Justice For Darcey Freeman

By Special Guest Writer Akasha Mc Donald

The dead cannot speak.  They cannot cry when there is no justice.  

"Take me away" Arthur Freeman said.  

The defense lawyer continued to shift the focus on the words that were not spoken, the food that was not offered and the CTV camera that did not record.  Well dressed with a shiny purple tie, sat Arthur Freeman carefully following the movements of the lawyers, calculating the sum of words, expressions and moments nearing the end of a two day committal hearing at Melbourne Magistrates Court.  His lawyer did well to convince others that Arthur Freeman was not guilty, that he was mentally ill and not fit to stand trial.  There was more than just a few flaws that became the thread undoing the blanket of defense.  Without saying the word "catatonic", the lawyer gnarled away with questions establishing a lost cause even after it was confirmed that Mr Freeman had spoke.   It is an empirical fact in trauma studies that perpetrators suffer from trauma post the incident.  This has been well documented over many years.  The behaviors Mr Freeman displayed after the act, sounds just like text-book trauma.  

Towards the end of the hearing, the judge spoke directly to Mr Freeman informing him of the consequences of pleading guilty and not guilty throughout the trial.  As if gratified by knowing that his victims would be tormented by the case dragging out and the possibility of it twisting into a great injustice, he stood proudly and said, "Not Guilty".  Silence filled the room, followed by an echo of pens in unison furiously scratching away at paper.  His face was devoid of all emotion but a twisted sense of triumph that spread across his face. After all, it is the last opportunity he has to torment his ex wife and family.  

The Shared Parenting Scam

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.  

15,000 Children Forced Contact with violent dads

Calls for overhaul of family law system 

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

• Font size:DecreaseIncrease
• Email article:Email
• Print article:Print

Laurie Nowell

June 07, 2009 12:00am

CHILD welfare campaigners have called for an overhaul of the family law system, citing statistics they claim show courts have forced children to spend time with abusive or violent parents.

Campaigner Barbara Biggs says an analysis of the latest Family Court statistics shows courts are forcing children to spend time with parents they fear.

A recent speech by the Family Court's Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, appears to confirm this. But the Family Court has rejected the analysis.

The court says each case is determined on its merits and much of the contact between parents and children under the court's orders is supervised.

The court data shows children in at least 267 separated families in 2007-8 were forced to spend time with parents who the court deemed abusive or violent.

Of fathers before the court, a third were awarded less than 30 per cent custody and in 29 per cent of those cases it was because of abuse or family violence.

Of the cases in which women were awarded less than 30 per cent custody, abuse or family violence was the reason in 16 per cent of cases.

Ms Biggs claims up to 15,000 children might have had forced contact with violent parents over the past five years.

In a public lecture at the Queensland University of Technology in April, Chief Justice Bryant said: "In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less time with their father.

"Abuse and/or family violence was the major reason why this order was made. In 9 per cent of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less time with their mother, the major reason being the presence of health issues."

A spokesman for the Family Court said: "Each case is judged on its merits and statistics tend to make it look as though they are all the same. You need to see the individual orders to properly understand the situation and before you can draw conclusions."

A fathers Experience On Shared Parenting

As one of the few custodial fathers in this nation I have to say that child abuse by the mother, and for that fact also the father of the children, does not end when you are finally living in separate households. What remains is what is supposed to be shared parenting that not always works and should have never been in place in the first place.

To try and make this past history short I will start out by telling that I have had custody for 6 years now. Prior to this for most of the time I was working many hours a week with tons of overtime and many times out of town. During these times of having to be away from home the mother of my children was abusing both my son and daughter and them minimizing what was happening concerning discipline when I was away. She went so far as to tell me my daughter lied about anything and my son was her angel. Not so according to a journal I found of hers. In this she detailed what, how, and when she abused these kids in so many ways. From pinning a child on the ground and punching, pulling hair, and then kicking the child as they tried to get up, to spitting in their faces, cursing them in front of their friends, and having them spy on neighbors. You should get the picture here. It did get a lot worse.

I also had incidents of her abusing me physically, emotionally, and financially. And when I said for her to get a job she would accuse me of being abusive among other irrational accusations. I then one day told her that she is to hard to love and if she were to stay any longer that she would have to go to counseling for everything she was doing, stop abusing the kids, and get a job. She immediately replied she was moving out and did so a day later.

