December 17, 2014

Direct Message To My Dad

I have provided much documentation to supporters (both mine and yours) to back up my statements and give as accurate a picture as I possibly can of what we are going through and what happened in the past to get us to this point. I've seen countless people use the fact Mom lost custody to support you. It seems to me that all they've seen from you is the published Appellate Court decision that can be found online.

I ask you to provide us all with the Child Custody Settlement Conference Report from 2010 that was used to determine that Mom coached us and that you should be awarded custody. It is time to see exactly what it is that Mom coached us about that was so egregious to lose custody. 

You've led your supporters to believe Mom is capable of brainwashing us, and you have influenced so many of your followers to want her prosecuted for possibly hiding with Syd and Dani and "emotionally abusing" them.

If you are in the right, you should have no reason to fear immediately producing that document for the public to see.

Thank you.

Brittany

13 comments:

  1. I think Brian Wolferts is afraid to produce actual evidence, because lies are his modus operandi. I also notice his supporters are suspiciously incurious about actual documentation to support his claims all these months while he keeps withholding any offer of safe asylum or desire to help his girls feel safe to come out of hiding. Let's see what you've got, Brian!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, if he has nothing to fear (which he does not!!) he can at least be as open as you are being! False allegations of mothers coaching is directly responsible for countless children being abandoned to their abusers care. It is unfathomable what we have required children to endure under false accusations of coaching!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a huge money-maker in America to give children to their abusers, which causes protective parents to be forced to use the courts for years of endless battles to free their children from abuse. All of the court-ordered custody evaluators, GALs, special masters, therapists, etc make loads of money for years in cases like this one. And unless you've experienced it or seen someone close experience it, you just assume the courts are all there to protect you. It is a travesty.

      Delete
  3. Has Brian Wolferts reached out to you, Brittany, and produced the document yet? Has anyone seen him post it to his own page or blog? With all the claims that you, Syd, and Dani are lying, and the repeated claims that Michelle is engaging in "custodial interference," you'd think that he'd have produced this document to show proof of his claims and backup for why he was granted primary custody in 2010. I think we all deserve to see it, especially given the abuse we've all been suffering from Brian's supporters who have taken his cause on in earnest against his daughters who claim he's abused them. They especially deserve to see that they were acting all these months on behalf of a good, righteous man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not seen anything yet. He should have absolutely no problem producing the document that he has been referring to.

      Delete
  4. This is probably consuming you. I'd be crushed. You're amazing. I hope you're doing okay. Chin up, girl.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Brian Wolferts, put up or shut up. But you can't do that can you? Because cowards never can. You are a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It does make one wonder why he would not want to post the custody evaluator's report that talks about Michelle's coaching. Maybe the report has more than just information about Michelle? Maybe it has information about Brian's, um, predilections?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read the whole Appellate Court decision. I cant believe it! The took the children from their stable long standing care giver and handed them over to a known sexual addict and abuser all because of legal loop holes. The only claims the court had against the mother was that she did not jump through all of their legal loop holes. When the mother complained about the nature of the legal loop holes they said she could not prove what she was saying. There are not valid claims in the letter against the mother. There are no valid reasons stated to remove the kids from the mother. Non of the evidence of abuse was even discussed or reviewed. The whole custody hearing was about weather or not the mother jumped through loop holes. There was no mention about the fathers actions about weather or not the father acted legally correctly. The fathers legal standing was not evaluated. How in the world did the mothers plea to protect her children against an abusive father turn back on her and turn into her loosing her children? She did nothing wrong or hurtful to the children. The court did not discuss any hurtful actions the mother did. The court only discussed how the mother failed to jump through legal loops.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The court is operating on the assumption that the mothers custody should be removed. The court sets up loop holes the mother must jump through in order to prove she is innocent or able to raise her daughters. The court has legalistic application of the loopholes and legalistic evaluation of the mothers performance but the court does not legally evaluate its own practices. The mother is found in contempt while the court does not even consider weather or not its practices were contradictory or changed. The mother should be assumed to be innocent of contempt of court. The court should have to prove the mother was in contempt. When the mother says the courts actions were changing and unclear the court should have the burden of proving they were standard, clear and met the legal standard. If the court can not prove that they acted legally then the court has no standing in accusing the of mother in contempt. The court put all the burden of proof of innocence on the mother and then told the mother because she could not prove she was innocent she was assumed to be guilty. The mother was found in contempt of court. That is it. Since when is contempt of court a justification of removing children from their parents?

    ReplyDelete
  9. According to http://www.utcourts.gov/specproj/galcasa.htm "A Guardian ad Litem ensures that the child's rights are protected, the child's voice is heard, and the child's best interests are advanced." It is not possible that the Guardian ad Litem is doing their job if they have not personally met with the children. It is not possible that they are doing their job if they have not reviewed all claims of abuse. It is not possible that the Guardian ad Litem is doing their job if they have not reviewed all expert witness's claims of abuse. If the Guardian ad Litem has not met with the children, met with the expert witnesses and reviewed all possible evidences for abuse then they have no expert recommendations to give. If a Guardian ad Litem gives recommendations in a court case without direct knowledge then they are doing nothing more then giving recommendations based on their own biases and prejudices. I think the neutrality of all Guardian ad Litem's should be called into question if they are not actually communicating with the children they represent or their expert witnesses or their evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many GAL's do not meet with their clients. Yet they do sit in court and purport to represent them. It's worse if the child is in DCFS custody.

      Delete