Parental Alienation Syndrome Supports CA - CA

Parental Alienation Syndrome is as much of a “syndrome” as CACAS! Court Appointed Child Abuse Syndrome!

Shoot, we know that some parents say bad things about the other. When a good parent, mother or father, is alienated from their child under false allegations of any sort, we agree that this is child abuse! However abusers are skilled manipulators and hide behind the term PAS to cover up their abuse to their own child. All too often PAS directly results in Court Appointed Child Abuse.

Mother's Rights groups as well as Father’s Rights groups should all agree that Child Abuse is wrong! And that Court Appointed Child Abuse just compounds the abuse! We challenge every organization to support protecting children from every form of abuse! ~Jennifer

Little Hilary is no longer silenced

Hilary Foretich, now known as Elena Mitrano was rescued from Court Appointed Abuse Child Abuse by her courageous mother, Elizabeth Morgan and secretly fled the country with her maternal grandparents to New Zealand. Elizabeth Morgan spent 25 months in jail in order to protect Hillary from abuse.

When I was only 7 years old, the Family Court awarded custody of me and my brother Zachary (9) to our abusive father who was found by the very same judge to be an abuser! For 18 months and 8 days we suffered even more Court Appointed Child Abuse until our amazing young mother, Holly Collins kidnapped us away from our father’s house of hell!

When we were on the run our mom researched local libraries while we were entertained with the children's story hour. My mom found the Foretich/Morgan Case and their story stirred up the courage in our own mom to also attempt to find us sanctuary in New Zealand. We were apprehended in Europe during a layover. Three long years of living in refugee centers, we were the first Americans to receive asylum in the Netherlands. "Little Hilary," "Little Zachary," and "Little Jennifer" are no longer silenced thanks to our heroic mothers.

Through our organization, (CA)3 Zachary and I, Jennifer intend on giving abused children a voice to be reckoned with. Elena has expressed her wonderful voice through her newly release album “Rescue Me.” This is one of my favorite songs, “Voiceless” from Elana Mitrano. ~ Jennifer


Little Alanna is No Longer Silenced

Youth in Court Need Attorneys Who Represent Their Interests Fairly, Strongly
From the San Francisco Daily Journal Monday, July 17, 2000
By Alanna Krause

Hundreds of years of legal history have lead the United States to implement a system that ensures that every party in a legal proceeding gets a voice. We rest assured that, unlike in other nations, we can not be incarcerated without our day in court, lawyer by our side. What a country we live in: so civilized, so well thought out. God bless America.

But there is a forgotten minority that is not afforded these basic rights. They are not criminals or foreign aliens. In contrast, they are a group we all hold dear - one innocent and well meaning, with no hidden agendas or twisted motives - children.

Instead of actually being represented, children get their "best interests" represented by adults. We children have no choice and no recourse when those adults have their own agendas.

A case in point? Mine.

My parents separated when I was 5-years-old, sparking a custody battle that lasted nine years. I never doubted that I wanted to be with my mother. My father Marshall Krause, is an abuser, and living with him was a mental and physical hell and definitely not in my best interests. Yet, In Marin Family Court, that seemed to be irrelevant. My family court experience consisted of lawyers, judges, evaluators and social workers who turned their backs on their consciences and their professional oaths. They're worked contrary to not only my best interests, but to my health and safety.

My father, a wealthy and well-connected lawyer, used his influence and money to manipulate the system. And he didn't work alone. The court-appointed evaluator, Edward Oklan, M.D., fell under his spell and ignored my reports of my father's abuse of drugs and of me. The lawyer appointed to represent my "best interests," Sandra Acevedo, spent her allotted time with me parroting my father's words, attempting to convince me that I really wanted to live with him. She ignored my reports of abuse. And the therapist my father made me see, Lana Clark, LCSW, was far from objective - she was sleeping with him.

The judge, Sylvia Shapiro-Pritchard, an admitted long-time friend of my father's, rubberstamped any order my father requested. I wrote the judge letters, called her office and did everything I could to make myself heard. She ignored my pleas. I had no rights. I couldn't replace my lawyer with one who would speak for me nor could I speak for myself in court. I couldn't cross examine the court evaluators or therapists and their claims were thus untouchable. I felt like I was witnessing the proceedings from the wrong side of soundproof glass.

My mother tried her best, but she was a David facing Goliath - except in my story, she didn't even have a sling. After years of valiant struggle gaining nothing but legal fees, she had to let go and put her life back together in the hopes that someday I could get out on my own.

