January 22, 2016

"Unsubstantiated" Abuse

My dad's attorney Ron Wilkinson has been making statements to news crews regarding the abuse allegations that aren't true. I don't always discuss responses of my dad and his attorney, but the following statement he made to the Daily Herald needs to be addressed. (Click here to read the full article.)

In this post, I'm going to discuss why Wilkinson's statement is untrue to the highest degree. It will follow into the next post which will discuss the brainwashing/alienation/coaching accusations against my mother, and how my sisters and I have not been "coached" into talking about fabricated abuse. Everything we have talked about is what we have experienced firsthand, and there are many documents and professional evaluations that speak of this truth.

FACTS regarding substantiated abuse:

1) On January 3, 2005, DCFS SUBSTANTIATED domestic related child abuse and neglect against my dad because among other things, we had witnessed him attempting to throw my mom down the stairs. That was only one out of the uncountable acts of violence he committed against my mother, myself and my sisters. My sisters and I never had the opportunity to tell DCFS about all of the physical abuse he frequently committed against us, because of the fact that abused children usually cannot instantly recall random, traumatic memories during very short interview(s) done by relative strangers. Especially when it is a stranger who they believe will report to their Dad, who will then punish us through further severe emotional abuse for speaking out (Remember, this is our same father who punishes us for something as simple and harmless as breathing or blinking).

2) I have the entire DCFS document that proves the fact that DCFS clearly did support a finding of abuse against my Dad, and that they documented both their conversation and their letter to my dad informing him they had substantiated abuse against him. My dad's attorney Mr. Wilkinson, the GAL Kelly Peterson and the Special Master Sandra Dredge had all received copies of the DCFS substantiated abuse against my dad, yet Ron Wilkinson still made the statement, "the allegations are unsubstantiated claims made by his ex-wife Michelle to gain custody" to the news.

3) Crime Victim's Reparations paid for my therapy because of my Dad's abuse.

4) My father Brian Wolferts addmitted to a history of sexual contact with a child for which he was neither investigated nor charged for a crime. Brian also
admitted that at the age of 23 he exposed himself to two young girls as he exited a shower, and that 'years later' he masturbated to thoughts of the older girl (11 or 12 at the time of the incident) by placing her in the position of the younger girl (6 or 7 at the time of the incident). Ethical standards of the Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers (ATSA) state: "a client who has a history of sexual contact with children or who reports engaging in sexual fantasies about children should be restricted from having unsupervised visitation with children" (Section 12.03, Ethical Standards). Read more here in C.Y. Roby's Psychosexual Evaluation.

5) After DCFS substantiated abuse the first time, several therapists contacted DCFS for a second time, but at that point my dad had made friends with the Guardian ad Litem who had influence to stop the investigations (this is the same GAL who had NEVER ONCE met with my sisters and I, yet reported to the court that he had met with us. The first time I met the GAL was on the day he told me he was transferring custody to our abusive father). 

6) Because of the fact that as a 9-year-old I had experienced severe and prolonged punishments by my Dad (and other adults he influenced against me for years) because of DCFS's first substantiation of abuse against him, there is also some relief that DCFS had not conducted the second abuse investigation. This is because they would have likely substantiated abuse against him a second time, while not giving any real guarantees that we would have been protected from additional prolonged and permanent trauma that he would have inflicted upon us. This is a very sad paradox to point out but in reaching out to DCFS for protection, we were exposing ourselves to relentless punishments by him for doing so, and offered no safe haven.

7) After my sister Sydney was diagnosed with Celiac's Disease through a biopsy done by a well-known specialist, my dad not only refused to allow Sydney the gluten free diet required to stabilize her illness, but also constantly bought her favorite foods with gluten and compelled her to eat them. He made her feel guilty for wanting to eat gluten-free and abused her in other ways.

FACTS contradicting Ron Wilkinson's statement that "Each time, there have been expert evaluations, court hearings, and each time, through due process, it's determined that the children are not at risk in his care and abuse is not taking place":

8) After several investigations had been collectively made over the course of three years through DCFS, the first GAL, and a custody evaluation completed in 2007, the court found that my mother should remain the custodial parent. My mother was determined to have exceptionally healthy mental health and parenting skills, that she was intelligent, multi-talented, supportive of us, provided consistent and reasonable family rules and much more (head to the post "Brainwashing" and the "Substantial Abuse" tab to read more about the way my mother was severely deprived of due process when custody was wrongly defaulted to my father).