Before any court order she was allowed to visit with the kids and take them to her new place. I then would get phone calls of her complaining our daughter was not going into the pool or associate outside of her new apartment. She then ordered me to tell out daughter to get out and have a good time. How crazy is this? And at that time she wanted the kids every weekend and no weekdays because she didn't want to get up and take them to school. I told her "hell no." Her attitude on this remained after we went to court and the lawyers seen fit for this shared parenting plan that had the children here every other weekend and back and forth during the week. Now that is crazy also. But before you knew it the mother had a new social life and was hardly even calling by phone much less wanting visitation. Plus, in between then and now, she has 2 more children that she can't no way afford, and negates paying child support on the 2 she abandoned here.

Hate Speech: Holocaust Deniers Vs Violence Against Women Deniers

With the recent jailing of the holocaust Hoax writer based upon the vilification laws, much is now opened question to other forms of vilification that re victimizes survivors of domestic violence.

The propaganda that has been spread about violence towards women refered to by advocates as "violence supportive attitudes". Its hate speech as violence against women is known as a major problem across the board, yet a group who consider them selves as, "Fathers Rights Advocates" claim that violence against women statistics is incorrect and such speech is discrimination. The constant rhetoric that is propagated towards single mothers as "fatherlessness is a problem" vilifies all mothers who have separated and widowed mothers. These "Fathers rights advocates" are the ones who created and signed a petition againt the human rights violence against women articles. These are the ones who continue to revictimize the children who have sufered as a result of family violence by labeling them with a pseudo scientific syndrome called, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" . They are targeted when they seek to protect themselves and their children in custody by stating that they do it to be vindictive. Like the holocaust denier, they have hurt thousands of women and children who have already been through enough with family violence and the court.

Some of their statements:

"What's the difference between an RCO or a family court order?

If the mother wishes to be a bitch and deny the child access to the father, the RCO is not worth even using as dunny paper." -Peter,Fathers4Equality

"What I'm saying is that she shouldn't be able to refuse. The Children's equal Rights to their father must be protected."

"FAMILY VIOLENCE' Be they genuine or contrived, Family Violence allegations and AVOs must not be allowed to compromise a child’s relationship with either parent"

-Simon Hunt,Family Law Action Group (FLAG) 2020 submission

"We have a large number of allegations about domestic violence made in this Country. However, from our experience, only a small proportion of these allegations would be justified.

The reason is simple. The legislation invites those types of allegations to be made. This is to gain a financial advantage at a later date. This is either through the Family Court or the Child Support Agency."

-John Flannagen, Fairness in Child Support

"On International Women Day 2008, feminist activists and service providers scored yet another victory in their domestic violence campaign. Not only can men accused of domestic violence be expelled from their own houses but domestic violence, in New South Wales, is to be made into a specific crime - presumably, one that carries greater odium and stigma than mere assault."

-Dads4Life, Family Law Web Guide/Shared Parenting Council Of Australia

Cruel: Father Obtained Order to Have The Mother Tagged, "To Stop Her From Escaping"

There are many reasons that are not addressed here as to why a mother would flee with her children.  Family Courts have been notorious at ignoring family violence and the rise in murder suicides show that it is not an empty fear.  The mother described in this article, is not a criminal.  She made one of the most difficult choices that no mother would ever want to make:  To abandon everything for her child.  Some professionals try to justify court orders as humane and protective of children, whilst degrading and humiliating the mother to be, "selfish" "wayward" or "defiant".  No speculation or even thought of what she is running from.   The reality in todays family courts since Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome " that has never been accredited in any scientific institution in the world is that judges will not only ignore child abuse and family violence: They punish the victims for speaking out.

On of the most hidden judicial crimes in the 21st century, is the extremity of judicial abuse.  When Gardner said, "Domestic violence and child abuse advocates are sick and overzealous in assessing Family Violence" the tables turned.  The generations that followed and made it to the family courts had absolutely no idea that for speaking about the crimes against them that they would be punished again.  The tables have turned in favor of abusers and what was once called, "Court Ordered Abuse" is now "Court Ordered Murder".  The laws are now in the perpetrators hands.

