Amicus Curiae Brief — Linda Shao, Petitioner v. Tsan-Kuen Wang

No. 17-613

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

—o0o—

…………… Linda Shao,

Petitioner,

vs.

Tsan-Kuen Wang

Respondent.

—o0o—

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To California Court of Appeal Sixth Appellate

District (H040395) based on California Supreme

Court’s Denial of July 19, 2017 (S242475)

[Related Petitions pending with this

Court: No. 17-82 and No. 17-256]

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MOTHERS

OF LOST CHILDREN

CHRISTOPHER W. KATZENBACH

ckatzenbach@kkcounsel.com

KATZENBACH LAW OFFICES

912 Lootens Place, 2nd Floor

San Rafael, CA 94901

Telephone: (415) 834-1778

Fax: (415) 834-1842

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Mothers of Lost

Children

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS

CURIAE BRIEF..................................................................... 1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE..................................... 2

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SHOW THAT

MOTHERS ARE SYSTMATICALLY

FORCED TO ACCEPT PLACEMENT OF

THEIR CHILDREN WITH ABUSIVE

SPOUSES................................................................................ 3

CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

State Cases

Betra v. Wolfe (March 14, 2008) 0116059/2004, Motion

Seq. No. 001, Supreme Court of the State of New

York, New York County, 2008 NY Slip Op 30821,

2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1933 .................................. 7

Linda Shao v. Tsan-Kuen Wang, H040395, filed on

May 10, 2017. See a copy at

http://shaochronology.blogspot.com/2017/04/evidenc

e-of-conspiracy-and-judicial.html. .......................... 8

Other Authorities

Geraldine Stahly, Research pending publication ..... 3

IACHR, 0 EA/Ser/LIV /II. 128, Doc. 19, July 24, 2007.

................................................................................. 8

Insight Magazine, on the news online, Vol. 15, No. 16 May 3,1999 .............................................................. 7

US Department of Justice, Justice News: “Attorney

ii

General Eric Holder via Video to the National

Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence

and Child Maltreatment” Tuesday, June 2, 2009;

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general

-eric-holder-video-national-summit-intersection-do

mestic-violence-and ................................................. 9

1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS

CURIAE BRIEF

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.2, counsel for

Petitioners and Respondents were timely notified

Amicus Curiae Mothers of Lost Children’s intent to

file this amicus brief. Petitioner consented but

Respondents had rejected to stipulate to filing of the

Amicus Curiae Brief.

WHEREFOR, amicus respectfully moves this Court to

grant filing of the Amicus Curiae Brief as stated

below.

Dated: November 14, 2017; December 9, 2017 efiling date.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER W. KATZENBACH

ckatzenbach@kkcounsel.com

KATZENBACH LAW OFFICES

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Mothers of Lost Children

2

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

Amicus curiae MOTHERS OF LOST CHILDREN is a

grassroots organization with a mission to raise

awareness about child abuse and create a social

justice movement to ensure children are placed with

the safe parent when the other parent is an abuser.

Many mothers have learned through painful

experiences that the court system is often not

friendly to women and children who have been

victimized. Over the last two decades, the courts

have become biased in favor of abusive men who seek

custody. This is disturbing news. As said by

Cheyenne Proverb, “A nation is not conquered until

the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it

is done, no matter how brave its warriors, nor how

strong their weapons.”

Our organization has been in contact with over 3,000

safe nurturing mothers whose children have been

taken from them and given to abusive fathers.

1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.6, amicus affirms that no

counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, that no

such counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to

fund the preparation or submission of this brief, and that no

person other than amicus and its counsel made such a monetary

contribution. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.2, counsel of

record for Petitioner and Respondents were timely notified of the

filing of this amicus brief. Petitioner consented but Respondents’

counsel did not consent.

3

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES SHOW THAT MOTHERS

ARE SYSTMATICALLY FORCED TO ACCEPT

PLACEMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN WITH

ABUSIVE SPOUSES.

Research by Geraldine Stahly, Ph.D. on 399 national

protective mother cases, of which 40% were from

California, shows a chilling pattern 2:

•

90% of mothers reported being victims of

domestic violence but were advised not to raise

issues of domestic violence or abuse in court

even though 82% of the cases had evidence of

child abuse. Half of these fathers had criminal

histories.

•

Allegations of physical and sexual child abuse

arose in nearly all cases. In 75% of cases,

children positively identified fathers as

perpetrators. The children had serious

symptoms, including sleep disorders, rage,

regression, fears/phobias, pain, depression,

dissociation, sexual acting out, suicide attempt,

constipation/diarrhea, learning disability, and

eating disorders.

•

After mothers brought child abuse, child

support, domestic violence, violation of court

2 California Protective Parents Association commissioned the

study which was led by researcher Geraldine Stahly, Ph.D.,

which is pending publication.

4

order, criminal conduct, substance abuse,

move away, or spousal support to the attention

of the court, judges ignored or minimized

evidence of abuse and changed custody to the

fathers in three quarters of cases.

•

67% of mothers lost parenting rights based on

an evaluator’s recommendation and 44% lost

custody due to a mediator’s report. Attorneys

for children zealously advocated for their

clients in only 9% of cases.

•

Nationally, only 17% of mothers (75%) had

primary custody after court proceedings.

In California, 85% of mothers in California lost

custody after bringing issues of violence and

abuse to the attention of the family (divorce)

court.

•

Over half of mothers attempting to protect

their children were restricted from all contact

with their children, and nearly half were put

on supervised visitation, at some point in the

proceedings.

•

98% of the fathers were represented by

an attorney while the mother had no

attorney.

