Post by Jim on Feb 13, 2009 18:41:42 GMT -5
Georgia Attorney Demands Payment For Abuse of Children Cloaked As “Services Rendered”
Marietta, Georgia, January 20, 2009 – On the day that has been evoked as a defining moment in our nation’s history, an unprecedented historic time of change - the inauguration of the first black US President - an officer of a local arm of the State of Georgia’s judicial branch of government has chosen this as a time to make their own mark in history.
Diane Woods, a Marietta attorney unable to establish a successful independent law practice grounded in the legal canons of providing unbiased help to adults truly in need, over the years eventually settled on work being referred from county courtrooms. This work primarily involves “representing” children through court-ordered assignments through the State’s guardian ad litem program.
In what may possibly be acknowledged as a first in Georgia civil court case history, Diane Woods has filed civil contempt charges against a former party to a protracted civil lawsuit from 2006 to 2008, demanding payment for the “services” she allegedly provided to the party’s minor children during the course of the case.
The supposed services, none of which has been documented in officially released billing statements, included –
· Exhibiting unabated prejudicial disdain towards the defendant in the case.
· Secretly meeting with the children without informing the defendant of the meetings.
· Defaming the character of the defendant in a public forum.
· Advocating unsubstantiated allegations/insinuations of child neglect or abuse.
· Intentionally misleading a Superior Court as to her actions involving being a “mandated reporter”.
The results of these alleged services provided by Diane Woods, acting as an agent of State government, and presented in the form of arbitrary “recommendations” to sophomore Superior Court judge C. LaTain Kell, manifested in despotic-like Superior Court punishments (a.k.a. Orders) being leveled upon the very “clients” Woods had been contracted to represent in a neutral manner. Those punishments include, but are not limited to –
· Children prohibited from receiving phone calls from their parents.
· Children denied the right to have parents attend their weekly extra-curricular activities.
· Defendents’ character brought into question by State-sanctioning of monitored physical contact with children.
· Children and defendant ordered into coercive psychotherapy “treatments” to be monitored by the State.
· Children denied unencumbered access to parents through a State-imposed reduction of paternal parenting time to less than 19% overall.
· Children prohibited from continuing in established extra-curricular enrichment activities with their father.
· Children prohibited from inviting father to attend school lunches and other functions as wished.
· Children prohibited from seeing father on their birthdays.
· Children denied right to benefit from paternal experience, wisdom, and guidance as a result of State removal of any paternal decision-making over the minor children.
· State-sanctioned private, public & military surveillance of personal means of travel while utilizing public roadways.
· Measures for the potential blocking of paternal access to the children’s health and school records are now in place.
These sorts of recommendations, historically based merely on arbitrary opinions and nothing more, show a sadistic pattern of unchecked and free reign bias whose thinly veiled motives are geared towards nothing more than the cruel and inhumane tearing of children away from one, and in some cases both, of their parents.
The recent, but certainly not isolated, behaviors exhibited not only by Diane Woods, but others empowered by the State to operate in a professional capacity as legal guardians of minors, counselors, psychologists, and other court-ordered “evaluators”, commonly result not only in the prolongation of adversarial acrimony between divorced, or to be divorced, parents, but also inevitably in the least lead to the marginalization, if not contributing to the outright alienation, of children from the targeted parent. The patterned behaviors of Diane Woods are in complete indifference to not only the feelings of children, but for one of their fundamental human needs. That need being a natural, unrestricted relationship with both parents.
Parental Alienation is considered by many leading mental healthcare professionals to be one of the most insidious forms of child abuse. With increasing prevalence, alienating efforts, often times in concert with appointed legal guardians, such as Diane Woods, favoring one parent over another, seem to manifest during the course of contested divorces and/or child custody battles. The potential effects can be long-term psychological harm of the children, the very “clients” that are supposedly placed under Diane Woods’, and others of her ilk, guardianship.
Marietta, Georgia, January 20, 2009 – On the day that has been evoked as a defining moment in our nation’s history, an unprecedented historic time of change - the inauguration of the first black US President - an officer of a local arm of the State of Georgia’s judicial branch of government has chosen this as a time to make their own mark in history.
Diane Woods, a Marietta attorney unable to establish a successful independent law practice grounded in the legal canons of providing unbiased help to adults truly in need, over the years eventually settled on work being referred from county courtrooms. This work primarily involves “representing” children through court-ordered assignments through the State’s guardian ad litem program.
In what may possibly be acknowledged as a first in Georgia civil court case history, Diane Woods has filed civil contempt charges against a former party to a protracted civil lawsuit from 2006 to 2008, demanding payment for the “services” she allegedly provided to the party’s minor children during the course of the case.
The supposed services, none of which has been documented in officially released billing statements, included –
· Exhibiting unabated prejudicial disdain towards the defendant in the case.
· Secretly meeting with the children without informing the defendant of the meetings.
· Defaming the character of the defendant in a public forum.
· Advocating unsubstantiated allegations/insinuations of child neglect or abuse.
· Intentionally misleading a Superior Court as to her actions involving being a “mandated reporter”.
The results of these alleged services provided by Diane Woods, acting as an agent of State government, and presented in the form of arbitrary “recommendations” to sophomore Superior Court judge C. LaTain Kell, manifested in despotic-like Superior Court punishments (a.k.a. Orders) being leveled upon the very “clients” Woods had been contracted to represent in a neutral manner. Those punishments include, but are not limited to –
· Children prohibited from receiving phone calls from their parents.
· Children denied the right to have parents attend their weekly extra-curricular activities.
· Defendents’ character brought into question by State-sanctioning of monitored physical contact with children.
· Children and defendant ordered into coercive psychotherapy “treatments” to be monitored by the State.
· Children denied unencumbered access to parents through a State-imposed reduction of paternal parenting time to less than 19% overall.
· Children prohibited from continuing in established extra-curricular enrichment activities with their father.
· Children prohibited from inviting father to attend school lunches and other functions as wished.
· Children prohibited from seeing father on their birthdays.
· Children denied right to benefit from paternal experience, wisdom, and guidance as a result of State removal of any paternal decision-making over the minor children.
· State-sanctioned private, public & military surveillance of personal means of travel while utilizing public roadways.
· Measures for the potential blocking of paternal access to the children’s health and school records are now in place.
These sorts of recommendations, historically based merely on arbitrary opinions and nothing more, show a sadistic pattern of unchecked and free reign bias whose thinly veiled motives are geared towards nothing more than the cruel and inhumane tearing of children away from one, and in some cases both, of their parents.
The recent, but certainly not isolated, behaviors exhibited not only by Diane Woods, but others empowered by the State to operate in a professional capacity as legal guardians of minors, counselors, psychologists, and other court-ordered “evaluators”, commonly result not only in the prolongation of adversarial acrimony between divorced, or to be divorced, parents, but also inevitably in the least lead to the marginalization, if not contributing to the outright alienation, of children from the targeted parent. The patterned behaviors of Diane Woods are in complete indifference to not only the feelings of children, but for one of their fundamental human needs. That need being a natural, unrestricted relationship with both parents.
Parental Alienation is considered by many leading mental healthcare professionals to be one of the most insidious forms of child abuse. With increasing prevalence, alienating efforts, often times in concert with appointed legal guardians, such as Diane Woods, favoring one parent over another, seem to manifest during the course of contested divorces and/or child custody battles. The potential effects can be long-term psychological harm of the children, the very “clients” that are supposedly placed under Diane Woods’, and others of her ilk, guardianship.
www.npra.info
Press Contacts: 678-643-3786
There has been several complaints against this pathetic women since 2001.