Court orders mother in child residency dispute to be tagged 

David Brown and Rosemary Bennett

A mother in a child residency dispute has been ordered to wear an electronic tag of the kind used to monitor criminals.

The extraordinary family court ruling was made after she twice took her daughter abroad unlawfully. The court also ruled that she should be given a home detention curfew if she wanted to continue caring for the child.

Tagging and curfews could now be extended to hundreds of family court cases where mothers or fathers try to prevent access to children, parents' groups and lawyers said yesterday.

The court's decision to use an electronic tag came despite explicit opposition from ministers. They scrapped plans to include electronic tagging and curfews in residency cases in a Bill that came into force last December, calling it disproportional.

RELATED LINKS

• Fathers 'find justice in residence orders'

• Crisis looms as fosterers near retirement

• Mother denied all access to her children

Details of the tagging and curfew order have now been published as guidance for judges and lawyers. It follows a residency dispute involving a girl who can be referred to only as "A".

The mother has to a wear an electronic tag about the size of a wristwatch around her ankle. Police are alerted if she attempts to remove the tag or leaves the home without authorisation while caring for her daughter.

The girl's Greek father, who lives in Britain, said he feared that her mother would take her out of Britain again unless safeguards were put in place. His daughter had been unlawfully taken abroad by her mother in 2007 and again last year but foreign courts ordered the girl to be returned home.

Mrs Justice Parker, one of Britain's most senior women judges, told the High Court: "The mother says that she has no such intention [of taking her daughter abroad], but accepts that the father has a legitimate concern that needs to be allayed.

"The parties have now agreed that when the child is with the mother, the mother should be subject for the time being to a curfew supported by electronic tagging. On this basis, the parents have agreed that the child will spend substantial periods with each parent in the interim."

Mrs Justice Parker said that some of the details of what would normally be a secret hearing could be published to provide guidance in other cases.

Anthony Douglas, chief executive, of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcas), which represents the interests of children in legal proceedings, said: "Tagging may help to protect children in a limited number of cases where abduction is a risk. It can offer a reassurance to the child's other parent and a child themselves that a parent who potentially places them at risk is being checked and monitored on their behalf."

The Judicial Communications Office said that only three tagging orders had been made in relation to family cases and this was the first one to be made public. "All such orders are made with the consent of the tagged party to maintain extensive contact in cases where it would previously have been denied," a spokesman said.

MPs and peers on a committee that reviewed the Government's planned law on contact arrangements opposed tagging, warning that it "could be particularly difficult for the children of the parent concerned".

Margaret Hodge, then the children's minister, said in her evidence to the committee in 2005: "We feel some concerns about the curfew facility because we do not want a disproportionate response to the breaching of the contact order and tagging feels, to us, disproportionate."

She suggested the light-touch curfew orders, for example to ensure that a mother would be at home when a father came to collect his children on a Saturday morning. The Government, however, removed the tagging and curfew powers from its proposals later, admitting that it "would not be a proportionate response".

Catherine Meyer, founder of Parents and Abducted Children Together, welcomed the use of tagging in cases where there was a risk that a child could be taken out of the country. Experts estimate that up to 3,000 children a year are unlawfully taken out of the country by a parents involved in residency disputes.

Mum begged The Family Court Not To Send Them

Amy Leichtenberg turning pain of sons' slayings into purpose 

Mom becoming an advocate, working to draw attention to her case

By Stacy St. Clair | Tribune reporter

May 17, 2009

Duncan and Jack Connolly, the sons of Amy Leichtenberg, were killed by their father. (Tribune photo by Zbigniew Bzdak / April 29, 2009)

Amy Leichtenberg clings to the memory of that final morning with her sons -- when the two boys were hers, healthy and alive. 

She replays it in her mind, looking for things she could have done differently or words she could have used to convince authorities that the boys were in danger. 

She watches herself call the LeRoy Police Department about 9 a.m. March 7 to tell the on-duty officer that she won't allow her sons to spend a court-ordered weekend with their father because of his increasingly erratic behavior. She hears the officer threaten to arrest her, and she winces as she caves to his authority. 

