month for every month that the
sacrosanct parent-child relationship continues to be severed, effective 14 days from the day this motion
is filed, as remedy for James causing Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter
substantial emotional and economic hardship; for depriving Mother, Son, Daughter
and Daughter of their Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. section 1983;
for depriving Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter the right to family integrity;
for depriving Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter of their Constitutional Rights;
for depriving Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter
the right to life, liberty, property, and the rights guaranteed by
statute; and for disregarding the probability of Son, Daughter and Daughter suffering
physical, emotional and mental distress.
18. 14-10-131 (c)
The retention of the allocation of
decision-making responsibility would endanger the child’s physical health or
significantly impairs the child’s emotional development and the harm likely to
be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change
to the child.
·
Retention of the current
allocation of custody and decision making endangers Daughter Slaton’s physical
health and impairs her emotional development because an environment of
coercion, control, punishment, and intimidation exists. Daughter Slaton currently
lives in an environment where abuse has been habituated. In Stacy Slaton’s
care, Daughter Slaton will learn a
system of values that includes healthy, respectful interactions and language,
and proper placement of Daughter’s needs ahead of the parent’s needs.
·
Son Lowery has been residing with Stacy Slaton
since November of 2011. Son has entrusted his Mother, Stacy Slaton with his
growth and healing from the emotional and physical abuse inflicted by the
colluding of his ex-step father, John Slaton and adopted father, James
Mohnhaupt towards Stacy Slaton, Son and Son’s sisters. At this time, the
sibling relationship is continuing to be severed and the parent-child-sibling
bonds are continuing to be withheld from Stacy Slaton, Daughter Slaton, Daughter
Mohnhaupt, and Son Lowery, further violating C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.5)(III).
·
Since Son has been in Stacy’s care, he has
successfully graduated from high school and has gained responsible employment
requiring security clearance in a field that aligns with his plans to attend
college.
·
It is of great significance that Son has had
no encounters with law enforcement or school authorities since the attack and
accusations made by James Mohnhaupt in 2009. However, during the four years
when James utterly eliminated Stacy Slaton from Son’s life, he had several
run-ins with school authorities.
19. Psychological abuse,
formerly called parental alienation, in Daughter Slaton’s present environment
is causing physical and emotional distress, violating C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.5) (III) (VI), (VII)
and (XI). .
·
On October 12, 2004, Dr.
Jean LaCrosse gave “informed recommendations” to this Court expressing concerns
of parental alienation by Stacy Slaton. In her testimony of August 2005, Jean
LaCrosse further stated to all parties, in her “professional opinion that
‘parental alienation’ is a form of psychological endangerment.” However, “parental alienation syndrome” has
since been widely discredited[12].
· Stacy Slaton has recognized her own flaws and
acknowledged any defects in her parenting, which could have an impact on her
children. She acknowledges her role in the dynamics of this case. Stacy has
continued to learn and understand parenting in high-conflict divorce, what
psychological abuse is, and how damaging separation of children from either
parent can be.
· John Slaton was involved in this investigation
so he understands the harm of eliminating a parent, which he has chosen to
knowingly and continually inflict upon Daughter Slaton.
· Karlis Center reports from 2006 to 2008, which
include the monitored period of Stacy’s unfounded
restrictions, previously entered as evidence of this court, repeatedly
acknowledge the fathers’ violations, and
PROHIBIT both parties from disparaging the other in front of the children.
Disparagement of Stacy Slaton’s character has in fact occurred in this case,
which is psychological abuse.
·
Karlis Center
reports also prove Stacy is the only parent capable of complying with C.R.S.14-10-124
(1.5)(XI). “The right to the custody and
control of one’s child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our
law. It is a right that should not be
infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances.” Brooks v. Parkerson
Georgia Supreme Court (1995). No such compelling circumstances existed.
·
Per §C.R.S. 14-10-124(1.5)(b)(II) Whether the
past pattern of involvement of the parties with the child reflects a system of
values, time commitment, and mutual support that would indicate an ability as
mutual decision makers to provide a positive and nourishing relationship with
the child; all evidence of this case support Stacy Slaton is the parent to support
such positive relationships.
·
As a
court-appointed agency, the Karlis Center should be ordered to report to the
courts when they see signs that the wrong parent is being restricted, so the
court can remedy the environment of the children.
·
Circumstances in
this case since August 2005 indicate that psychological abuse has, in fact,
occurred, and has escalated since 2009. The behavior of John Slaton provides
extensive evidence that he is the parent who has separated Daughter from her
mother. Such pattern of behavior constitutes new facts in this case.
