AFCC: The Man behind the Curtain

     AFCC was at one stage a judges slush fund of where bribes perverted the course of justice in California's family Court.  Not only did it serve as a platform for corruption, but was also became the loudspeaker of Dr Richard Gardeners work in the 70s and 80s.  The trail of devastation for victims was left behind with few who held accountable and more who profited upon these ills.  Dr joan Kelly, co-founder of AFCC and CRC  Authored "Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome"  as an attempt to revive Gardeners theories, so that it were more acceptable to its readers with the same custody outcomes, but omitting the obvious quotes that revealed the motives behind his work.  She was also on the advisory panel of Children's Rights Council along with Warren Farrell who was featured in penthouses, "Incest The Last Taboo".  He states,


"the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."


   Parental Alienation Syndrome created lavish lifestyles for those who promote and advocate for its existence for many years and so it is no wonder attempts to revive it were made.  The reason why it was beyond controversial, was the fact that this syndrome led to many deaths.  Nathan Grieco a 14 year old boy who did not want to see his father and alleged abuse by him.  Gardner was an expert in his case and ordered what he referred to as, "Threat therapy" where he threatened the child with jailing the mother if he failed to go.  Shortly after, Nathan committed suicide.    


Thanks to one of the many decent fathers who spent $100,000 investigating California courts for his daughter to unravel why his grandchild was rendered motherless without reasonable cause, we know that this organization was used in this manner.  

     Much is left unanswered on why the environment of most family courts contain an automatic contempt for mothers, but hopefully this article will shed some light.  CANOW, provided an extensive report on the activities of the AFCC and how it was creating a system of abuse and corruption.

     The AFCC have denied promoting pro-child abuse and violence against women material, yet the content of their conferences tell a different story.  Below is a training session where it trivializes empirical studies that verify the damaging effects of not only exposing the victim to the perpetrator, but also children.  It distracts away from the safety of women and children to mislead practitioners into believing that there is a guaranteed method to separate those who are "just being abused" to those at imminent risk of death.  There is no credible method in the world and to boast such a tool is clearly negligent.

Just in case the inevitable becomes obvious with the increase of deaths due to negligence, they provide an answer to that too.  Below is a course on how to avoid accountability and continue backyard methods on treating victims of family violence and child abuse.  

  Here is a prime example of how Gardeners perspectives are very much alive and unchallenged in this organization.  The whole topic is dangerously superficial, misogynist and trains professionals to look at the mother as the issue, instead of looking into why she might be 
concerned about the child being alone with the father.  

Again, another training session on how not to be accountable and promotion of Gardeners theory.

More promotion of Gardeners concept where the victim is perceived as mentally ill and distorted as the perpetrator.  

Instead of providing a genuine focus on prevention of risk and subjecting victims to further trauma, professionals are trained on how to avoid accountability and attribute further injustice to their clients.  

Below is advertisements on the typical fathers rights agenda translated in the language of academia.  Despite years of research on the harm of infants spending minimal to little time with their mothers, below is advertisement on how to encourage maternal deprivation.  

Below is a conference from AFCC last year with more about maternal gatekeeping. Whilst "Violence Against women" topics are omitted from these conferences, "Maternal Gatekeeping" appears to be a popular event.    

More disturbing was this article found on an AFCC website instructions on how to use the legal avenues on forcibly adopting out children if the mother does not comply.

Below is a questionnaire targeting alienation.  Note how child abuse factors are not assessed.

This is one of AFCCs conferences on "Differentiating" domestic violence cases.  In other words, a how to expose the children and women to violence unless it is extremely obvious that they are at imminent risk of death.  When they refer to "Situational Violence" this means that if there is only one recorded incident, then they can justify ignoring the victim of further concerns and continue exposing them to risk.  At present, evidence of one episode of violence is not enough in family court law.  They require several incidents of brutality before they decide to order supervised contact and in some cases, nothing is done at all.    