Leichtenberg hurriedly packs two backpacks for the boys, kisses them goodbye, tells them that their mama loves them to the heavens and back. She sees them climb into a car with her ex-husband, an unemployed pharmaceutical salesman who has vowed to cut her open, frequently threatens to kill himself and allegedly violated her orders of protection 56 times.

Video

Related links

• Giving the boys a voice Video

• A mother's nightmare Photos

She shudders in hindsight, knowing her sons were walking toward their deaths. 

Duncan and Jack Connolly, ages 9 and 7, never returned from that visit. Their bodies were found in a remote area of Putnam County three weeks later. Their father, Michael Connolly, hanged himself from a nearby tree.

"Nobody took me seriously," Leichtenberg said in her first extensive interviews. "I'll spend the rest of my life wondering why no one would listen to me."

Troubling pictureLaw-enforcement records, court transcripts and other public documents obtained by the Tribune paint a troubling picture of a system that often ignored Leichtenberg's cries for help and instead aided her ex-husband as he worked toward supposed redemption. Despite his odd behavior and criminal record, Connolly received the benefit of the doubt from police, prosecutors and a family court judge in McLean County in central Illinois. 

Leichtenberg, 39, has filed an official complaint against Judge James E. Souk, who granted Connolly unsupervised visits. She also wants more information about disciplinary action against LeRoy Police Chief Gordon Beck, who was suspended for a week without pay shortly after the Tribune reported that his department had thwarted an Amber Alert request for the boys. No reason was given for the punishment.

Neither Souk nor LeRoy officials would agree to be interviewed for this story. "We will handle our own," Ald. Nancy Bentley said.

Leichtenberg, however, feels very much deserted as officials close ranks and decline her requests for information. After two months of allowing friends to lead the charge, she plans to take a more active role in calling attention to the tragedy.

"I can't bring back my sons, but maybe I can save someone else's," she said. "I don't want this to happen again to anyone else, not even my worst enemy."

As Leichtenberg says this, her mouth curves into a small, ironic frown. Her worst enemy already is dead, having killed himself after landing the last and most painful blow of their volatile 20-year relationship. 

Jealousy overlookedLeichtenberg met Michael Connolly at a local Denny's in 1989 while they were both students at Illinois State University in Normal. She was a townie working toward a teaching degree; he had grown up in Schaumburg and wanted to go into sales. 

At age 20, Leichtenberg overlooked the way Connolly seethed when she talked to other men or insisted on knowing her whereabouts. She was so smitten, she agreed to leave school early so they could marry and move to the Chicago suburbs.

The insecurities and jealousies that disrupted their dating followed them into marriage. She complied with his order to sever ties with her family, though former Algonquin neighbors said she often came to their homes to call her mother. He berated her, calling her a drunk, a whore, a terrible mother.

She separated from him several times, only to reconcile, before they finally divorced in 2007. She had grown up in a close-knit nuclear family and thought her sons deserved the same. "You want to believe that things will get better," she said. 

In court records back to 2005, Leichtenberg detailed threats against her and asked that Connolly's visits with her sons be supervised. Her letters describing how Connolly vowed to commit suicide or harm her were enough to obtain several orders of protection against him in the last four years.

She wrote in a petition for an emergency order of protection in 2005: "He went into a rage again and told me if I didn't get home he would kill me. I went home, and he told me if I ever take his boys again he would hunt me down and kill me and my parents and cut us open."

Moving doesn't helpThe orders couldn't keep Connolly at bay and neither could Leichtenberg's move from Algonquin to LeRoy, a town of 3,500 near Bloomington-Normal. A review of police records suggests Connolly knowingly violated the order of protection 56 times between July 2006 and October 2007. 

Against Leichtenberg's wishes, the McLean County state's attorney's office collapsed the complaints into six cases, which were plea-bargained down to one misdemeanor count. Connolly received a suspended sentence in February 2008 and was ordered to attend domestic abuse counseling. State's Atty. William Yoder has said he does not second-guess any decisions his prosecutors made in the case.

Connolly, acting as his own attorney, set his sights on gaining unsupervised visits with his sons. Court transcripts show he acted inappropriately in court , often arguing with the judge and once asking for an order compelling Leichtenberg to provide receipts for any sex toys she might have bought. His vitriol toward his ex-wife was so well-known that deputies escorted her to and from the courtroom.

