AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.CON!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A310PO2#reader_B00A310PO2

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A310PO2

Petition for Review before the Supreme Court of California

Case No. S__________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

In re Overton vs. Dolansky

James A. G. Overton

Respondent and Appellant

Vs.

Shawn Dolansky

Petitioner and Respondent

After Two Decisions of the Court of Appeal

First Appellate District, Division Four

Case Nos D053050/D053821 (Consolidated on Appeal) and Case No D054297

San Diego Superior Court, Case No. D491976

Honorable Joel Wolhfeil, Judge D053050/D053821

Honorable Lorna Alskne, Judge D054297

PETITION FOR REVIEW

James A. G. Overton

511 E San Ysidro Blvd. #5046

San Ysidro, CA 92173

Email: shodai.overton@gmail.com

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

As a typical individual of African, Hispanic, and Native American descent I do not come from an affluent family. The greatest gifts my parents could provide me were a love of knowledge and learning, a sense of who I am by teaching me to value my rich cultural heritage, and a true appreciation of the burdens and responsibilities of a free citizen in a democratic society: to find a cause in which one will never cease to “fight forever” – especially if it involves the disparity between justice and the law. In the Marriage of Overton is such a cause.

Prior to the incidents referenced herein and documented throughout the Court record I was a dedicated father who spent three days and three nights a week with his two small children. During that period I was devoted wholeheartedly to them, giving them of myself and of my time. Now, I am not even permitted to see them. This case describes, in great detail, the manner in which laws, public policies, and common decency were decidedly set aside so that a mother would be allowed to benefit from her social and economic advantage in order to deprive two small children from their father.

With the exception of a single hearing I have been forced to litigate in propia persona. I have done so unrelentingly even during the signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer which appeared the moment I was informed of the rape of my five-year old son and that I would not be permitted by his mother to speak to him; I continued through the period of its diagnosis and through its excruciating treatment involving chemotherapy, radiation, and countless surgeries. I am still litigating well into the disappointingly disabling aftermath which left me to unable to continue my PhD program or follow a regular work schedule. I have fashioned a form of self-employment adapted to my condition though my business is profitless and currently operates at a loss.

However, despite the personal losses my children and I have experienced throughout this litigation, my commitment under the circumstances of my tragic trials and tribulations has been not just to my family, but to the ideal for which the Constitution of this country is supposed to stand: “ . . . one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

I am not an attorney, and despite being a man of academic degrees due to the physical limitations of my medical handicap I cannot take advantage of the legal resources afforded by access to Law Libraries – hence the lack of my Legal Arguments in support of my Petition for Review. I do consider, commensurate with my academic and professional training that the reasoning presented herein should be sufficient to justify such a Review, and that my lack of financial resources and my medical handicap should not be a further impediment to my right to equal protection under the law any more than they have already been throughout the litigation of this entire Case.

I am asking the Supreme Court to recognize my financial and medical conditions (please see Exhibit 1) and to waive whatever fees are associated with my Petition for Review as well as whatever deadlines I may have surpassed in its preparation. Also, should the Case be accepted, I am asking that the Court appoint me legal representation to argue my just cause.

At a time in which our nation is faced with many crises, social crises, economic crises, military crises, and so on, it is easy when considering the perils of 300 million, to find ample administrative license to dismiss the plight of 3. Nevertheless, it is the manner in which the rights of 3 are protected that ensures the freedoms of the other 300 million. For this very reason the real danger that In the Marriage of Overton presents to the public at large is the unequivocal evidence that those institutions most entrusted to protect their faith in “liberty and justice for all,” repeatedly exercised their ‘judicial discretion’ to conspire, through neglect if not discrimination, towards very the creation of that tragic plight.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT …………………………………………………………………………….….ii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED……………………………………………………………………1

WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED ………………………………………………………………….5

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………….8

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS TO DEVELOP ACCORDING TO ETHNIC IDENTITY:

1 Does the State of California recognize that the development of a child’s ethnic and linguistic heritage is a fundamental constituent of his or her identity and therefore in the child’s “best interest” to foment and protect, including during child custody and primary custodian relocation situations?

2 Does the deliberate refusal, inability, or otherwise failure of a parent of multiethnic/bilingual children to provide an environment, programs, or conditions that will foment the development of said ethnic/linguistic identity constitute a valid “change of circumstances” to require a “best interest of the child” evaluation of custody and visitation?

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLIGENCE:

3 In a similar manner in which parents cannot leave a child unattended in a vehicle, should a parent or parents be held responsible when leaving a child in unsupervised situations concluding in sexual abuse and/or rape?

4 Should a parent’s lack of supervision leading to the sexual abuse or rape of a child constitute a valid change of circumstances for child custody and visitation?

5 Does a parent’s refusal to provide psychological treatment to a child victim of a sexual crime constitute a valid change of circumstances for the purposes of a best interest analysis of the child’s custody?

6 Should a parent’s refusal to apply the resources at his or her disposal (e.g., as demonstrated by their ability to reliably muster financial ‘gifts’ for costs of legal counsel) to provide Court-ordered psychological assessment of a child victim of sexual abuse or rape, constitute a form of child abuse and or neglect?

7 Does the “Child Abuse and Neglect Act” of California apply to children under the jurisdiction of the State when outside of the State of California?

8 Should a Family Court listen to audio recordings of a child’s own disclosures regarding the extent, duration, and detail of his or her sexual abuse and assault given that said disclosures directly address the potential negligent supervision on the part of the primary caregiver?

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW/JUDICIAL COERCION:

9 Is a Court, even a Family Court, required to address the material evidence, arguments, declarations, or other such formal communication presented by one party which brings to the Court’s attention allegations as to the deliberate and material manipulation or deceit of said Court by another party via the filing of forged documents, false declarations, perjured testimony, collusion, or other forms moral turpitude?

10 Is the engagement in crimes of “moral turpitude” grounds for removal and/or denial of custody?

11 Is a Family Court required to vacate orders and findings when it is informed, in a timely fashion, that said orders or findings are the direct result of forged documents, false declarations, perjured testimony, collusion, or other forms of material deceit committed on the part of one of the parties to the detriment of another?

12 Should “income” for the purposes of child support calculations, include extensive amounts received as a part of a regular pattern of family “gifts” which is continuous (i.e., issued recurrently over an extensive period of time), substantial, and reliable (i.e., to be continued indefinitely into the future) provided for the purposes of sustaining legal representation?

13 Does the Court’s removal of an item from Final Orders of Custody and Visitation, without motion, argument, cause, or hearing constitute an abuse of discretion and a lack of due process?

14 Does the granting of a Continuance only to have the motions continued denied later during the same Hearing constitute a lack of due process and an abuse of discretion?

15 Can a Court, by way of its continued refusal to take action against one party’s material acts of deceit, including forgery, fraud, and perjuries which lead to a restraining orders obtained ex-parte and without due notice, create such an atmosphere of distrust in such a manner that the aggrieved party could claim discrimination, coercion, or duress as a result of being denied equal protection before the law?

16 Does a medical disability, such as cancer – or any life-threatening or incapacitating disease – constitute a valid change of circumstances for the purposes of reducing imputed income and child support, or for fairly reallocating responsibilities for child visitation costs?

CHILD RELOCATION:

17 Should the presumptive right of a custodial parent to move away with the children be accompanied by the presumptive financial burden of her decision to relocate, including visitation costs, and denial of increase of child support resulting from the decrease in visitation of the children to the non-custodial parent?

18 Should 3 days and 3 nights a week of visitation with a non-custodial parent be sufficient to deny the presumptive right of the moving custodial parent to relocate with the children?

19 Does evidence of failure to cooperatively parent or the deliberate and intentional effort to interfere with a child’s access to the non-custodial parent prior to the move away provide sufficient cause to infer such future efforts and therefore sufficient cause to deny right to relocation with the children?

20 Does evidence of failure to cooperatively parent or the deliberate and intentional effort to interfere with a child’s access to the non-custodial parent after a move away provide sufficient cause for a change of circumstances for a best interest analysis of the children’s custody?

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:

21 Does the mother’s use of overwhelming legal resources to compel the father, an unemployed, medically disabled and self-representing victim of colorectal cancer, into complying with orders for discovery of past earnings which she herself knew were non-existent, constitute a case of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?

VEXATIOUS LITIGANT:

22 Was the California Civil Procedure Code §391 et seq., i.e., the “vexatious litigant” code, fairly applied within the context and detail of In the Marriage of Overton, particularly in a Family Court in which perjury, fraud, forgery, and collusion were deliberately overlooked by the Court to the material benefit of the mother?

WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED:

Review should be granted because In the Marriage of Overton is a case study of the tremendously dysfunctional level Family Court division of the Superior Court of California is operating in its overall failure to abide by its mandate to protect the best interest of the children and to comply with the laws of the Constitution of the State of California in assuring equal protection under those laws and due process in their application. In the Marriage of Overton is about the disturbing and disconcerting patterns of judicial dispositions towards controversial issues – child sexual abuse, racism, judicial discrimination, child relocation – patterns which cast a questionable and even unsavory shadow of suspicion upon a division of the Superior Court of California as an institution of law and order, and most importantly, of justice.

The Court should review the manner in which fraud, forgery, perjury and subordination of perjury have throughout the Case proven themselves to be profitable, advantageous, and reliable litigation tactics. Of ‘interest’ also is the partiality with which the Court has repeatedly favored the very perpetrator of these iniquitous actions. Of even greater ‘interest’ is the manner in which three Superior Court justices throughout the Case have ignored, refused to take action against, or even outright defended said acts of forgery, fraud, perjury, and subornation of perjury – even to the extent of allowing the perpetrator to reap and accumulate the benefits of said illicit actions, i.e., accumulated child support arrearages stemming from perjured testimony. Of ‘grave interest’ will be the extent to which ‘others’ – perhaps visible minorities, perhaps the socio-economically challenged and deprived, perhaps fathers at large – will see their own experiences in Family Court reflected in these accounts; most likely not only in the State of California.

Review should be granted because, prior to the move away, all of the material evidence spoke volumes in terms of the moral iniquity of the mother and her determination to stop at nothing to keep the children from having a relationship with their father and yet despite the facts, the Family Court only sought to comply with the primary custodian’s presumptive right to move away with the children denying the obvious detriment the children would suffer in the process.

Review should be granted because the Case demonstrates that there is a paucity of guidelines that stipulate the requirements and responsibilities of the moving custodial parent in terms assuring frequent and continuous contact with the remaining parent. From the beginning the Court assumed a zero-sum game in which the mother was entitled to all – children and child support. A presumptive burden should accompany a parent’s presumptive right to move away: Moving parents should be required to bear the full responsibilities of their decisions to move away without financial impact on the remaining parent.

Review should be granted because the Case demonstrates that after the move away, the Court completely lacked any motivation to accept anything as a change of circumstances: the mother’s complete contempt for my rights as a non-custodial parent; her disregard for the children’s right to continue their relationship with me or with any member of my family; her disdain for the children’s ethnic heritage; her indifference towards the psychological needs of a child victim of sexual abuse and rape; her neglect and irresponsibility leading to just that tragic result; or my life-threatening cancer as a valid cause to reduce my (illegally imputed) income or adjust the payment of visitation costs so the children could see their father.

Review should be granted because the Court refused to even apply the recommendations of Minors’ Counsel, made into orders of the court, which stated that should the mother continue to interfere with my contact and relationship with the children as she had done with in March of 2006 with her perjured testimony leading to a restraining order, that custody should be removed from her. In fact, the Court would, without hearing, motion, argument, or due process, remove said item from the Final Orders of the Court in order to prevent me from any further right to motion against the mother’s denial of my non-custodial parental rights.

Review should be granted because prior to the Move Away my children lived three days and three nights a week with me, during which time I rearranged my schedule to be exclusively with them. Now, three and a half years later, I have not seen my children in almost a year and a half, and have been denied all contact with them for the past 11 months. Two and a half years after Alex’s rape – a year ago – I went public on the Internet with the details of the Case in order to shame the Family Court into ordering the mother to provide psychological treatment for my son. Therapy was finally ordered but not without a cost to me: in retribution the Court awarded the mother full custody granting that which she had so iniquitously sought since filing the fraudulent MSA of November 2005, and that which she spent over $150,000 to obtain: the legal right to deny me any and all contact with children.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION:

1. PROTECTION OF MINORITY CHILDREN’S ETHNIC AND LINGUISTIC HERITAGE

RACE AND RACISM IN “THE MARRIAGE OF OVERTON”

The issue of race came to the very forefront of In the Marriage of Overton since Minors’ Counsel presented his Statement before the Court during the acrimonious Move Away litigation:

Alexander presents as a Caucasian child. Julia presents as a child of mixed race heritage. Alex could easily pass for a white child; Julia could not. I mention the race issue because unfortunately we live in a time and place where fear, hate and bigotry still exist. It still exists in Boston also. The children’s best interest will be served if the have substantial exposure to the father’s African-American, Cherokee-American, and Spanish cultural roots along with the mother’s and the father’s Jewish cultural roots. If the mother moves to Boston, the children’s connection to many of these cultural roots is going to be substantially reduced both in terms of time and also in terms of impact. This potential shortfall to the children is of great concern to me . . . The children are learning Spanish and leaning of their multiple cultural legacies when they visit the father. When they are with the father they see on a daily basis that their world includes a African-American father. The father is proud of his African-American, Cherokee-American, Jewish and Spanish legacies. Having an appreciation of these legacies is important to both children; but it will be of critical importance to Julia. The father argues that the mother and her family will disrespect his legacies and will only develop the mother’s Jewish legacies. I am confident that the father will support and nurture the children’s Jewish legacy.[1]

The mother would never follow through with her obligation to provide the children with a bilingual education and effective Spanish language training. The Superior Court did nothing to require the mother to comply with any of the suggestions or requirements regarding protection of their multiethnic and bilingual heritage. The Court refused to act upon the recommendations of a professional linguistic evaluation which clearly established that the children had no effective exposure to the Spanish language since their relocation:

I the undersigned hereby declare that Alexander Jesse Overton and Julia Rachel Overton made a series of Spanish evaluation exams in this Institution. [. . . ] In both cases, we identify that the children have not been exposed to the Spanish language at home, nor have they taken Spanish classes which would give them the opportunity to practice and to express themselves in this language as other bilingual children of their ages do. Both children are well below average for children their age who speak Spanish even as a second language.[2]

THE UNITED NATIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF ETHNIC MINORITIES TO THEIR CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC HERITAGE:

The “Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/135 of the United Nations on 18 December 1992,[3] upholds the rights of children to their ethnic and linguistic heritage (in the original British English):

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming that one of the basic aims of the United Nations, as proclaimed in the Charter, is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,

Desiring to promote the realization of the principles contained in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other relevant international instruments that have been adopted at the universal or regional level and those concluded between individual States Members of the United Nations,

Inspired by the provisions of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Considering that the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live,

Emphasizing that the constant promotion and realization of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, as an integral part of the development of society as a whole and within a democratic framework based on the rule of law, would contribute to the strengthening of friendship and cooperation among peoples and States,

Considering that the United Nations has an important role to play regarding the protection of minorities,

Bearing in mind the work done so far within the United Nations system, in particular by the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the bodies established pursuant to the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments in promoting and protecting the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Taking into account the important work which is done by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in protecting minorities and in promoting and protecting the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Recognizing the need to ensure even more effective implementation of international human rights instruments with regard to the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Proclaims this Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities:

Article 1

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2

1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

[…]

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 4

[…]

2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.

3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.

4. States should, where appropriate, take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory. […]

Article 5

1. National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.

2. Programmes of cooperation and assistance among States should be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.

Article 6

States should cooperate on questions relating to persons belonging to minorities, inter alia, exchanging information and experiences, in order to promote mutual understanding and confidence.

Article 7

States should cooperate in order to promote respect for the rights set forth in the present Declaration.

Article 9

The specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system shall contribute to the full realization of the rights and principles set forth in the present Declaration, within their respective fields of competence. (Emphasis added)

BRIEF SOCIAL BACKGROUND:

1 The United States is and has been a hostile environment for visible minorities. A CNN article entitled, “Small town killing puts focus on crimes against Latinos”[4] regarding a recent racially-motivated killing of a Hispanic immigrant by several white youths in SHENANDOAH, Pennsylvania puts this all into perspective:

“Hate is part of our culture,” said Jack Levin of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University . . . “It transcends generations, it’s widely shared, and it’s learned from an early age . . . Even otherwise decent, honorable people can be pulled into it.” Jack McDevitt of Northeastern University’s Institute on Race and Justice said, “We all carry around biases with us, and it’s not the extraordinary monster that decides to act on it. Generally speaking, it’s someone more like us and our children than a member of the [Ku Klux] Klan.”

The youths are being tried as adults; one of them, who admitted throwing a punch that left the victim unconscious, was a grade ‘A’ student and ran track in his high school.

2 Most often, ethnic minority children grow up in a social or family context in which this identity is fostered and cultivated. However, in the case of In the Marriage of Overton, which arises as the direct result of the growing trend in divorced parents to relocate, the Court has repeatedly refused to give weight to the needs and rights of the multi-ethnic and bilingual children to grow up according to these identities as a factor in the “best interest” or in a “change of circumstances” analysis of their custody and visitation.

3 White children freely enjoy the right to develop according to their ethnic identity based on the position of advantage and achievement of the dominant White majority in American society. Their ethnic identity and language is guaranteed under such circumstances:

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.[5]

These words, written by Justice J. Harlan were the sole dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 regarding the social position of the White race. They were true then and are true now: Whites enjoy the position of prestige in achievements, education, wealth and power, which provides their children’s de facto access to development according to their own ethnic and linguistic identity.

It is necessary to understand the context in which those words were written, for they were redacted precisely as a result of one of the most devastating Supreme Court decisions to equal rights among the races, second only to the Dred Scott v Sandford case of 1857. In both instances, the Supreme Court decision contributed precisely to a caste system in which Blacks were far from “equal before the law.” I refer to how the decisions served to uphold the legal legacy of slavery: segregation, Jim Crow, and their direct result which has been the social, economic, and educational disparity between Whites and Blacks.

This legal legacy has contributed of necessity to the embedded perception in the hearts and minds of American culture of the inherent and all-pervasive superiority of the White race. We, the visible minorities of this country, are not “the peer of the most powerful” and will not begin to be until our rights to our ethnic and linguistic heritages are recognized and enforced by law so we can proceed to reconstruct that which has been taken from us through the legal use of discrimination:

In the "doll test," psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark used four plastic, diaper-clad dolls, identical except for color. They showed the dolls to black children between the ages of three and seven and asked them questions to determine racial perception and preference. Almost all of the children readily identified the race of the dolls. However, when asked which they preferred, the majority selected the white doll and attributed positive characteristics to it. The Clarks also gave the children outline drawings of a boy and girl and asked them to color the figures the same color as themselves. Many of the children with dark complexions colored the figures with a white or yellow crayon. The Clarks concluded that "prejudice, discrimination, and segregation" caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred.[6]

4 Visible minority children can only fulfill their right to cultivate their ethnic identity by developing in an environment in which they have the opportunity to do so. For children of Hispanic descent in America, becoming bilingual and speaking Spanish – without a ‘foreign’ or non-Latino accent – is critical to the process of establishing and valuing their ethnic identity.

