The PAS Racket

Networks of lawyers, GALs, mediators, psychologists, therapists, parenting coordinators, et. al. collude and conspire in these Parental AlienationFraud cases. The mother and children are attacked every step of the way. The GAL may ask to speak with the children. The GAL then calls in a child abuse report, intentionally, or this may be done in response to a domestic violence injunction. The GAL then calls in one or more of this network of therapists and evaluators to attack the mother and children from every angle. All accusing the victims while exonerating the perpetrator who pays hefty "legal bills" and "evaluation bills", basically buying visitation and/or custody in this racketeering fraud. It's like black market human trafficking with the appearance of legitimacy, all done with virtual immunity through the court system.

Here is one such brutal example that was overturned on appeal to Florida's 4th DCA. The guardian ad litem, Vicki Plant, has been involved in multiple cases using the same psychologists and same strategy to further victimize abused women and children. The therapist, Dahlia Biller has also worked with Vicki Plant on other cases using the same strategy. Also, involved in this vicious attack on the mother and children was Martha Jacobson as evaluator, and Jan Faust as undisclosed expert. Interestingly, Jan Faust owns a home with the judge on the case, Susan Greenhawt perBroward County Public Records book 44956, page 1035. This fraudulent custody change caused severe trauma to mother and children with one of the children having to be hospitalized. This sadistic group continued to inflict harm by blaming the mother and depriving the child of the mother's love and support.

The family continues to suffer as the children are under 18 and litigation continues.


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005
S.S. Appellant, v. P.S. Appellee.
CASE NO. 4D04-455
Opinion filed January 19, 2005

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Susan F. Greenhawt, Judge;
L.T. Case No. FMCE 03-15749 3793.

Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A.,
West Palm Beach, Sari Teichman Addicott and
Michael L. Addicott of Addicott & Addicott,
P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Nancy W. Gregoire and Joel L. Kirschbaum of
Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, McIntyre
& Gregoire, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw
the opinion issued on November 10, 2004, and
substitute the following.

Appellant, S.S., appeals from
the non-final Order on Temporary Injunction for
Protection Against Domestic Violence and Other
Temporary Relief. She argues that she was
deprived of due process at the hearing because,
contrary to Florida Family Law Rule of
Procedure 12.363(b)(1) (2003), the trial court
permitted the use of the custody evaluation
psychological report which was completed and
delivered to appellant’s counsel the day before
the hearing. We agree and reverse.
Pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes
(2003), the trial court held a hearing on the
temporary injunction for protection against
domestic violence issued against appellee and
considered the issue of custody of the children
of the parties. Two months before the hearing a
custody evaluator was appointed. On Sunday,
the day before the hearing, which had been
continued twice, the report was completed and
delivered to the parties’ attorneys. The report
was thirty-five pages single-spaced and
recommended that the children be removed from
appellant’s custody due to the severe alienation
of the children by their mother (appellant) from
their father. Finding that the circumstances
amounted to an emergency, the trial court, over
the repeated objections of appellant that she
needed more time to prepare, permitted the
testimony of the psychologist, which was based
upon the report.

We find that the circumstances of this case do
not rise to the level of the extraordinary
circumstances required to find a true emergency
as held in Stanley-Baker v. Baker, 789 So. 2d
353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Thus, the trial
court’s decision to permit the testimony of the
psychologist that was based upon her report,
which was received by appellant the day before
the hearing, was an abuse of discretion and
deprived appe llant of procedural due process.
See Crifaci v. Crifaci, 626 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla.
4th DCA 1993).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ.,
concur.