·
Psychological
abuse, formerly called Parental Alienation is grounds for an immediate change
in custody.
·
At this time, John Slaton has
refused to allow Daughter Slaton any unsupervised contact with her brother Son
Lowery now 19 years old. John has blocked all of Daughter’s communications with
Stacy Slaton and Son Lowery.
·
John is leading Daughter to
believe that her mother does not want to see her. The truth is Stacy has
been sequestered from her daughter as a result of domestic violence and civil conspiracy.
·
Given the use of legal abuse and
domestic violence by proxy[13]
in these cases, not only has Daughter been, and continues to be, isolated from
Stacy unlawfully, but the same deprivation has occurred from extended family,
friends, community, and family culture and traditions, that only Daughter
Mohnhaupt’s mother, Stacy Slaton, can provide.
·
Judge
Margie Enquist’s, findings, as stated in the August 2005 hearing that parental
alienation “may” occur in Stacy Slaton’s care have, in fact, occurred in James
Mohnhaupt’s care (whom John Slaton has knowingly engaged with). The “alienation” this Court and experts
attempted to avoid in the custody switch of 2005, has in fact, taken place at
the hands of James Mohnhaupt and John Slaton, further depriving Daughter of security and maternal affection, and placing
the children in imminent danger. John
Slaton has failed to comply with the parenting time of Stacy and Daughter for
more than six years. The right to family
relationships applies reciprocally between parent and child. Smith v. Fontana,
818 F.2d 1411, 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1987); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817,
825 (2d Cir.1977).
· Margie Enquist’s statement that parental
alienation MAY occur her statement is conditional at best. In truth,
Margie Enquist incorrectly and unfairly caused a change in the environment to Daughter,
Daughter and Son without the substantive requirement that the advantage of such
change outweigh the harm. She further exhibited profound ambivalence,
indecision, and speculation about the decision when the statute demands a
significant reason. Therefore this court must remedy these situations immediately to
prevent further harm to Daughter, Daughter and Son.
· The financial costs of malicious pay-to-play
proceedings and leasing of her children and coercion by John in this matter
have allowed him to use this Court to sever the relationships among Stacy
Slaton, Daughter Slaton, Daughter Mohnhaupt, and Son Lowery.
· Dependence on John Slaton to fulfill Daughter’s
needs may have caused her to develop Stockholm syndrome[14]
and places her physical health and
emotional development in imminent danger. The
harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the
advantage of a change to the child. At this time, a change of environment
for Daughter into Stacy’s custodianship far outweighs the harm of such a
change.
· John
Slaton and James Mohnhaupt have forcibly removed Stacy Slaton from her
children’s lives; she has never abandoned her children as her repeated efforts
to plead with the court indicate. Stacy Slaton has pursued local and national
avenues to understand how Jefferson County Court personnel have removed her
children with no regard to the harm inflicted upon Daughter, Son and Daughter.
20. A change in Stacy Slaton’s circumstances has
an effect on the circumstances of her daughter, Daughter Slaton. As a
result of unlawful actions by John Slaton to falsely restrict parenting time
and to place contempt of court charges against Stacy Slaton, she has been
unable to enjoy employment, a right that is protected by the United States
Constitution and any violations under Color of Law are illegal. Stacy’s rights
to enjoy the parent-child relationship and to enjoy employment or any
prerequisite thereof, outlined as duties of this court and any agency of the
United States to protect, have been jeopardized by the very people entrusted to
protect these rights.
·
As a result of financial hardship, the Court’s lack of compliance
with statutes, and the collusion between James Mohnhaupt and John Slaton to
abrogate due process and equal protection guarantees of Stacy Slaton by
altering of child support payments; by ordering a jail sentence when the child
support history did not justify doing so; by failing to modify support to the
lawful amount, and by using coercion to demand a nine-month jail sentence or
demand payment in full, and by attempting to coerce her into terminating her
parental rights, Daughter Mohnhaupt has been denied the right to have her
mother in her life, and the environment of Daughter, Son, and Daughter has been
impaired. This definitely constitutes a change in the circumstances of Daughter
Mohnhaupt.
·
Stacy Slaton has made
efforts to improve her circumstances. She is in possession of numerous phone
recordings with Katie Smith, Ray Washington and Beth Barr, of Child Support
Enforcement, since the time John filed for the Contempt Hearing in 2009.
C.S.E. personnel were shocked by the Court’s ruling to incarcerate
Stacy due to her continued history of child support payments well into
2010.