Even Judge Souk, a former prosecutor, acknowledged Connolly's past behavior when he initially rejected unsupervised visits last year. 

"It would be taking an awful chance to send children to an individual with that kind of depression and your history of having made threats of suicide," Souk said in April 2008. "What if I make a misjudgment and you are presently suicidal and you hurt yourself in the presence of your children or, even worse, you hurt the children along with yourself?"

Visitation grantedConnolly, who had followed Leichtenberg downstate, participated in many early supervised visits at the McLean County Family Visitation Center. The facility temporarily discontinued its services in May 2008 after he became increasingly paranoid and talked about suicide during a conversation with an employee, according to reports filed with the court.

In Connolly's requests for unsupervised visits, he frequently claimed such interactions "were in the best interest of the children," the standard by which custody and visitation matters are, by law, to be decided. Souk responded by setting behavioral goals, instructing Connolly to move out of a homeless shelter, get a job and stop harassing his ex-wife. Connolly followed the orders and the judge awarded him unsupervised visitation in October in keeping with laws designed to give children a chance to maintain relationships with both parents.

Souk also permitted Leichtenberg to drive by Connolly's Bloomington apartment as often as she liked during visits to make sure the boys were safe. Her attorney, Helen Ogar, warned that wouldn't be enough. "His behavior is escalating in terms of his obsession with Amy," she told the judge.

Downward spiralIn late February, Connolly, 40, lost his job and became enraged when he learned that his tax rebate was being garnished for failure to pay support, police records show. Leichtenberg worried that Connolly's mounting financial woes could give him reason to finally make good on his promise to "pay her back." Her attorney told her that if she felt that strongly she should keep the boys home and encouraged her to call the police to let them know about her plans.

Connolly spent March 6 at an East Peoria casino, where he gambled with $300 he had borrowed from his father and a friend. He told a fellow patron about his messy divorce and vowed to kill himself if he didn't win. 

He lost. And then headed to McLean County for the boys. 

About 9 a.m. March 7, Leichtenberg spoke with the on-duty officer, a patrolman she considered sympathetic to her cause because he had taken at least three reports related to the protection order and supported charges against Connolly in each one, police records show. He stunned Leichtenberg when, she said, he threatened to arrest her if she kept the boys from their father. 

"I should have taken them and run, but I believe in following the rules," Leichtenberg said, breaking into sobs that shook her entire body. 

In a statement provided to the Tribune, Beck said Leichtenberg had asked for advice and was told officers cannot give permission to people to violate court orders.

Afraid of being arrested, Leichtenberg said, she quickly stuffed clothes into the boys' backpacks. The brothers arrived at the police station in time for the handoff, and her weekend of worry began.

Final hoursAuthorities know that Connolly took Duncan and Jack to the Bloomington library and later to a soup kitchen for lunch. That evening, he ordered pizza and paid for it with a check that bounced.

Leichtenberg drove by his apartment at least three times that night and said she saw his car there each time, including her final check at 9:30 p.m. On Sunday, her friend spotted Connolly's car driving toward Bloomington at 11 a.m. 

When the boys failed to return at 6 p.m. as scheduled, she asked LeRoy police to issue an Amber Alert. The department initially resisted the request and gave Connolly an hour's grace because it was the first day of daylight-saving time, according to documents obtained by the Tribune.

Amber Alert delayLeRoy authorities eventually submitted the alert request at 11:55 p.m., after turning down the sheriff's department's offer to help. When the state contacted LeRoy to verify the application, police said they did not believe the boys' lives were threatened -- one of four key criteria for an alert.

"[LeRoy officer] advised Michael has never harmed children in the past and there are no previous police reports to indicate harm or threats toward the children," Illinois State Police Trooper John C. Thompson wrote in an e-mail at 2:09 a.m. March 9. "[LeRoy officer] indicated NO he did NOT believe the children were in danger of bodily harm or death." 

LeRoy placed a "stop and hold pending investigation" on Connolly and his car and asked state police to issue a bulletin. Those notifications, however, do not have the same public reach of an Amber Alert. 