For anyone who has had contact with fathers rights groups, they are anything but silent.  Again it is another example of the organizations lacking neutrality leaning towards the context of the mens movement.  The presenters here are mimicking intimate partner terrorism victims to skew the experience and thus generate encouragement to foster undue control over women parallel to the nineteenth century child custody experience - where children were the property of men.   

Again like every other fathers right organization, they are promoting shared parenting without considering much on the consequences.

AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in United States 
In "News Today", the article claimed that there was "new research on maternal gatekeeping" that, "Mom needs to know when to let go".  Again, its deemed the mothers fault for fathers taking less of an active role pre and post separation.  When the mother does in fact resist visits, its usually for a good reason.  Surveys on mothers have often reflected contrary to these beliefs that mothers do want their children to spend time and know the father, but not when it he poses a threat to them.  


The influence of AFCC in united states is ingrained in the Family Court system.  Lundy Bancroft explains this well in his publication:



JANET JOHNSTON'S TYPOLOGY OF BATTERERS AND THE AFCC RISK ASSESSMENT:
THE QUEST FOR SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
Efforts are underway nationally to ease the complexity of assessing risk to children from
visitation with batterers by placing batterers into distinct types, based largely on the work of
Janet Johnston. For example, a risk assessment distributed nationally by the Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) draws heavily from Johnston's work. The types Johnston
posits are as follows:

Type A: "Ongoing or Episodic Male Battering"
Type B: "Female-Initiated Violence"
Type C: "Male Controlled Interactive Violence"
Type D: "Separation and Postdivorce Violence"
Type E: "Psychotic and Paranoid Reactions"
(These types are called by slightly different names in the AFCC risk assessment, but are exactly
the same in other respects.)
Type A is considered the real batterer; he is very frequently and severely violent, and he
uses violence to control his partner.
Type B is violence that is initiated by the victim; she gets hurt because she is smaller, but her behavior is the problem.
Type C is violence caused by
"mutual verbal provocations," and again the woman is the victim only because she is physically
smaller; she is considered equally abusive.
Type D is violence that results from the stress of
separation and is completely uncharacteristic for the abuser.
Type E is violence resulting from a mental health problem.
This typology contains more problems that can be covered here. The types were preconceived,
with researchers instructed to assign each case to one of the categories. The research
has little external validity; her types have no relationship to any patterns observed by domestic
violence professionals in the clinical setting. Relying on these categories leads to serious errors in crafting visitation plans. Risk to children can be assessed, as we will see, but not by this
approach.

  The great majority of batterers do not fit any of Johnston's types, because they exert
"chronic pervasive control," but it is not accompanied by the most severe or frequent violence.
The most common batterer is one who uses violence two or three times a year, whose partner has never been hospitalized with injuries, and who shows no evidence of sadism. Nevertheless, his partner and children exhibit trauma symptoms due to their fear of the abuser, the repeated denial of their basic rights, and the pattern of psychological attack. Assessing the risk to these children from unsupervised visitation is a complex process, and the danger varies greatly from case to case.
  These categories encourage us to assess the victim rather than the abuser. The "A" type of
batterer is considered the only real batterer; he is described as having a victim who is severely
traumatized, who is passive and withdrawn, and who rarely starts arguments or challenges the
batterer. A woman who is stronger, angrier, or generally more unpleasant to interact with, would
be likely under Johnston's approach to be seen as mutually abusive and provocative, the "C" type of relationship; she would thus be considered largely responsible for the man's violence. In
reality, most abused women, even those who are terrified, do not give up all forms of fighting
back, and continue attempting to protect their rights and the rights of their children. The more
that the victim refuses to submit to the abuser's control, the more likely he is to escalate his
violence. Under Johnston's typology, the more courageously a woman attempts to defend herself and her children, the less responsibility the abuser has for his actions. Using this approach serves the batterer's interests well, but endangers the children. The result of this approach is that some of  the most dangerous abusers, those who are the most determined to dominate at all costs, are ironically declared to be the lowest risk to their children.


AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in Australia
If you think that this organization would not have much influence on the culture of the Family Courts, think again.  The Australian Institute of Families, a research body for the family court quotes references from their conferences throughout their publications and many of its members have presented and joined the organization.  The Family Court of Australia advertises upcoming conferences to the family law community and many judges and court personnel have been members and presenters to the conferences.  


  An appalling example of how the australian government dealt with our indigenous community.  Rather than provide more services to ensure the safety of women where statistics of family violence are much higher, this program was funded based upon "Maternal Gatekeeping".  A term used to divert the focus away from the reason why she is concerned about the child being left alone with the father.  


Sadly Child Protection in Western Australia jumped on the band wagon to preach on how they not only believe that fathers are safer with children than mothers, but that they are "Maternal Gatekeepers".  


In the Australian governments family relationship clearinghouse were a series of articles for and against the use of parental alienation syndrome in family court context.  The fact that it was even listed in the library endorsed junk science and may have mislead readers into believing that such a syndrome was prevalent above child abuse and family violence.   On the last pages of the CANOW report, the American Psychiatry Association verifies that PAS is not a syndrome, that it is not being considered for the diagnostic and statistic manual in the near future as there is no real scientific validity.   


On Lawlink.gov in NSW, a link to Parental Alienation Syndrome is listed which refers to Gardeners books.  By even linking to it is another endorsement from the Australian government that using junk science to conceal family violence is acceptable.  Considering that not only does the syndrome target victims of domestic violence as "alienators", it also promotes sending the child to the abuser.  


Internationally, AFCC has grown and so have fathers rights movements coinciding this culture.  one of the major problems is that a majority of its material erodes protections made available for victims and cultivates a closed patriarchal environment that mothers are at the mercy of.  Whilst outside these courts, women's freedoms are welcomed and accepted, but behind closed doors, she is perceived as a shameful act.  The Family Courts are the last institution that practices values belonging to the nineteenth century.  They do not respect nor value the lives of women and children in their research that could be easily compared to the propaganda authored by nazi researchers that were used to endorse genocidal goals.  The courts need to rely upon more balanced institutions research such as the world health organization that acknowledges violence against women as a major problem, but also provides research on both genders without hidden agendas. 


   Organizations that research violence against women and children need to be wary that due to the fact that abusers are cross class and cultures, they will work towards undermining their protection by any means and monopolizing laws and psych culture, they are able to continue unchallenged.  That is why it is crucial that every organization considers the opportunities that intimate terrorists may have in engaging in terrorism on a larger level whether it be in groups of like minded or by abusing the powers within professions.  This needs not only to be researched, but desperately addressed, before we have more laws that hurt women and children.

Stop The Responsible Fatherhood Bill

"All I ever wanted was supervised" a repeated phrase amongst family violence survivors.  The Family Court has come under recent scrutiny over unsafe contact and the controversial use of Parental Alienation Syndrome a diagnosis that has not been accepted by any scientific organization globally.  The bottom line is that children are ordered by the court to attend access visits where the parents are abusive.  If the mother objects, she risks losing the children altogether.  That is the state of not only the Family Court in Australia, it is an international problem.  

Until recently, there were few groups that were advocating for children and far too many groups advocating for such forced contact.  "Pro Contact" culture is really just being polite.  "Contact No Matter what" Cult, is more appropriate considering the facts that there is no limit as to who they wish children to have contact with.  

Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward^[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media. -Wikipedia

Bizarre punishments against mothers are initiated by the courts if they do not comply without consideration for the impact that the children suffer.  

Some of these punishments include:

"Isolating The Child From The Protective Parent"

"Orders inhibiting the Child From access to Counseling"

"Removal of The Mothers Passport'

In cases where the parent has a mental health condition that is one of the leading causes of homicide, the protective action is often minimal.  Some orders are for the parent to take their medication and see their doctor, but left entirely to the device of the patient and the potential victims are left restricted by the court order and helpless to what might come about.  The Court evaluators who make the decisions that the judges often solely rely on are often untrained for these cases, but overtrained in the area of "pro - contact' and too well understand the terms of "maternal gatekeeping" "Alienation" and "False Memory Syndrome".  They believe that the child is not unsafe in relationships with sex offenders if they "just accept it" without the interference from mothers.  

This is due to the fact that in the early 80s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" and travelled the world with the help of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  Many conferences were held indoctrinating lawyers, psychologists and judges into the belief that children are better off with abusive parents.  This belief was also supported by the international Child Emancipation, a lobby group for pedophiles.  

Cases where there is not enough evidence to support Family Violence are often referred to as, "False Allegations" and in most cases the victim is required to pay costs to the alleged perpetrator. This goes against studies that support the notion that in 95% of child abuse cases are true.  Clearly it is the interference that the victims receive during the court processes that leads to the lack of evidence that is able to be provided.  

Like the German Lebensborn organization, they said, "Best Interests" but the intention was to reintroduce laws that tie women to men and diminish any concerns regarding child abuse and violence against women.  The current family law regime reduces the value of children and mothers compared to men and promotes the cycle of violence continuing through to another generation.  Like a genetic disease, our children have been infected with family violence.  

The German Lebensborn organization was similarly cruel in its time.  In the context of the German welfare system, it was considered that it was the "best interests" of the child to be German.  By abducting babies of other origins for German families, "Best Interests of the child" was created to serve the purposes of racial intolerance.  Today in the context of Family Law, "best interests of the child" refers to the amount of time spent with a parent no matter how abusive they may be. 

Although there have been more efforts to protect mothers and children affected by family violence with the Violence Against Women Act and the introduction of the Protective Parent Bill, PAS is still alive in the US court system and have progressed to a point where they are supporting it through the "Responsible Fatherhood Bill".  Like best Interests, it is aimed at enforcing contact with fathers regardless of the rise to epidemic proportions of murder suicides.  In sect 2, "Findings" it states that the reason to provide fathers with billions of dollars in funding is due to:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact--

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;

(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;

(E) more likely to commit suicide;

(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and

(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

  

The findings stated here is derived from a confirmitory bias. If you look deeper into the research, it becomes obvious that:

Children were economically abused by the fathers and the state for withdrawal of financial support of children.  It is in fact written in the convention on The Rights Of The Child:

 

Article 26

1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

 

The "Violent males who grew up without fathers", were in fact infected prior to the separation by witnessing the actual violence.  According to Amy Coha:

• Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
• Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.

Teenage pregnancy is an old sexist phrase that draws the need to look at the pregnant women as the problem.  Contraceptives apart from the condom are directed at her as entirely responsible for the pregnancy.  According to Rape Abuse and Incest Network(RAIN):

Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

 

Victims of sexual assault are:⁷

3 times more likely to suffer from depression.

6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.

26 times more likely to abuse drugs.

4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

The fact that in some states, the perpetrator can apply to the Family Court to stop the abortion and continue these attacks on her suggests that women and girls are considered by the state as objects rather than human beings.  If such a bill were to pass, it would be a greater violation to the already eroded human rights of women and children.  

Another Mother Hero: Shirley Riggs

Justice and Safety for Shirley Riggs and her Children

My name is Shirley Riggs, I’m 39 years old and the mother of 4 beautiful children. I’m writing this inside the Thurston County jail, Olympia, WA, waiting for extradition to Kansas City, Missouri to face charges of custodial interference. My bond stands at $500,000 cash only. This secures that I as a mother will sit in jail because I chose to protect my children from further sexual abuse and because of a broken system. My heart aches for my children in a way few will ever realize….

…. My children and I have suffered great injustices in our lives in the past 4 years. We have been denied our right to due process and protection. Laws have been swept under the rug, resulting in my children being placed with their father and grandfather, who both have substantiated sexual abuse findings involving my oldest daughter. My children have been illegally ripped from the home, family, society, and way of life they love, the place they felt safest and the community they held so dear.