9) In the default custody sanctions trial where custody was wrongly defaulted to my dad, Evaluator Dr. Blakelock testified that mother does not have any mental health issues, and "There was really nothing in Michelle's report. She was quite normal. Quite average. And there were no indications that she had any pathology." He also states that her children (Sydney, Dani and I) were "independent" and "amazing", "in a large part" because of my mother's parenting. He also testified that the children get sad when they have to be with their dad for a longer time, that they are very afraid of being punished by dad, and that in my Mother's custody we were not depressed, were not anxious, were resilient, and were "quite amazing". He stated that we wanted to be in my Mother's custody, acknowledged our reaction would be "one of loss", and that it would be "difficult" for us if we were placed in our father's custody.

10) We were placed unsupervised in our father's custody against the ATSA (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuser) guidelines because the second custody evaluator Dr. Blakelock stated that the "good reasons" in our case NOT to follow these guidelines is that "Brian's demonstrated control over any deviant arousal he may have experienced. The fact that other responsible adults have been informed of his sexual history, so they can monitor. And the fact that his daughters are of such age that they're fully capable, and they're hyper-vigilant to any sexually inappropriate behavior that he may engage in."

11) The second custody evaluator Dr. Blakelock did not report how we were always terrified to say very much about him to anyone, while he indicates that another reason my dad did not need to follow the ATSA guidelines requiring him to be supervised around children was because other responsible adults had been informed about my Dad's sexual history. The secret knowledge two or three adults may have had about my dad's need for supervision did not offer us any protection at all.     

12) DCFS and three expert doctors had all indicated on various levels that my sisters and I were at risk with my dad.

13) Dr. C.Y Roby testified the following in an affidavit: 

1. I, Dr. C.Y. Roby do hereby depose and state, under oath, that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief:
2. I was asked by the Respondent's attorney to state whether or not it is appropriate for Mr. Wolferts, the Petitioner in this matter, to participate in filial therapy with his children, as previously ordered by the Court, if he has not completed his sex therapy. My professional opinion is that he needs to complete the sex therapy before he participates in any type of filial therapy with the children.
3. The children could be at great risk.
4.  If Mr. Wolferts has a letter from my former associate Mike Cox stating that Mr. Wolferts has completed his therapy, the letter is unauthorized without my signature. I have not signed any such document stating that Mr. Wolferts has completed the program.
5. Mr. Wolferts has not completed the program.

14) The next expert who tested my father was Dr. Jonathan Ririe. He saw my dad a few times, and administered a psychosexual exam. After testing was completed, Dr. Ririe recommended supervised visitation with no overnight visitation. He would not have recommended this without a professional determination of some kind of risk. On November 13, 2008 the following recommendation was made an Order of the Special Master:

2.       ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MASTER DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2008, R. at 689, 1:1 Dear Brian and Michelle, as you both know Dr. Ririe has completed Mr. Wolferts psycho-sexual evaluation and provided the Special Master with written recommendations.  Therefore, the following is an Order of the Special Master.  Third party supervised visitation:
                                                                         a.      Mr. Wolferts is to have third party day visitation starting November 15, 2008

                                                                        b.      Mr. Wolferts may exercise third party supervised visitation as outlined in the statutory visitation guidelines.  However, no overnight visitation is to take place at this time.

15) Dr. Blakelock (who was brought into the case along with Dr. Ryrie by my dad's attorney in attempts to replace Dr. Roby) testified that the ASTA standards (Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers) that he was required to adhere to required my dad to be supervised around us, while he also testified that he did not believe my dad needed to abide by the standards because he referred to them as "default guidelines".

16) When asked if he had any concern that my dad posed any legitimate serious threat to assault or abuse his children in any way, Blakelock stated, "When I first started it I kind of reviewed some of the material and I was concerned. But after talking with Dr. Ryrie, reviewing the psychosexual that Dr. Ryrie had completed... no, no risk at all."

The fact that second custody evaluator Dr. Blakelock indicated a need to monitor in order to control risk, entirely contradicts his statement that he believes there was no risk.

