How does a judge justify putting a child at risk?

Kim - posted on 03/10/2010 ( 3 moms have responded )




As of 3/9/2010 Judge Martin Coghlan made it ok for my daughter's father ,and I use that term very loosely, to be able to take my 9 year old daughter to his home and spend time with a man she has only known for 2 months ,and that he is also allowed to pick her up at my home for visits that are 6 hours long. She just met him in December of 2009. I bet he would not do that with his own daughter. He stopped the supervised visits after her father lied and cried visitation interfearance from my mother and her brother who were only there to protect her from the same man that threatened her as well as her family. How's that for our judicial system? This particular judge also refuses you the option for legal representation when requested. I thought we were all entitled to that under the Constitution. I guess not !!!! Be careful ladies I'm sure there are others like him out here too.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS


View replies by

Mary Ann - posted on 06/02/2012




I can top that there is a woman judge who believed the father who had police training and disbelived the abused woman. Even though the pediatricain and counsolor all said what the father wps he was made custodail parent.

So my neice went back to him

Gailwalker228 - posted on 05/27/2012




He has a history of harming children and he must be stopped immediately we need to picket the sixth district markham courthouse

Dena - posted on 12/16/2010




I was asked to forward this information:

Federal Court Decision

A decision was received this past week in connection with a parenting rights test case filed against the New York Chief Justice, Unified Court System and others on November 10, 2010. A federal court judge reviewed the background together with an earlier case filed in February, 2009 and argued in September, 2010. An order was then entered which consolidated both actions with the earlier one designated as the Lead Case and the latter one as the˛Member Case. All motions for dismissal filed by the New York court defendants were denied along with the plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Both actions were then allowed to proceed without prejudice to renew those motions in the consolidated action.

This procedure is not unlike one employed in the Oneida land claim litigation of which I was a part during the nineties, see i.e. Oneida Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000) (involving successful maintenance of gaming compact challenge against tribal motion for injunction). The current Lead Case, brought on behalf of parents similarly situated will soon enter its third year with opportunity for class action status in the event other victims of custody, support and alienation practices seek to join or intervene. This is a comprehensive challenge based upon rights protected under our Constitution and can be viewed in its entirety (the Member Case) on federal pacer docket and elsewhere on this site. A planning session surrounding this case and a national Parenting Rights Convention is scheduled for December 26-27, 2010 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City - 7 PM, see details on this site.

View Lawsuit Here

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms