See the case history in comic strip format
Listen to this child ask for time with his father.
Why is his voice unheard in Judge Kathryn A. Brock's Court?
Because parenting time is being withheld in an effort to force his father to give up this boy's trust fund.
This is called Judicial Hostage Taking and Judge Kathryn A. Brock engages in this practice. Others are willing to come forward.
In this first recording, my son is asking to see me everyday and help him with his homework. I am available to do this. I am the class parent of his forth grade class and a volunteer in his school library. The judge can prevent me from having parenting time with my son, but she can't prevent me from finding ways to let my son know that he has a father who loves him and wants to be in his life. She is doing this because I refused to turn over my son's trust fund without exercising every possible appeal and every form of legal protest.
In this second recording, you can hear my son say that he wants to have weekends with me and that he wants to see me after school. I am available for him and have a normal safe home to bring him to when we are together. The judge knows this.
This third recording might seem cute on first hearing but it is amazingly sad when you understand what my son is saying. He tells the judge that if he could change only one thing about me, I would have better eyesight because he doesn't want to lose the time it takes for me to take off my glasses before we wrestle. Why is that tiny amount of time so important to my son? Because he hardly gets to see his own father and when he does, he wants to make every second count. Seeing your own father shouldn't be that special. It should be something that every child should be able to take for granted.
On page 24 item 8, of the Judges decision, the judge did not represent my son's wishes accurately about how much time he wants to spend with me. The judge wrote, "Jack is eight years old and wants to spend every weekend with his father and the rest of the week with his mother and sister." But that is not what he said. If you listen to the first recording, you can hear him tell Judge Brock that he wants to see me everyday after school in the park so that I can help him with his homework. I am available to do this. In fact, I was a volunteer at my son's after school program everyday for the entire school year when my son was in first grade. In fact there is a school bus that can drop him off at the after school program at my church where I can be there with him everyday to help with his homework and play with him and to do science projects and such. In the second recording he says that he wants to spend the weekends with me and the weekdays as well until 7:00. I am available for this and his mother doesn't get home from work until about that time anyway. If the judge wants to decide that I may not see my son during the week to help him with his homework as he requested, well that it's her decision to make and mine to appeal. But she is not allowed to misrepresent what my son asked her for during the interview. It is especially important that the judge be truthful when reporting on her interviews with children because no one is witness to them. And despite paying $8,800 for the trial transcripts, the transcription people don't transcribe interviews with children. This means that children have little protection against judges who don't tell the truth. This is not the first time Judge Brock has lied about what was said in her court. In Sept 2004 I filed a motion asking Judge Brock to remove herself from my case because she lied about what I had said in her court. And when she refused to disqualify herself, I appealed the issue on 9/24/04. The appeal docket number was AM 55-04. The appeal was denied and now more than a year later, my child is still growing up without his father.