Jump to content
Paulding.com

He's No King Solomon, But Does That Make Judge Tonny Beavers "The Baby Splitter"?


Recommended Posts

Time and again I have watched Chief Judge Tonny Beavers effectively remove a parent from a child's life through passive-aggressive inaction. Are Judge Beavers' orders deliberately ineffective to promote temporary compliance by a favored parent? Do they allow for passive escalation of conflicts between parents? Do attorneys familiar with the court win troubling rulings over other attorneys?

 

Recently, a mother who has spent well over a year on 1 hour a week supervised visits with her now 16 yr old son and 9 yr old daughter had all visitation suspended. Was there sufficient cause or a lack of due process?

This matter before the court has been allowed to languish for well over a year and will likely approach 2 years or more before it is settled,
#OnBeaversWatch. The father’s attorney, Jana Evans, believed the matter being prolonged would work to the mother’s advantage. Can any competent person genuinely believe that 1 hour supervised visits with a parent for 15 months or more would promote bonding between parent and child?

 

 

Judge Beavers doubled down on his refusal to enforce visitation with teenagers. Whether a teenager has been coerced into choosing a favored parent is of no consequence. Psychologically speaking, Judge Beavers’ stance may make him complicit in a form of abuse called adultification, where he abdicates judicial authority to favored parents and children are allowed to make choices (adult decisions) beyond their ability to properly process the information. If a child has to figure it out when they get older should they be given decision making authority when they are clearly too young? And without the guidance of an appropriately trained therapist? Who is to say the child will ever discern what was done? Is this in the "best interests of children" or for the expedience and convenience of the court?

If the parents were still together the child would not have the choice to reject a parent. If the child were to break any other law the judge would detain that child at YDC and not look the other way, offering no consequences. Is the Court not charged with a fiduciary obligation to protect children and get to the bottom of any possible psychological and emotional abuse?

 

Pathogenic parenting is a child protection issue NOT a child custody issue. Often times, trauma bonding causes the child to align themselves with an abuser, such as in cases of Stockholm Syndrome. Many traumatized children don’t know what normal is any more than a fish knows it lives in water. Abuse is normal if it is all you know.

 

 

This brings us to the fate of a 9 yr old girl who lives with her father and older brother. The older brother, it is said, acts as his sister’s “protector”. Is this a case of parentification of a 16 yr old or pathological enmeshment that goes unaddressed #OnBeaversWatch? If so, it likely began well before the teenager was 16. If a young girl of 9 has been in the care of her dad and brother since she was 6 years or younger, would she be afraid to defy them? Could tactics such as the silent treatment or gaslighting be the cause of her trauma as she is mentally no match for an adult or an older teen sibling? Without the evaluation of a clinical forensic psychologist it would be difficult to say.

The mother's attorney seems to believe there is an urgent need to stop the delays with the mother having unsupervised visitation. He laid out a very good argument for this along with 2 credible professional witnesses. Did the father's sister-in-law prove a credible enough testimony to thwart the testimony of the professionals? Whether that is the case or not, rather than award unsupervised visitation, Judge Beavers TERMINATED all visitation temporarily and ordered the child be "evaluated" for trauma.

The child is clearly traumatized. It seems to me the source of the trauma could not be the mother, who has only had 1 hour supervised weekly visits for over a year? Some legal professionals in the courtroom seem to think she is the source. It is unclear what brings them to this conclusion but we'll look further into this later...

I absolutely question the facility that will be evaluating the little girl. Over a parent’s objections, Judge Beavers once appointed a Christian counselor at the recommendation of Angela Woodall, Atty, and the Georgia Licensing Board informally informed that counselor he should have declined due to a conflict of interest. Was that conflict brought to Ms. Woodall and Judge Beavers attention at a prior hearing?

 

Also, last year, I spoke of a case in which Judge Beaver's said "...As teenagers get older, parents are superfluous..." For those who are interested, we'll revisit my predictions of a parentectomy as a result of those proceedings, along with additional cases at a later time.

 

PS - I do not know any of the parties. As a court watcher I observe proceedings. Further, Jana Evans is my former attorney that I requested withdraw from my case for what was in my opinion, ineffective counsel and a failure to perform adequate discovery. I had no idea she would be presenting a case on this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this means you're unemployed?

 

Let's just say that the time I'm obstructed from spending with my daughter, by threats of bogus protective orders, will be spent court watching.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No point in going to private messages, don't want you to later accuse me of some sort of inappropriate behavior since you appear to be a professional victim.

As for your question....many times I browse for unread topics over the past 24 hours and click for 'next unread topic' to jump between them which means I ended up here. It usually doesn't take long to browse that way since many days there aren't even a 1/2 dozen new topics on here.

I really have no desire to 'discourage' you but considering the frequency and obsessiveness of your posts which are there for comment, sometimes I choose to point that out.

