FROM OUR PRINTED JULY 2023 EDITION
How Unchecked Family Courts Usurp Parents’ Rights
and Take Control of Our Children

by Julie Poner

I’ve been arrested and jailed. Twice. Once by two plainclothes detectives. And once by two FBI agents and a sheriff.

I’ve been extradited on a half million-dollar bond, handcuffed in an airport, restrained with a waist chain, then transported by two state troopers on a commercial flight, boarded first and escorted to the rear of the plane out of sight of the other passengers.

I’ve been in the back of a paddy wagon, shuttled regularly between jail and the courthouse, in handcuffs and shackles and an orange jumpsuit, placed in a holding cell or chained to a wall once inside for good measure.

I walked the catacombs that run under city streets connecting the jail to the courthouse, chained to another inmate, in rows of two, women behind men, guarded by a deputy with a long gun and a German shepherd.

I’ve seen the inside of three jails, in three counties, in two states.

I can tell you all about the importance of your jail-issued spork (don’t lose it you won’t get another one), what it’s like to be deloused, why you don’t want visitors (squat and cough or cavity search) and the clout that comes with a federal arrest and wrist band.

I know what it’s like to have my young children taken away and placed in foster care for months, waiting weeks on end to see them, scheduling supervised visits through the Department of Children and Family Services.

I know what it’s like to listen to the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) during hearings make recommendations to separate my 4-year-old twins and place them with different foster families.

I know what it’s like to be chided over my daughter’s white cotton dresses (GapKids) and my son’s head-full of blond curls, what it’s like to have the court-appointed GAL decide to take my daughter’s dresses away and to cut my son’s hair down to the scalp without my knowledge or consent, neither of which was required because my children belonged to the state.

 I know what it’s like to be forced to enroll them in kindergarten and after-school care as a condition for their return to me, to not be allowed to serve as room mother or chaperone field trips as further reminder of the court’s authority to limit my time with my own children and to impose its will over our lives.

And the list goes on…

All, courtesy of Judge Robert A. Scandurra; my punishment for protecting my children.

by Julie Poner

What could have been a much less convoluted and more straight forward divorce proceeding, became a protracted five-year ordeal centered around a court system, led by now-retired Judge Scandurra, intent on propping up a husband and father who didn’t want to be either. And to that end, sacrificed the safety, security and well-being of our young children, by repeatedly failing to err on the side of caution regarding their best interests; the single most critically important duty of the court.

Massachusetts’ guiding principles in determining what the best interests of the child are, include the health, safety and or protection of the child. Further, the state’s statute requires consideration of the child’s emotional ties to, and relationship with, his or her parents.

How, taking a little girl’s dresses away or cutting a little boy’s hair, adheres to these statutes and principles, somehow rising to the most pressing issue for the GAL (whose job is to act as a neutral observer and evaluator) while they languished, away from their mother, under her authority; thin, unkept and visibly distressed. No one has ever had to explain or has ever been held to account.

Who enforces the statutes? What good do they do if they aren’t mandated? Are judges reviewed? What measures, if any, are in effect to ensure that a court system does not place children with an abusive parent? How can a repeat offender, this judge in this instance, be allowed to remain on the bench after one or more cases where a child was ordered to endure abuse? Are the billable hours of all the court-appointed experts subject to review? What does the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) do exactly? And the Chief Justice of Probate and Family Court? Judge Scandurra was seated in 1994. I filed my divorce petition in 1997. He allowed the abuse of children in several cases that followed mine. Who takes responsibility for a judge who has proved himself unfit to serve the best interests of the children entrusted to his court?

The committees and councils established as a form of self-governance, to mitigate corruption and serve the people of Massachusetts, actually serve the interests of the appointed and elected.

By law, state-level judges are not required to give reasons for their decisions. Judicial performance evaluations are confidential. Complaints filed with CJC are kept confidential. If the CJC chooses to investigate a complaint, its findings are referred to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), which decides whether or not to formally sanction a judge. The CJC is permitted, in an informal capacity, to help a judge while under investigation, address the underlying issues of the complaint in lieu of advancing a complaint to the SJC. And, judiciary administrative records are exempt from inspection.

The Center For Public Integrity, an independent investigative news organization dedicated to holding the powerful accountable through their investigative reporting, has given Massachusetts an “F” for judicial accountability. A grade that’s remained unchanged for over two decades.

My case cements that failing grade. What started as indisputable immigration marriage fraud, devolved into threats of international parental child abduction and the abuse and neglect of our toddlers by my Czech national husband, who didn’t want to be married, had no interest in our children, but wanted a green card and anything else he could take on his way out the door.

What followed, was no less than five years of Judge Scandurra’s utter disregard for the emotional and physical welfare of our children. His questionable motions, rulings and orders speak for themselves in what appeared to be a concerted effort to financially cripple me, take my children and impugn my character. While at the same time, delaying the inevitable; once the court had given my husband my last borrowed dime, we never saw him again.