While living with my father, I did what I could to survive. I made nine reports to Child Protective Services and several calls to the police over the years, to no avail. They would always tell me that unless I had witnesses or bruises, they couldn't substantiate my claims of abuse. Finally, one day my father threw me into a stone wall at school and a teacher called Child Protective Services.

He's never said as much, but my father panicked. He had worked so hard to build a delicate set of lies and twisted truths to present himself as the well-meaning parent whose "unstable" ex-wife had given his troubled daughter "alienating parent syndrome," resulting in abuse "delusions." The truth was his worst fear.
Acting quickly, he had my therapist, his lover, suddenly decide I was dangerously troubled and needed to be locked up. So I, an 11-year-old straight-A student who had never tried sex, drugs or alcohol, nor ever been in a fight, found myself in an out-of-state lockdown facility with 17-year-old drug-dealing gang-banging street kids. I was beaten up, taunted and was blocked from communicating with the outside world. I was forced into therapy where they tried to brainwash me into believing my mother was insane, that my father's drug use didn't exist and that the abuse my father inflicted on me was all in my head.

When I realized the truth was getting me nowhere, I lied and parroted back their words. It took me 6 months to convince them I was "cured." Holding onto the truth was the hardest thing I have ever done.

After my release, my father, thankfully, shipped me out to a nice boarding school. My two years there were my best years since my mother and I were separated. When I went back to live with him at age 13, I couldn't take it anymore. Knowing I'd never find justice in Marin, I ran away, hoping to find a judicious jurisdiction elsewhere. I ended up in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Juvenile Court took my case and placed me in a safe home. Court investigators and evaluators found my mother to be a fit parent and my father to be dangerous. My father hired an expensive lawyer and tried to play his old tricks, but the judge had none of it. Full custody was awarded to my mother, and visitation with my father was left at my discretion.

In Los Angeles, I was a party in my case, whereas in Marin, I was only leverage in my parent's battle. Los Angeles was heaven.

The practice of trying to ascertain what is in a child's best interest exists because minors supposedly cannot speak for themselves. Yet at 11, I could speak for myself. I had a mind and a set of opinions, but no one seemed to care. The judge denied my right to legal representation, especially when the court-appointed lawyer wouldn't speak my truth. Granted, there is no guarantee that hearing me would have inspired the judge to untwist her motives and unclench her hold on personal allegiances and biases, but who knows? At least it would have been in the court record.

My right as an American is to have legal representation in court proceedings, but when my lawyer wouldn't speak for me, I was allowed no voice.

No American should be locked up without a trial in front of a jury of peers, or some sort of legal equivalent, but it happens to minors all the time. We have an elaborate system to keep innocent adults out of jail, but no system to prevent the false imprisonment of youth in mental hospitals and discipline institutions.
Children are not parties in divorce proceedings - we are property to be divided. Yet children are people too. As citizens, we must be afforded ourhuman and legal rights. And when those adults who are supposed to speakfor us fail, we need some recourse.

Alanna Krause is now in college, doing well.

Jurors Letter to Judge - Wendy Titelman Case

The letter below, delivered to the Judge by jury foreman, Bryan Wilson, was written at the request of other jurors, and provides the overall best documented example of why Federal assistance, in the form of whistleblower protection is necessary to address judicial abuse in family law courts, in allowing thugs disguised as attorneys and mental health "professionals" representing the best interests of children.

Shortly after Mr. Wilson hand delivered the letter to the judge, he received an emailed threat, from the Court appointed, mental health "professional," Lorita Whitaker.

Please read the letter and see if it strikes a chord in your area.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Bryan Wilson,

Jury Foreperson

State of Georgia vs. Wendy Titelman

Dear Honorable Judge Bodiford and Mr. Pat Head:

My name is Bryan Wilson and I recently served as a juror on a trial, (April 23-27, 2001) in the Cobb County Superior Court of Georgia.

Several members of the jury have requested that I write a letter summarizing our thoughts and concerns pertaining to the case we heard; State of Georgia v. Wendy Titelman. To understand why this case even made it to trial was a question each of us had to ask while we were deliberating on Friday.

We were perplexed as to why our State would pursue such a case so diligently when there were obvious errors in the indictment and credible reports indicating sexual and emotional abuse to two small children and the prosecution of the mother who sought to protect them from harm's way.