Thus begins a letter dated Oct 8, 2008 by Shirley Riggs , who twice fled with her children from Independence, Missouri  to rescue them from court ordered unsupervised overnight visits with their sexually abusive father and grandfather. 

In what can only be termed a perversion of justice, Shirley has been extradited back to Missouri, where she sits in a jail cell awaiting 2 trials – one to terminate her parental rights and give full custody to the sexually abusive father; the other a criminal trial for felony custodial interference in which she faces a possible 16 years in prison. 

Even worse, both these trials will take place under Judge Stephen Nixon – the same judge who has sanctioned unsupervised visits with the abusive father, and who has a record of giving light sentences to convicted pedophiles. 

Meanwhile, Shirley’s four children (2 girls, 2 boys, ages 7-15) are currently in foster care under the legal custody of the Missouri Children’s Division, where unsupervised visitation with the pedophile father continues with the stated aim of reunification. 

BACKGROUND

Don't be mislead by the statements in the above video by the father's lawyer and the Independence Police Department saying that there are no criminal findings of abuse and that the case is closed.  There are multiple reports finding that abuse has occured.  One wonders why the police failed to confirm the abuse that so many others had no problem seeing.

The March 2007 report from Oregon substantiating the father’s abuse, which was subsequently accepted and filed by the Missiouri Children's division states that there is:

...reasonable cause to believe this referral is Founded for Sexual Abuse, Fondling, on Raymond Riggs for making his daughter … touch his bare penis.  The referral will be Founded for Sexual Abuse, Exposure and Voyeurism on Raymond Riggs for repeatedly showing his children pornography on the TV, computer and in Magazines.

Ray Riggs sought administrative appeal of this report and was denied. Currently he has an appeal before Judge Nixon – the same judge who ordered the unsupervised visits -  to reverse this finding; decision is pending.

A more recent report (1/29/08) by a therapist at the Synergy group home in Kansas City where the children were placed by the court states:

[The daughter] disclosed in the first individual session that her paternal grandfather “touched her in a private place”…..[ The daughter] seems very afraid of her father, paternal grandfather, and paternal aunt.  [The daughter’s] reports were very consistent with her siblings’ accounts of events, but [the daughter] and her siblings’ reports never seemed rehearsed.  Due to the behaviors displayed by [the daughter], and the consistency of the disclosures, my therapeutic judgment is that the abuse did occur when she was in the care of their father and grandfather.  I believe that having contact with anyone in the father’s family would be detrimental to [the daughter] and her siblings’ physical and emotional well-being.

A MISGUIDED COURT

Despite these findings, the Family Court’s order upon review advocating termination of Ms. Riggs’ parental rights, signed by Judge Nixon, says:

 •  the Court finds that …visitation with the parents…. including unsupervised and overnight visits… was reasonable….
 •  with regard to mother, the Court finds that permanency by way of Termination of Parental Rights is in the best interests of the children….. 
 •  The Court finds continued reunification efforts of the children with the father to be in the best interests of the children…
 •  …visitation with the paternal grandparents…. may take place….and may include unsupervised visitation…

SERIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The profound and blatant conflicts of interest in Ms. Riggs’ case make the State's actions against Ms. Riggs highly suspect.

The father’s sister, Leslie Riggs, works as an attorney in the Jackson County office of the Missouri Children’s Division – the very office that has been investigating the abuse allegations against the father and grandfather and making recommendations that the mother lose her parental rights.

Until recently, Leslie Riggs lived in the same house with her father and brother, the substantiated abusers. 

The father’s first divorce attorney was a co-worker of Leslie Riggs who worked in the Children’s Division while representing Ray Riggs and while Riggs was being investigated by that office for child sexual abuse.  He resigned abruptly when threatened with exposure of the conflict of interest.  Riggs’ current attorney formerly worked in this same office.

