That father lied to you.

The father orchestrated an abduction of his child from the care of his mother and obtained an order of protection against her should she come to retrieve her child. That's why he had custody for "over a year".

The father deprived the mother of any contact with the child from summer of year 0 through his arrest on a warrant issued fall of year 1 by the Referee with an appearance by the father delivered by Sheriff nearly winter year 1.

So, the proceedings were not lightening quick and the flip of custody did not defy logic and was not ludicrous.

A report was issued by the hospital that there would be no imminent risk to the child by the father, but given the histor...

That father lied to you.

The father orchestrated an abduction of his child from the care of his mother and obtained an order of protection against her should she come to retrieve her child. That's why he had custody for "over a year".

The father deprived the mother of any contact with the child from summer of year 0 through his arrest on a warrant issued fall of year 1 by the Referee with an appearance by the father delivered by Sheriff nearly winter year 1.

So, the proceedings were not lightening quick and the flip of custody did not defy logic and was not ludicrous.

A report was issued by the hospital that there would be no imminent risk to the child by the father, but given the history of the case (more than one year of parental alienation), the Referee would not return the child to the father.

Family Court Act §166 prohibits a discussion of the particulars here. However, in general, personnel testified in detail as to their findings and recommendations which the Referee adopted appropriately.

The Referee became a parental alienation syndrome jurist curing the alienation inflicted by the father upon the mother through the child.

When I confronted the father with these facts and demanded evidence to the contrary from him in preparation for trial, he had another father's rights operative identifying himself as George Deabold come to the courthouse and on June 10th, 2009, threaten me with disbarment if I did not either return the father's money or "get the kid out". The operative said to me that I will be reported as having attempted to extort the father for $50,000 and that all of my conversations with the father over the telephone have been recorded and will be transcribed and presented to my licensing authority.

So, this whole case was an example of an alienator abusing father's rights resources to call others alienators. The case also highlights the most daring abuse of process and features blackmail and defamation of an innocent attorney.