·
Constitutional Law does not
warrant such cruel and unusual punishment, including further severing of the
maternal relationship without considering the best interest of the child.
Further, John knew child support was set above Stacy’s ability to pay and
this court’s discrimination towards the mother in these cases refer to C.R.S.
14-10-124 (3), caused further harm by ordering her to pay attorney fees for
requesting a lawful modification of child support. Ray Washington even made an attempt to work
on a payment plan in 2012 with James.
The inaccuracies in child support figures have interfered with the
parental relationship, which constitutes imminent harm.
·
Court should note the
child support case in 06DR2673 has been closed.
·
Stacy has evidence of communication with Dan
Welch, (State of Colorado Human Services Grant supervisor), as to his concerns
about the mental health of John and that the funding to the fatherhood programs
within Jefferson County would not help John. Dan Welch has stated “he (John) is
a monster and beyond help.” If programs that are already in place are futile in
this situation, Daughter Slaton is in imminent danger, and the remedies offered
in C.R.S. 14-10-124 (8) do not pertain.
·
Stacy Slaton’s rights under 18 USC §242 and 18 USC §245 have
been violated! John, James and other persons have been allowed to engage in
activities tantamount to kidnapping, forcing Stacy into further financial
hardship and costs similar to ransom. The members of this court have abrogated
responsibilities to their Oaths of Office.
· Stacy
Slaton has co-founded Parent Child Justice, she has done research for National
Forum on Judicial Accountability (NFOJA), and
works with California Protective Parents’ Alliance (CCPPA). She serves
as advisor to attorneys and researchers about contested custody issues.
·
John Slaton and his employer and co-workers
are being served concurrently with this Motion with a Cease and Desist Order to
refrain from making false and defamatory statements regarding Stacy Slaton.
Such slander affects Stacy’s ability to gain employment, antagonizes hostility,
and endangers the psychological health of Daughter Slaton.
·
In Stacy Slaton’s care, Daughter
Slaton will learn a system of values that includes healthy, respectful
interactions and language, and proper placement of Daughter’s needs ahead of
the parent’s needs. In Stacy’s care Daughter will be allowed
to love and have a supportive relationship with both Father and Mother. This
has been neglected in Daughter’s life for far too long, which impairs psychological
development, creating the emergency in this matter.
21. Due to the
dangers of the John’s behavior, Stacy demands this Court grants
this Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND
Decision-Making responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections C.R.S. §14-10-124,
§14-10-129 and §14-10-131 via absentee testimony by August 16th, 2013 and
remedy this matter as follows:
·
Stacy demands the unlawful warrants are
lifted and her driver license is re-instated at the State’s expense, as a
remedy to the above violations.
·
Stacy further demands child support arrears
are dismissed and the new child support worksheets (filed with this motion)
take effect no later than August 16th, 2013. Using the last financial statement of Stacy Slaton or the financial
statement file at the time of this motion via the Motion to file without
payment.
·
The cited Parenting plan in this motion
becomes effective no later than August 16th, 2013
·
A Judgment in the amount of $66,400.00 is
entered with this court, per statute, to include John Slaton, Linda Slaton,
James Mohnhaupt, Jean Githens, Mary Edward, John Moreno, June Moreno and David
Riethmann, as compensation of the civil conspiracy, fraud upon this court, and
domestic violence, with this court ordering full payment within 90 days. The first payment of $22,133.33 to be paid at
the first exchange of parental responsibilities. The second payment shall be due no later than
September 16th, 2013 and the final payment no later than October 16th,
2013.
·
She
further recommends that this court obtain a psychological evaluation
of John to determine if treatment is necessary. It is very important for John
to become a healthy and productive part of Daughter’s life and acknowledge his
mental health issues.
·
Stacy should not be asked to appear in “good
faith” on these matters as this Court and all other parties are not acting in
“good faith.” This is for her protection
and safety.
22. Have you
talked to the other party about this modification of allocation of parental
responsibilities? Yes, numerous attempts
have been made to seek remedy, yet this court has given to John power to severe
the sacrosanct relationship between mother and child. John refuses all communication, including the
necessary requirements for school,
medical and travel.
23. Have any
Temporary or Permanent Protection/Restraining Orders to prevent domestic abuse,
any Criminal Protection/Restraining Orders or Emergency Protection Orders been
issued against either party in any Court within two years prior to the filing
of this motion? No
24. Is either
party currently receiving Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) or public
assistance?
Not for Stacy
25. Does the
other party live in another state? No
VERIFICATION
AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I swear/affirm under oath
that I have read the foregoing Motion and that the statements set forth therein
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
_________________________________________________________________Mother-Respondent
Signature Date
Subscribed
and affirmed, or sworn to before me Subscribed and affirmed, or sworn to before
me in the County of ________________________,
State of
____________________, this _______day of ________________, 2013
My
Commission Expires:
_________________________________
Notary
Public/Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Hand Delivery
To: John
Slaton
5300
Eudora St
Denver, Co 80022 ______________________________________
(Your
Signature)
CC:
Chief Justice Michael Bender
Colorado Supreme Court
101 West Colfax Ave Suite 800
Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
303-837-3742
Chief Judge Steven M. Munsinger
100 Jefferson County Parkway
Division 11
Golden, Colorado 80401 USA
Honorable Dennis Hall
100 Jefferson County Parkway
Division 5
Golden Colorado 80401 USA
Governor John Hickenlooper
136 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203-1792 USA
Senator Michael Bennet
458 RUSSELL
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510 USA
Mark Udall
328 HART
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510 USA
Mike Mauer Colorado State Legislative Council
Email: lcs.ga@state.co.us
Director
200 E Colfax Ave
Denver, Colorado, 80203 USA
Amy Zook Colorado State Legislative Council
Email: lcs.ga@state.co.us
Deputy Director
200 E Colfax Ave
Denver, Colorado, 80203 USA
Kevin Lundberg
kevin@kevinlundberg.com
Steven King Senate
steve.king.senate@state.co.us
Jeanne Nicholson Senate
jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us
Linda Newell Senate
linda.newell.senate@gmail.com
Carroll Morgan Senate
morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us
Betty Boyd Senate
betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us
Angela Giron Senate
angela.giron.senate@state.co.us
Lucia Guzman Senate
lucia.guzman.senate@state.co.us
Ellen Roberts Senate
ellen.roberts.senate@state.co.us
Legally Kidnapped
legallykidnapped2001@yahoo.com
Cindy Rose
nafcjcal@aol.com
Parents United for Change
Safe Kids
International
SafeKidsIntl@yahoo.org
Alan Prendergast Writer Westword
alan.prendergast@westword.com
Dr. Jean LaCrosse
445 Union Blvd #221
Lakewood, Colorado 80228 USA
Doris Waters, Board of Jefferson
County Courts
143 Union Blvd
Denver Colorado 80228 USA
Jody Martinez
1575 Sherman St Floor 5
Denver, Colorado 80203 USA
Lynn Johnson
900 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, Colorado 80401 USA
[2] Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by
Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and Healing.
DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with a history of
using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he
no longer has access to his former partner.
[3] C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.3)(a) “Domestic Violence” means an
act of violence or a threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate
relationship, and may include any act or threatened act against a person or
against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion,
control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with
whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.
[4] Bancroft, L.,Silverman, J.G., and Ritchie, D. DAUGHTER Series on Violence Against Women:
The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family
dynamics. (2nd ed.). 2012.
[5] Hannah, Therese and Goldstein, Barry. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND CHILD
CUSTODY-Legal Strategies and Policy Issues. Kingston, New Jersey: Civil
Research Institute. 2010.
[6] Dr. Sharon Araji’s
documentary, Domestic Violence Continued:
Contested Child Custody, strategies stated by Attorney Herb Viergutz
[7] Domestic
Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson,
author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of
behavior which is a parent with a history of using domestic violence or
intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his
former partner. Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong
enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by
batterers.
When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize
that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his
legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the
children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue
to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to
her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between
children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim -- the mother
-- in a way she cannot resist.
DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm
to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored
possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling
the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get
them because they are unloved).
DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to
make false allegations regarding their mother's behavior and harming or punishing
the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create
fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from
gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is
irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator's main motivation is
to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is
irrelevant to him.
[8] 18 USC §
241- Conspiracy against rights.
[9] Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery
itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is on officer of the
court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material
misrepresentation to the court. Fraud
upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court. www.USLegal.com
[10]
Rubinkam, Michael. “Mark Ciavarella Jr.,
Judge, Gets 28 Years in Kids for Cash Case.” Huffington Post. August 11,
2011.
[11] Urbina,
Ian and Hamill, Sean D. “Judge Pleads Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for
Profit.” NY Times: February 12, 2009.
[12] HB
13-1259
[13] HB
13-1259
[14] If the
child's formerly favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed
to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm
Syndrome" or traumatic attachment to the abuser.” The Leadership Council.”
No comments:
Post a Comment