Commissioner Molly Merrigan ordered  the investigation of sexual abuse allegations against the grandfather be transferred from Jackson County DSS to an independent agency because of conflict of interest re: Leslie Riggs.

Case was transferred to Cornerstone for Care in Kansas City, but abuse allegations were not investigated by them.  Instead, two other Jackson County DSS employees and co-workers of Leslie Riggs determined that abuse allegations against Al Riggs were unfounded.  This finding contradicts the substantiated determination in Oregon and the opinion of the children’s therapist at a court assigned group home in Missouri. 

Cornerstone regularly conducts Family Support Team (FST) meetings to oversee status of Riggs’ case.  Leslie Riggs regularly attends these meetings as a family member.  In addition, Leslie brings a friend, Maureen Patton, a social worker and frequent consultant to Jackson County DSS and the Family Court. 

Patton has written a letter to the FST members offering her professional opinion “as a friend”, suggesting that Shirley is not a fit parent, that Ray and Al do not fit the profile of sexual predators, that the children “have been coached to have negative feelings about the paternal side of the family” and that reunification with the father and his family should be encouraged.  Patton has also recommended consultation with specific experts, including psychologist Gregory Sisk who has diagnosed  Shirley with Borderline Personality Disorder despite normal mental health evaluations, and  Shirley’s court appointed therapist ,Karen Allen, who determined that Shirley committed Parental Alienation. 

Last, the attorney representing the Children’s Division in the TPR proceeding is Leslie Riggs’ supervisor.

All proceedings against Shirley Riggs should be halted and these blatant conflicts of interest should be independently investiated.

WRONGFUL JURISDICTION AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

At the time of the divorce proceedings in Nov 2006, Ms. Riggs had lived out of state for almost 3 years.  Further, Ms. Riggs had initiated divorce and custody proceedings in New Mexico in May 2005, and her husband had been served.  Last, Ms. Riggs raised the issue of her children being of Native American heritage but the court failed to follow through appropriately in notifying the Tribe. 

Although she was living in Oregon at the time, Ms. Riggs was given a mere 24 hours notice regarding the April 24, 2007 case management meeting during which Judge Nixon gave temporary custody to the paternal grandparents.  Further, there was no notice that a change of custody would take place at this meeting.  What’s more, the grandparents were not a party to the case, nor had the father or grandparents made any motion re: a change of custody.  Additionally, Ms. Riggs did not have competent representation at the meeting as her attorney withdrew just prior to the hearing, and someone else from that attorney’s office  who had never spoken to Shirley and was not assigned to represent Shirley attended instead.  Last, there were no allegations or findings that Ms. Riggs was an unfit parent stated at this meeting.

In addition to the many egregious due process failures, the above facts suggest that there may have been violations of both the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Indian Child Welfare Act which may render Missouri’s jurisdiction in this case unlawful. 

BAD SCIENCE

The basis of the court proceedings against Ms. Riggs is the belief that she has committed Parental Alienation – that she has turned the children against their father and coached them to lie about being abused.  In fact, Parental Alienation is a junk science concept that has been denounced by the National District Attorney’s Association , theNational Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges , American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and more .  PAS is nothing more than a legal tactic, a shell game, used by attorneys to get their clients off the hook for allegations of abuse by shifting the court's attention off the abuse claims and onto the motives of the person making the allegations.  There are several reports, from examiners in Oregon and Missouri, who confirm the children's allegations of abuse.  The only people who are saying the abuse did not occur are connected to Leslie Riggs.

BAD TECHNIQUE

There are recordings of the forensic interviews of the Riggs children from Oregon, where the abuse by both the father and grandfather was substantiated, and from Missouri, where allegations against the grandfather have been unfounded.   There is a striking difference in interviewing techniques between the 2 states: Oregon using an open ended technique designed to make the children comfortable and allowing them to talk openly; Missouri using a technique that makes the child noticeably uncomfortable and defensive and seems intended to cause doubt or confusion.

Please sign this petition and show your support for her.