 

The thread isn't about me. It's about a child. I went to private message so it wouldn't become about me but you are determined to digress from the topic. As much as you dislike hearing about the topic, I dislike having to write about it. But the topics will continue until Pubby stops them.

 

I don't need a forum to myself. You need the self discipline to skip over what doesn't interest you. There are many who find the information useful but they feel alone because of bullies and flying monkeys. Do you obsessively moan about radio and television stations that don't broadcast what you find interesting or do you change the station?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, P'Com needs a "Bash Judge Beavers" forum.

 

One that no one else can see.

 

I don't bash anyone. You are what you do. Beavers is what Beavers does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So an unemployed stalker who may or may not have anger issues?

 

This is something that Judge Beavers didn't get. May be Judge Beavers is just culturally insensitive but when someone calls you and your kids variations of the N-WORD for a couple of decades and you don't react harshly, you are not an angry or a threatening person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead and get it of your chest DVbP last I heard this was a free country.

 

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws.

 

LOL....what does this have to do with the government censoring speech? The Constitution sets boundaries on the government, nothing more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL....what does this have to do with the government censoring speech? The Constitution sets boundaries on the government, nothing more.

 

What it has to do with is the choice of some folks to throttle speech. So while the government is constitutionally prohibited to interfere with the speech rights of others, other are also prohibited from taking in overt action to silence someone who seeks to speak. I.e. they can't put a bag over their head, beat them on the head, or kick them to stop them from speaking as that invasion of personal space would be an assault.

 

What they can do is tease, ridicule and the like ... except when they are subject to moderation in that activity when on this site.

 

When the same bunch of people choose to seek to silence those who do have a different point of view ... it would appear their purpose is to enforce conformity.

 

Now I'm actually friendly with Judge Beavers but I'm totally unaware of the particulars of what goes on in his courtroom. I'm sad that DVbP has chosen to concentrate his discussions on the Judge. So while I don't personally feel animosity to the county's chief judge, I've seen enough oddity in both our criminal and equitable justice systems to recognize that injustice is not terribly uncommon. What is particularly bothersome to me is that this injustice may be more due to the institution than to the individuals and tradition and understandings of what may be appropriate or even just (or unjust) may change.

 

Heck, it wasn't but two years ago that gays were prohibited from marrying and go back another ten or twelve and they could be sent to prison. Race as a basis for discrimination - and discrimination in the criminal justice system means putting the screws to the person unjustly - was not only common but 'the way things were' for the first several decades of my life.

 

Hell, it was still common when my son was diagnosed autistic to pack the kid up and send him to an institution to be ignored and abused.

 

That change has happened in these areas of civil rights happens only because we are open to hear the stories of people who feel wronged.

 

I'm just not at all certain that things are so hunky dory that I feel I want to tell them to shut up.

 

I also don't see the task of being oblivious to the plight of others so overwhelming that you can't move on an ignore it if you are so inclined. And actually, it is not that big a deal to 'change channels.'

 

So I do feel the dissing of the poster in this topic probably was as much a dissing of me personally as it was of him. Why? Because for good or bad, I'm the one who defines freedom of speech here.

 

Oh, and your insulting posts can be found in the off topic forum "hell hole" ... Where I hope they will inspire you with new hope.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

What it has to do with is the choice of some folks to throttle speech. So while the government is constitutionally prohibited to interfere with the speech rights of others, other are also prohibited from taking in overt action to silence someone who seeks to speak. I.e. they can't put a bag over their head, beat them on the head, or kick them to stop them from speaking as that invasion of personal space would be an assault.

 

What they can do is tease, ridicule and the like ... except when they are subject to moderation in that activity when on this site.

 

When the same bunch of people choose to seek to silence those who do have a different point of view ... it would appear their purpose is to enforce conformity.

 

Now I'm actually friendly with Judge Beavers but I'm totally unaware of the particulars of what goes on in his courtroom. I'm sad that DVbP has chosen to concentrate his discussions on the Judge. So while I don't personally feel animosity to the county's chief judge, I've seen enough oddity in both our criminal and equitable justice systems to recognize that injustice is not terribly uncommon. What is particularly bothersome to me is that this injustice may be more due to the institution than to the individuals and tradition and understandings of what may be appropriate or even just (or unjust) may change.

 

Heck, it wasn't but two years ago that gays were prohibited from marrying and go back another ten or twelve and they could be sent to prison. Race as a basis for discrimination - and discrimination in the criminal justice system means putting the screws to the person unjustly - was not only common but 'the way things were' for the first several decades of my life.

 

Hell, it was still common when my son was diagnosed autistic to pack the kid up and send him to an institution to be ignored and abused.

 

That change has happened in these areas of civil rights happens only because we are open to hear the stories of people who feel wronged.

 

I'm just not at all certain that things are so hunky dory that I feel I want to tell them to shut up.

 

I also don't see the task of being oblivious to the plight of others so overwhelming that you can't move on an ignore it if you are so inclined. And actually, it is not that big a deal to 'change channels.'