We, the jury felt that the "State of Georgia" did in fact, neglect to protect these children and furthermore, did not have the children's bestinterests at heart. It appeared they wished to cover up blatant miss-steps by an agency (DFACS) that appears to have made several errors in judgment.

I would like to take an opportunity to summarize these areas of concern. I sincerely hope that action can be taken to correct these situations in thefuture. Not only will this save the State of Georgia the expense of prosecuting such flimsy cases, but will also serve to better protect theones who need it most, the CHILDREN of our State.

1. The "Indictment."

The indictment was very poorly written and poorly executed. The dates were inconsistent with the prosecution's effort to paint the mother as a "lawbreaker and flight risk." Based on the information we received, the dates listed in the indictment were within the legal limits spelled out in the final divorce decree's visitation schedule. It is incredible to believe that our court system would put a decent woman in jail for doing something completely legal during the indictment's window! Very poorly written indictment in our opinion.

2. The charge of "Fleeing Justice."

Based on the evidence presented, we, the jury, were unanimous in agreeing with and supporting Ms. Titelman in her beliefs that there was probable cause to protect her children. The evidence gave strong indication the children were being sexually molested by their father. Ms. Hakes, the Assistant Prosecutor, in her closing statements called Ms. Titelman a "zealot" like Timothy McVeigh for wanting to take the law into her own hands and protect her children. I believe the majority of us on the jury have children. It was also unanimous that had we felt there was reason to believe our children were being abused or neglected in any way, and when seeking help, found the state (who is supposed to protect our children) unwilling to review the evidence in an unbiased light, would have reacted in similar ways.

3. "Taking the law into her own hands."

We, the jury, saw Ms. Titelman as someone desperately trying to use the legal system in Georgia to its fullest extent to protect her children, but to no avail. Then, when discovering more evidence of abuse, was left with no choice but to apply to the State of Mississippi for help. Although Ms.Hakes painted Ms. Titelman as a manipulator and extremist, we felt that she was justified in using whatever means necessary to protect her children.

Ms. Hakes said over and over during her cross-examinations, "the State ofGeorgia knows best how to protect its children." We are not so sure after sitting on the jury and seeing first hand the types of "guardians" and "counselors" that the State of Georgia appoints to protect our most precious resources and future taxpayers. Dr. King admitted under oath, the children told her they were being abused.

Why then do the children remain in the custody of the accused when the State does not appear to have proved otherwise?

4. "Does Not Deserve Justice!"

We,the jury, were horrified when Ms. Hakes told us in her closing statements that Ms. Titelman didn't deserve justice.

What does that mean?

Doesn't everyone deserves justice and aren't we all innocent until proven guilty?

For the Assistant Prosecutor to openly say that a citizen doesn't deserve justice is an outrage and an insult to our justice system.

5. Court appointed zealots.

The court appointed Guardians and Counselors were not credible and did all they could not to disclose real findings or intentions. Ms. Woods defied a State of Mississippi court order (within 24 hours) to protect the children from their father until additional hearings could take place and certain evidence be reviewed.

Ms. King (a supposed expert) interrogated the children for two and one-half hours without taking any notes, or tapes, etc. She then appeared to try and cover up the disclosure of the sexual abuse to the court when asked indirect questioning.

Therefore, we found that there were several disclosures of sexual abuse but little evidence at all of recantations. Ms. Whitaker went so far as to say the children were "abducted!" This accusation further alienated the jury bydis playing such blatant bias against the mother, Ms. Titelman.

6. "Paid Expert Witnesses."

Ms. Hakes was very careful to point out numerous times that the defense had hired "expert" witnesses who were paid for their services. Where is this wrong? We all got paid for doing what we considered our civil duty.

Ms. Hakes gets paid, the state appointed guardians and counselors get paid, the judge and court employees get paid, so why did she feel this was such a big deal?

Ms. Hakes tried to make it a huge deal by claiming the defense had "hired guns."

The State's witnesses were pathetic in our opinion. They were poorly rehearsed, poorly accredited and overtly biased. At one point, Ms. King,when asked a direct question about the children confiding to her that they had been abused by their father, turns to the judge and says,
"I don't want to answer that, they may get mad at me."

Would the State really get "mad" if she told the truth under oath?

In conclusion, the jury collectively felt that the divorce of Wendy and Andy Titelman contained deep dividing issues. It was our wish that moreinformation could have been disclosed to assist our decision.