This, from a judge who refuted the findings and opinions and the authority of experts best positioned to advise him, in favor of his own opinions and those of his court-appointed GAL.

He dismissed the report and testimony of the Child Abuse Specialist working out of the Cape and Islands DA’s office and rejected the marriage fraud charge brought against my husband, in accordance with federal immigration law, by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents in the Boston field office.

The State Department Office of Children’s Issues and Consular Affairs along with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children offered preventative measures the court could take, as they specifically and uniquely related to our case, to minimize the risk of abduction. My husband checked all the boxes for flight risk. I presented the GAL with this information. Unmoved, no precautions were taken.

When the FBI, a U.S. attorney and a District Court judge dropped the charges brought against me by this judge, he stopped my release, set my bond at half a million-dollars and ordered my extradition back to his Massachusetts court.

The judge’s questionable decision-making was not limited to what I can reasonably cover here. This unsophisticated court controlled every aspect of our lives. We were evaluated, supervised and monitored. An additional GAL was appointed and various psychologists were plugged in along the way. There were hearings and a week-long custody trial promoted by the GAL on behalf of my husband. That’s a lot of billable hours on the backs of the Massachusetts taxpayer.

The financial decisions made by Judge Scandurra, left me penniless and debt-ridden, but padded the pockets of my husband. Judge Scandurra took my car, my home and my ability to access my own finances; awarding sole control of all three to my husband. These missteps, compounded by a flurry of final orders releasing my $5,000 bond to my husband, when he no longer had jurisdiction to rule over our case, would serve as the basis of my formal complaint.

The first, filed with the CJC, was dismissed. I filed a second time. Also, dismissed. Neither complaint, docketed or investigated.

I wrote the Honorable Chief Justice Paula M. Carey. I included supporting documents and gave a thorough account of events stressing the need for judges to self-educate, pointing to the issues of international parental child abduction and immigration marriage fraud.

And, I brought the Protective Parent Reform Act to the attention of State Legislators. Written by attorney Richard Ducote, one of the nation’s leading child abuse litigators, this common sense legislation protects the right of a child to be safe over the right of a parent to be abusive.

Given the widespread attention paid to government overreach, specific to the rights of parents to make decisions concerning their children, the unchecked usurping of parents’ rights by family courts might be better understood during this time, by people who haven’t experienced it firsthand.

Under the guise of “the best interests of the child” the court can impose its will. A divorce proceeding and/or custody dispute is not always a nasty he-said/she-said battle devoid of truth and facts. Financially, it’s beneficial to the court system and attorneys if it is and it makes great headlines for a lazy, complicit press. But, it’s not the role of the court to create conflict to drive an outcome.

We’re watching our government, at every level, openly push its agenda and silence parents who get in the way. And in response, we’re told at every turn, how crucial local government is and to get involved at the local level.

This is my cautionary tale in support of those warnings.

In Massachusetts, as the system currently functions with regard to judges, the Governor’s Council provides advice and consent to the governor regarding judicial nominations. This eight-member body receives judicial nominations from the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC). Members of the Governor’s Council are elected. Members of the JNC are appointed. There are no elected officials serving in positions to hold judges accountable once appointed.

For 20 plus years, I’ve worked quietly behind the scenes, on the prevention of international parental child abduction and to restore due process rights to the immigration provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

During removal proceedings for marriage fraud, my husband filed a claim as a battered and abused spouse under VAWA, halting his deportation. Under VAWA, due process rights are stripped from the American named in the claim. No notification is made. There is no interview, no investigation, no due process. He was allowed to legally remain in the country as a battered and abused spouse, while under active investigation for child abuse by the DA’s office.

In July of 2011, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing, The Violence Against Women Act: Building on 17 Years of Accomplishments. For the first time since VAWA’s passage in 1994, questions about its misuse to defraud U.S. citizens and U.S. immigration law were addressed. I testified at that hearing, a guest of then-Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley.  ♦ 

Excerpt from Testimony of Julie Poner Submitted in Connection with Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on “The Violence Against Women Act: Building on Seventeen Years of Accomplishments”
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226

In 1994 I married a man from the Czech Republic. We were married in Prague and our children, twins a boy and a girl were born there. We moved twelve times in the three short years we were together between three countries and two continents with our young children in tow. Our moves were always explained to me as necessary for business, when in reality we were living life on the run, managing to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Sometimes we lived with furnishings and sometimes without. My children and I were often left alone for extended periods of time without the basic necessities such as food, a vehicle, and money. In 1995 following a sudden and unexpected move to the U.S., we eventually settled in Massachusetts and filed for my husband’s permanent residency status. Within days of receiving notice of our impending interview with INS, my husband reached around me for the coffee pot one morning and announced that we would be getting a divorce now. He instructed me to file for the divorce and continue to sponsor him for his green card…
Continued: www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11-07-13 Poner Testimony.pdf