In his written statement, Beck blamed both the state police for the denial and Leichtenberg for being unable to immediately produce a copy of the court-ordered visitation times. 

Beck turned the case over the following afternoon to Sheriff Mike Emery, who read the police reports and sensed the boys could be in danger. An Amber Alert was issued at 8:23 p.m. Monday -- more than 26 hours after Leichtenberg reported her sons missing.

"The alert should have gone out at 6 p.m. the previous day," Emery said. "Being 26 hours behind was heavily on my mind."

Amid a nationwide search for her sons, Leichtenberg went to the courthouse to confront Souk. She said that he cried and told her he never expected this to happen. He told her that he and his wife prayed for the boys' safe return every day.

On March 29, the boys' bodies were found in their father's car near a Putnam County Christmas tree farm. Autopsies showed that both had elevated levels of psychotropic medications in their systems. Jack died of a stab wound in his back and Xanax intoxication. Duncan died of Seroquel and Xanax intoxication. 

Connolly hanged himself about 60 yards from the car with a knotted rope his sons once used to climb trees at their Algonquin home. He did not leave a note.

The Putnam County coroner will not estimate the time of death, though the car was first spotted in the secluded area March 14. Department of Justice statistics suggest 74 percent of tragic outcomes in child abductions take place in the first three hours.

"My greatest fear is that they died during the 26-hour period in which they would not send out the Amber Alert," Leichtenberg said. "I will spend the rest of my life wondering if that could have saved them."

She said her life "has become an endless game of 'what if.' "

"What if someone had believed me? What if they saw the same warning signs that I did? What if they did something to stop it?"

Leichtenberg initially blamed Souk for the boys' deaths, though she now counts the LeRoy police and prosecutors among those who could have done more. She has filed an official complaint against Souk and is weighing her options in regards to the others. 

"If they did something wrong, I want them to be held accountable," she said. "But if they did something every single judge, prosecutor and police officer in the country would do, then the laws need to be changed."

Constant struggleLeichtenberg's newfound activism provides a brief respite from her endless grief.

She still can't sleep in her home and hasn't been inside the boys' rooms since she picked out their funeral clothes. She doesn't like to go to local restaurants because she can feel people stare at her. And she avoids any social situation in which she could hear the words "I'm sorry," a sincere expression that she no longer has the strength to acknowledge.

Instead, she goes to the cemetery three or four times a day to find peace. She cleans the boys' grave site during visits and talks to them in a soothing voice. She leaves Batmantoys for Jack and Incredible Hulk paraphernalia for Duncan. The ritual, a series of seemingly small gestures, offers her something missing since that morning she kissed her sons goodbye. 

It makes her feel like a mom again. 

sstclair@tribune.com

The Education Department Makes a Decent Move

Ban dad sued 

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

• Font size:DecreaseIncrease
• Email article:Email
• Print article:Print
• Submit comment:Submit comment

Stephen Drill

May 17, 2009 12:00am

A FORMER Collingwood player who allegedly threatened to kill his child's school principal is being sued over a failed discrimination case against the Education Department.

The father took the Education Department to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in December for becoming involved in his family law case.

He lost the case and now the high-profile former player has been ordered to appear at VCAT soon as the Department seeks costs of up to $20,000 for defending his claims.

The man, who the Sunday Herald Sun has chosen not to name, said he would fight the application for costs.

He denied claims he had threatened to kill his child's principal, but did admit to a heated discussion.

He said the department discriminated against fathers when it came to disputes over custody.

"They cut my access in half for almost two years because I was not allowed to pick up my daughter from school," he said. "These are the people who are supposed to educate your kids, not take you to court."

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show that it was the only time in the past 30 years the department had become a third party in a Family Law dispute between parents over custody of a child.

The father claims this was proof the department had unfairly focused on him.

Documents seen by the Sunday Herald Sun reveal the Education Department has spent more than $20,000 on the case.

The dispute began in February 2005 when the father received a trespass order, which prevented him going into his daughter's school.

Maria Ligerakis, an Education Department spokeswoman, said the father would be pursued for legal costs this month.

"The department takes extremely seriously its obligations under anti-discrimination legislation and is satisfied with the VCAT decision," Ms Ligerakis said.