We all agreed that the children were in all likelihood being sexually abused by their father.
Also, the custody and well-being of these minor children should be a major concern to Cobb County.

A new group of unbiased experts needs to re-evaluate this case and bring closure regarding visitation that satisfies all parties if appropriate. It has been an honor to serve as the foreperson of this jury.

I feel that this jury has served justice, and that the state's mishandling of this case has cost the taxpayers of Cobb County, Georgia a lot of money. Regards, Bryan Wilson, Foreperson

From: Lorita Whitaker

Subject: Titelman case

Mr. Wilson,

As I am sure you are aware, I testified in the Titelman case on which you served as a juror. I deeply regret that you, the jury, have been innocently pulled into this case.

For your information, the Grand Jury heard all evidence last week on this case, including over 2 hours of testimony by Wendy Titelman.

They voted 19-0 in favor of Andy Titelman and found Wendy's prosecution to be "malicious."

Had you the jury heard all the evidence, I am certain you would have had a more complete understanding of a very complex situation that has, in fact, developed over a period of years.

Please understand that we were forbidden to refer to any events prior to Aug. 4, 2000, the date of the final divorce decree.

Literally volumes of evidence was withheld from you because of the nature of the criminal case.

I hope that you are also aware that you are being quoted (including on internet sites) as stating that I have conspired to cover up sexual abuse and am incompetent. I do not blame you because I know the power of the individuals that are involved in this case.

However, these quotes have now come back to me from a number of sources in the community, including some of my patients that have inadvertently crossed paths with members of your jury.

I am now seeking legal advice concerning a possible lawsuit for slander.

You may want to consult a neutral attorney of your own choosing concerning the risk that all of you are placing upon yourselves.

I wish for all of you the best and that you will be able to move forward with your own private lives.

Lorita Whitaker,
MSW Ga. Licensed Clinical Social Worker

Fortunately, Ms. Whitaker additionally sent her email to an unintended, but infinitely curious, third party.


Dedicated to the Children who are still waiting to be rescued:

As painful as this is we will speak for those who can not!


CA3 Board:

Adult Children of Abuse:
Jennifer Collins

Zachary Tveter

Professional Advisory Members:
Dr. Joyanna Silberg

Dara Carlin

Connie Valentine

The Fundamentals of CA3:

What Is CA3?CA3 is a blog founded by adult children who suffered Court Appointed Child Abuse.

What is Court Appointed Child Abuse?
Court Appointed Child Abuse: (also known as CA-CA)

1.) The Court was made aware that there had been abuse to the child.
2.) The Court ignored or minimized the abuse to the child.
3.) The Court ordered the child to be alone in the hands of her/his abuser.

CA3 Mission Statement:

CA3 is determined to give a voice to every child who is a victim of Court Appointed Child Abuse (CA- CA!)

Are you a victim of CA-CA? (Court Appointed Child Abuse)

Your own parent abused you. The court was told about the abuse. The court ordered you to continue to go alone with your abuser. You were abused again, this time knowing that the court knew and basically approved of the abuse.

Not only are you traumatized from the abuse from your own parent who was supposed to love you, you were betrayed by the United States Justice System who was supposed to protect you.You are hurt, betrayed and angry and you don't know what to do.

You are the victim of CA-CA. Even though CA-CA is not acknowledged by any professional board, we know it exists!We will help you find your voice and together we will try to heal from the CA-CA, Court Appointed Child Abuse.

Come join us!
Jennifer Collins, Founder CA3

The Beginning of CA3 - Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse

Today, November 1 2008, All Saints Day, is a very special day for me. I have decided to start my own blog, CA3 - Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse.

Court Appointed Child Abuse, also known as CA-CA is easily defined by 3 simple criteria:

1.) The Court was made aware that there had been abuse to the child.
2.) The Court ignored or minimized the abuse to the child.
3.) The Court ordered the child to continue to be alone in the hands of her/his abuser.

Unfortunately, there will always be child abuse, but CA3 will not stop until the Family Courts in the United States of America are no longer permitted to commit Court Appointed Child Abuse.

Please be advised that we are traumatized children who have suffered horrendous abuse and we are trying to find our voice. We already intend on being direct, confrontational and vocal. If you are uncomfortable with what we are saying, then you can stop it by going to the root of the problem and ending the CA-CA, Court Appointed Child Abuse.

Jennifer Collins, Founder CA3