17) First Custody Evaluator Dr. Lois Dettenmaier's opinion from 4.27.07:

a.       “Appears unable to keep the children outside the parental conflict”
b.      “Appears unable to convincingly encourage positive interactions between his daughters and their mother”
c.       “Appears to experience some difficulty effectively communicating with this children’s mother, without involving the children themselves”
d.      “Perceived as unwilling to support the other parent’s childrearing techniques”
e.       “Fails to accept Michelle as an appropriate Mother to his children”

18) Dr. Blakelock discredited our fears through claiming that (in his brief, approximate 2 hours of observation) he did not directly witness the cause of our worry and fears

1. 5.5.10 TRANSCRIPT, CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. BLAKELOCK BY MR. PETERSON:  R. at 2480, R. at 200:1-4  A.  I get sad when I have to be with my dad for a longer time.  I’d like to change the divorce.  The worst time I remember is Dad yelling at Mom.   I get very afraid of being punished by my dad.

2. 5.5.10 TRANSCRIPT, CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. BLAKELOCK BY MR. PETERSON:  R. at 2480, 198:13-20, Q. (By Mr. Peterson) You mentioned specific examples of things that the children had mentioned in the sen---I believe it was the sentence completion test, or, or some other testing that---A.  This is part of the sentence completion test, yeah. Q. That illustrated the maladjustment of the children with Mom.  (21-25) A.  Basically they talked about, I worry about living with my dad.  And my observations with them on the visit, I didn’t see any worry.  I think that’s something that was instilled in them with the, you know, you’re a risk –you’re at risk of harm with (R. at 199:1) your dad. 

Please read the next post, which follows into the next portion of Wilkinson's statement and discusses the brainwashing/coaching claims against my mother.

Click HERE for the full document I have referenced to, under the tab "Substantiated Abuse". Please read it. It shows how my father's attorney Mr. Wilkinson repeatedly misrepresented and misconstrued the material facts on the case in transcripts and other forms of evidence.

Click HERE to donate to my sister's legal fund. I am fighting for them to keep them SAFE IN UTAH where they want to be, and keep them SAFE from the terrible, life-altering danger they have repeatedly stated they would face if they were forced to return to our horribly abusive father. 

Thank you all for your continuing support, I know that when Sydney and Dani are safe and able to know all of you who have supported, they will be extremely grateful and overcome. I will keep you updated on tomorrow's court hearing.



  1. Your sisters are in my thoughts. Good for you campaigning for them and telling their story.

  2. As I read #9 I am confused. I'm confused that Blakelock would say that and then say something different noted below. I am not doubting the truth, here, just saying that it contradicts what he says below. Maybe he did that, but I wanted to be sure. He's probably a sex offender, too, so that is why he minimizes the need to follow "default guidelines." It's okay to not publish my comment. I just want to make sure that everything is clear as you fight this battle or evil.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. We have a similar story that took place in the same court house, against Ron Wilkinson, Harold Blakelock, and Ron’s similar crew. All of the same trial strategies were used (i.e. false proffering to the court, hiding evidence, changing evals, getting rid of solid professionals to bring in Blakelock and others). Ron was equally as dishonest/criminal in our case. He has financially destroyed our family and taken any means of exposing he and his group, or of undoing the horrible damage he has done of destroying our family by the removal of two of four children through his blatant false proffers, trial tactics, and group of “so-calle-professionals” (which are anything but in the true sense of the word). Our full ability to fight this man is limited to a good-hearted, but overloaded, attorney who’s doing all he can do to help us on the side. We are still fighting Ron Wilkinson in District and Appellate Court as he seeks to financially bind us to him indefinitely and or bankrupt us. He leaves us with no means to fight the injustice of our case, or for our children. Such would also seem a strategy.

    The man and his group need to be brought to justice. They are destroying lives for power and profit in our community.

    In at least this one court house, with at least this one man and the posse who so willingly works with him, it appears working for “the best interest of the child” has been a facade for personal gain. I hope this blog spreads far and wide beyond the walls of our community, county, and state, and ignites a fire that needs to be lit in order for the people to see the truth, get involved with the group of families whom have experienced it, and put and end to the endless damage of our families, and most especially, our children.

    Jennica S

  5. I wanna add that Blakelock was bias against Rody. He testified he didn't like him. Roby is highly recommended. I also want to add the Blakelock did also admitted he did not test Brian. And had very little contact with him.

  6. You are the bravest person in the world. My father was abuser too.

  7. I am sorry that you suffered so much. I hope you won`t give up.