 

So I do feel the dissing of the poster in this topic probably was as much a dissing of me personally as it was of him. Why? Because for good or bad, I'm the one who defines freedom of speech here.

 

Oh, and your insulting posts can be found in the off topic forum "hell hole" ... Where I hope they will inspire you with new hope.

 

pubby

WOW!!!

I mean...WOW!!!!!

Your ego knows no bounds, does it?

About you, by what twisted logic do you make these posts to be about you?

Your name was never ever ever mentioned.

Judge Beavers name was mentioned, a few times, Ward, June and Beaver Cleaver names were mentioned, the US Constitution was referred to, a picture of a beaver was posted, but not one single time, not once, was your name mentioned, nor were any oblique references made about you.

Yet somehow, this is about you.

 

I suggest you look up the word paranoia.

This seems to be great example of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!!

I mean...WOW!!!!!

Your ego knows no bounds, does it?

About you, by what twisted logic do you make these posts to be about you?

Your name was never ever ever mentioned.

Judge Beavers name was mentioned, a few times, Ward, June and Beaver Cleaver names were mentioned, the US Constitution was referred to, a picture of a beaver was posted, but not one single time, not once, was your name mentioned, nor were any oblique references made about you.

Yet somehow, this is about you.

 

I suggest you look up the word paranoia.

This seems to be great example of it.

 

Boom goes the dynamite .

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So I do feel the dissing of the poster in this topic probably was as much a dissing of me personally as it was of him. Why? Because for good or bad, I'm the one who defines freedom of speech here.

 

 

 

pubby

 

Maybe you ought to share that tidbit with your mods who seem to close topics every time the flow of the conversation doesn't happen to suit their personal biases. 8)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the reasons I don't often moderate topics.

 

Still, dogs, you know the rules about personal attacks. From what I gather, that is the usual reason for the moderation.

 

I'm am sure there are people here who blame me for not shutting the lot of you down when you trash the Austin Brothers, the judges, the police (pro and con), Hillary, Bernie, etc., etc. etc.

 

I make a it practice not to moderate topics when I am at the center.

 

But the point is that when folks attack these public servants, I may defend them out of a sense of fairness, but I don't shut down the criticisms ... and let me tell you that fact doesn't make me a favorite of those who are criticized - despite lies that I'm on the take.

 

pubby

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What it has to do with is the choice of some folks to throttle speech. So while the government is constitutionally prohibited to interfere with the speech rights of others, other are also prohibited from taking in overt action to silence someone who seeks to speak. I.e. they can't put a bag over their head, beat them on the head, or kick them to stop them from speaking as that invasion of personal space would be an assault.

 

What they can do is tease, ridicule and the like ... except when they are subject to moderation in that activity when on this site.

 

When the same bunch of people choose to seek to silence those who do have a different point of view ... it would appear their purpose is to enforce conformity.

 

Now I'm actually friendly with Judge Beavers but I'm totally unaware of the particulars of what goes on in his courtroom. I'm sad that DVbP has chosen to concentrate his discussions on the Judge. So while I don't personally feel animosity to the county's chief judge, I've seen enough oddity in both our criminal and equitable justice systems to recognize that injustice is not terribly uncommon. What is particularly bothersome to me is that this injustice may be more due to the institution than to the individuals and tradition and understandings of what may be appropriate or even just (or unjust) may change.

 

Heck, it wasn't but two years ago that gays were prohibited from marrying and go back another ten or twelve and they could be sent to prison. Race as a basis for discrimination - and discrimination in the criminal justice system means putting the screws to the person unjustly - was not only common but 'the way things were' for the first several decades of my life.

 

Hell, it was still common when my son was diagnosed autistic to pack the kid up and send him to an institution to be ignored and abused.

 

That change has happened in these areas of civil rights happens only because we are open to hear the stories of people who feel wronged.

 

I'm just not at all certain that things are so hunky dory that I feel I want to tell them to shut up.

 

I also don't see the task of being oblivious to the plight of others so overwhelming that you can't move on an ignore it if you are so inclined. And actually, it is not that big a deal to 'change channels.'

 

So I do feel the dissing of the poster in this topic probably was as much a dissing of me personally as it was of him. Why? Because for good or bad, I'm the one who defines freedom of speech here.

 

Oh, and your insulting posts can be found in the off topic forum "hell hole" ... Where I hope they will inspire you with new hope.

 

pubby

Well said.

DVbP:

 

I don't know if the crew is after you ... or after me.

 

Regardless, the vast majority of the posts are off topic.

 

pubby

I really think this little girl's story is important because it epitomizes the plight of many children on Judge Beavers watch. I have no idea how Judge Beavers has lasted so long under the radar. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge seals this case once word of this thread reaches him. It's not hard to pick a winner, they come every 3 weeks after 1:30 PM. I invite anyone to join me. Please close the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...