Posted on 06/18/2018 4:39:45 AM PDT by Moseley
Contact: Janice Grenadier, 202-368-7178
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 18, 2018 /Christian Newswire/ -- A young mother was jailed Friday for reporting physical abuse of her son by the father to government authorities and for talking to her 10 year old son's therapist and psychiatrist about her medical concerns for her son.
Hard to believe? The court reporter transcripts reveal it all in Cases CJ 14001064 and 14001065 in Alexandria Circuit Court in Virginia. Her attorney is Jonathon Moseley (703) 656-1230.
Judge Lisa Kemler announced in her official decision before a court reporter that she was punishing the mother for making a report of the son's accounts of abuse to government authorities and for talking to her son's doctors, therapist, and psychiatrist.
Natalia Dalton's son told many adults (recorded) that his father physically abused him. She shows her photographs of her own injuries when she says Julio Lacayo beat her.
In November 2017, Natalia took her son to the Magistrate in Alexandria. The son met alone with the Magistrate for 15 minutes.
The Magistrate issued an Emergency Protective Order, ordered the child removed from the father's home, and sent the police to serve the father who was heard screaming in front of the son.
But the father yanked the son out of school the next day, and began to home school him, removed from any adults who could learn about the abuse and report it.
A month ago, a supervised visitation "monitor" Laurie Best appointed by Judge Kemler also reported the son's account of physical abuse to Child Protective Services. Laurie Best testified that in the trial (on the transcript) that what the son volunteered to her triggered her legal mandatory reporting requirements.
Judge Kemler refused to call the son to speak for himself and the father objected to the son being interviewed in chambers by Judge Kemler or to testify.
Natalia Dalton also warned her son's psychiatrist that the son was complaining that psychiatric medication was causing alarming side effects and making him irritable, forgetful, disoriented, and feeling weird.
In the court case, Natalia Dalton was accused and punished for warning the son's prescribing psychiatrist of side effects despite an earlier court order.
Natalia Dalton strongly and flatly denied ever sharing these concerns with her son, but only among adults treating him. There was absolutely no evidence or testimony that the son was affected.
Natalia Dalton is raising money to pay for the transcripts at www.NataliaMom.com.
You are absolutely correct. Please read the “Federalist Letters to Corporate America” in the blog at the url in my signature block. It can be done, but a lot of seeds need to be planted ;)
Where do I find “the blog at the url in my signature block”???
Many years ago, my sister had a friend who lived in Virginia with her first husband, who was abusive, so she divorced him. In the divorce decree, the judge, gave unsupervised visitation rights to the dad. The girls began to act strangely, and finally admitted to their mom, that their dad had been sexually abusing them. The mom then refused to allow the visitations, and the father took her to court. The girls were terrified and did not want to visit him, but the judge ordered it anyway. It took a couple of years for the mom to get the visitation with the father removed. This was somewhere near the D.C. area. If it weren’t for the internet, we would not know how perverted so many judges are.
The url in my signature block looks like this:
12 posted on 6/18/2018, 7:44:41 AM by gspurlock (http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com)
The url is: http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com
The Federalist Letters... have their own tab. Hope this helps.
Thanks. It was not in your “signature block” in the post telling me to get the link from there. I guess it was back on your other comment/post on that thread; and I have never used the “signature block”, excapt when my typing did it by mistake, and have never called that space the “signature block) mea cupla, ignorant me.
So I was lost as to where to look. So thanks for informing me about the “signature block” and providing the link to your blog on wordpress. I enjoyed reading what was on the face page, which you wrote in March of 2017. I’ve book marked your blog, and later will go look at the Federalist Papers section. Thanks again.
You’re very welcome. Nice attention to detail ;)
The phrase “signature block” is probably antiquated. It’s from the old days when I was a secretary or legal assistant. Ah - on the web, it’s called the “tagline”. The more things change, the more they change. I hope you enjoy my Federalist letters and if so, that you share them.
I don’t know if I have proposed the optimum solution. But it’s a solution and sometimes even a weak solution will stimulate better ideas in wiser, more knowledgeable people.
“I don’t know if I have proposed the optimum solution. But it’s a solution and sometimes even a weak solution will stimulate better ideas in wiser, more knowledgeable people.”
The founders knew there was no optimum solution, just the best they could possibly do. THEY could do. They knew perfection was unattainable, and left us means to amend what they did as we saw fit from our own experience.
Our means of revising our basic law is neither the most difficult among nations, nor the easiest either. But, I do think in some areas we have under utilized the process. Everyone looks at the difficulty and puts that as the killer instead of facing it for the greater good of what an amendment could do.
Maybe we could start a movement among Conservatives to actively work to that end???
Have you seen this? Not verified yet.
Normally I would agree, but I have heard some horror stories out of family court. Some of the judges, and others are on a real power trip of their own.
Not less likely if the dad has plenty of money to hire top attorneys. I know of one dad that used his wealth to take his son away from a great mother. That man somehow managed to leave her penniless after their divorce, then used her financial struggles to show that he could provide a better home.
There may be more to this story, the woman may be manipulating the son...but it is possible the dad is the bad guy and the judge is worthless. It happens.
She lost custody in court already. That alone tells you she’s some kind of -serious- crazy.
It happens, but it is far less likely today.
NO, that is the most dangerous kind of thinking in the context of the legal system.
If you are a conservative, and well-thought-out, you must — must — understand, believe, and subscribe to (or you are not any kind of conservative) the idea that:
“POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY”
or put more usefully “increasing degrees of power corrupts at increasing degrees.”
Any type any aspect of life or government is immune from accountability...
... human nature is for that institution or organization to become increasingly abusive and corrupt.
If you do not subscribe to that truth, you are not and never have been within a million miles of being a conservative.
To the degree that we ASSUME that any institution is always acting correctly, to that degree it will grow increasingly erroneous, reckless, false, deceitful, and corrupt.
When you assume that the FBI never does anything wrong,
to that extent the FBI starts doing wrong and does more and more wrong until we start to impose scrutiny and accountability.
When you assume that the courts always get it right...
... to that extent the courts become reckless, irrational, erroneous, and corrupt, until we impose scrutiny and accountability.
The idea that because a court deprived someone of custody means that that was the CORRECT result...
... is an outrageously illogical and dangerous idea.
The idea that any decision by a court “MUST” have been the correct decision is not only a logical fallacy, but the soil in which weeds grow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.