•

Over half of hearings were held without a court

reporter present, thus precluding an appeal.

5

•

Most mothers believed there was unethical

communication among court professionals, and

between the fathers and court professionals.

•

27% of mothers filed for bankruptcy after

spending a modal average of $100,000 on

litigation, and 78% of the cases were still in

progress.

•

Two thirds of the children continued to

report abuse. 86% of mothers believe their

children were still being abused yet believe

they cannot protect their children. Over half of

mothers stopped reporting abuse for fear their

contact with their children would be

terminated.

It is clear from these data that children are being

taken from their primary caregiving mothers and

placed with fathers whom the children identified as

abusive. The family court is not responding well

to the plight of abused children.

As medical research shows, these children will

have far-reaching negative outcomes in adulthood.

It is incumbent upon family court to prevent such

outcomes by keeping children safe and nurtured.

Evaluators, mediators, children’s attorneys and

judges ignored or suppressed the evidence. Instead of

6

protecting the children, courts changed custody to

the identified abuser. In over 60% of the cases,

custody was changed in ex parte hearings which are

intended to protect, not endanger, children. 3

Why are abused children of divorce not protected?

There are two main reasons.

The first factor is money.

Divorce is the outcome of about 50% of marriages in

California. In middle and upper-income divorces,

child custody has become a huge money-making

enterprise.

•

Attorneys and mental health professionals

make a handsome living from custody

litigation. The longer it goes on, the more

money they make.

•

Judges receive job security, and retired

judges “moonlight” by hearing overflow cases.

•

In a 1999 Washington Times Insight

Magazine article “Is Justice for Sale in LA?”,

reporter Kelly Patricia O’Meara described

other income in the form of payoffs to judges

through a slush fund in Los Angeles. See,

3 See footnote 2.

The statistics were provided by Dr. Stahl,

commissioned by California Protective Parents Association, and

is pending publication.

7

Insight Magazine, on the news online, Vol.

15, No. 16 - May 3,1999

•

When one litigant can afford an attorney

while the other cannot, this financial

imbalance places the self-represented litigant

at a distinct disadvantage in court.

Large contributions to judicial campaign funds are a

vehicle for potentially influencing judges, and in at

least one jurisdiction, direct bribes were used. New

York Judge Gerald Garson was convicted and

imprisoned in 2007 for accepting bribes to

manipulate the outcomes of divorce proceedings.

See, Betra v. Wolfe (March 14, 2008) 0116059/2004,

Motion Seq. No. 001, Supreme Court of the State of

New York, New York County, 2008 NY Slip Op 30821,

2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1933

Judges and court-appointed professionals are

rarely disciplined or held accountable for decisions

that endanger children.

•

Appeals are prohibitively expensive

•

Appeals judges rarely reverse lower court

rulings.

•

Judges and court appointees have immunity.

•

The California oversight agency, the

Commission for Judicial Performance, spends

over $3 million dollars per year. However,

8

no judges were removed from the bench in a

three-year period.

Yi Tai Shao aka Linda Shao and her daughter fit this

pattern. Their case is typical of cases in which

abusers, not children, are protected by family courts.

Her case is so egregious that an expert on child abuse,

Meera Fox, Esq. found the child’s lengthy parental

deprival was caused by the courts’ conspiracy with

her prior attorney. Linda Shao v. Tsan-Kuen Wang,

H040395, filed on May 10, 2017. See a copy at

http://shaochronology.blogspot.com/2017/04/evidence

-of-conspiracy-and-judicial.html.

As citizens, children are having their constitutional

rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness violated,

along with their human right to safety. In 2011, the

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found

in the Gonzales (Lenahan) case that the United

States was committing human rights violations by

not protecting women and girls. See IACHR, 0

EA/Ser/LIV /II. 128, Doc. 19, July 24, 2007. This

mother and child exemplify the IACHR findings.

In 2009, at a National Summit on the Intersection of

Domestic Violence and Child Mistreatment, prior

9

Attorney General Eric Holder urged the judges to

consider the following issues 4:

•

Why are mothers who are the victims of

domestic violence losing custody of their

children to the courts and to the child

protection system?

•

Why are children of color over-represented in

the child protection system?

•

Do children need a relationship with their

fathers even when their fathers have been

abusive to them and their mothers in the

past? If so, what does that relationship

looks alike?

“Protecting our children is one of the most

important things we can do for society,”

Congressman Ted Poe stated in announcing House

Resolution 150 to end the court ordered abuse in

September 2016. The harsh realities of child abuse

are real.

Ms. Shao’s case is a good example of court ordered

abuse of a child and mother.

4

The court, child’s

See US Department of Justice, Justice News: “Attorney

General Eric Holder via Video to the National Summit on the

Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment”

Tuesday, June 2, 2009; see also

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder

-video-national-summit-intersection-domestic-violence-and

10

attorney and professionals jointly suppressed her

ex-husband’s dangerous mental illness, and refused

to recuse themselves when there have been direct

conflicts of interest.

California Protective Parents Association, wrote an

Amicus Curiae letter for Linda Shao regarding the

court-ordered abuse which was sent to the Chief

Justice of California Supreme Court on July 2, 2014.

Resolution 150 has been reintroduced as H. Con. Res.

72 in the 115 Congress. This Petition for Writ of

Certiorari is in line with the goals of the Resolution.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Amicus request that Linda

Shao’s Petition be granted.

Dated: November 14, 2017; December 9, 2017 e-filing

date.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER W. KATZENBACH

ckatzenbach@kkcounsel.com

KATZENBACH LAW OFFICES

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Mothers of Lost Children