5 The cultural tradition of socio-economic and legal exclusion in the United States created a caste system based on race that is still present at all levels of American society:

The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?’ has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black . . . this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.[7]

6 Despite having an African American in the Oval office, the fact remains that most visible minorities - and Blacks in particular – have continued to remain tremendously handicapped and disenfranchised in most, if not all aspects of American society:

n There is an early and manifest educational divide that mirrors and is predictive of the economical discrepancy between Blacks and Hispanics and the White majority. In 2009, on the national mathematics assessment test for fourth graders, “Black students had an average score that was 26 points lower than that of White students,” and “Hispanic students had an average score that was 21 points lower than that of White students.”[8] Furthermore, while only 9% of White 4^th graders performed at below Basic level on the same Mathematics achievement test, 36% of Blacks, 29% of Hispanics and 34% Native Americans failed to perform at Basic levels.[9]

n The gap widens with age: In the same year, eighth grade “Black students had an average score that was 32 points lower than that of White students” and “Hispanic students had an average score that was 26 points lower than that of White students.”[10] Furthermore, while 17% of White eighth graders performed at below the Basic level this contrasts with the 50% of Blacks, 43% Hispanic, and 44% of Native American student who failed to perform at the Basic level on the same test.[11]

n In 2007 on a national reading assessment test, Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans also demonstrate deficient levels in reading skills compared to their White counterparts, scoring on average 28, 26, and 28 points lower than White students, in the 4^th grade, respectively and 27, 25, and 25 points less respectively than White students at the 8th grade level.[12]

n These early differences between childhood achievement levels in education continue throughout adulthood. 2008 statistics reveal Black and Hispanic populations with significantly lower (between 25% and 75% lower) percentages of college graduates in the categories of Bachelors, Masters, Professional, and Doctoral degrees[13]:

	Bachelor's degree	Master's degree	Professional degree	Doctoral degree
General Population	17.83243%	6.62786%	1.339101%	1.105904%
Blacks	12.19512%	4.089064%	0.568979%	0.515875%
Hispanics	8.383411%	2.476392%	0.624051%	0.241035%
Whites	18.07873%	6.697144%	6.697144%	1.087045%

n The disparity in education levels are equally reflected in lower income levels for Blacks and Hispanics with respect to Whites. In 2006, only 11.3% of White households had an income of $15,000 or less, while 24.4% of Black households and 16.3% of Hispanic households were in the same category. Similarly, while 32.0% of White households earned $75,000 or more, only 16.8% of Black households and 19.4% of Hispanics were in the same income category.[14] While the median income for White households in 2006 was $50,673, for Blacks and Hispanics it remained considerably less at $31,969 and $37,781 respectively.[15]

n With the discrepancies in education and income levels comes a propensity towards criminal behavior and friction with the law: in 2008, the incarceration rates for Hispanics were 64% higher than those for Whites, and those for Blacks were a whopping 397% higher than those for Whites.[16]

n These social, educational and financial disparities between the races have also had a profound impact on Black and Hispanic youth. Gangs have become a primary threat to American society with “[a]pproximately 1 million gang members belonging to more than 20,000 gangs were criminally active within all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of September 2008.”[17] Of these 1 million members, “40% are juveniles” (teenage gang members) or 40,000; Hispanics and Blacks are disproportionately represented in this criminal category: 47% are Hispanic and 31% are African-American while only 13% white, 7% Asian, 2% are classified as other.[18]

9 What these and countless other contemporary ethnic statistics demonstrate, is that Blacks and Hispanics experience tremendous and crippling disadvantages in virtually all dimensions of American society.

10 What these statistics also show is that visible minority children – including those who are multi-ethnic and those who may not fall directly prey to the statistic realities of their ethnicity – will fall victim to the stereotypes among the dominant White society perpetuated by these statistics. It is for this reason that it is imperative that children are provided with the support and conditions necessary to develop according to their ethnic/linguistic identity, conditions which include a personal (transmitted directly by members of the ethnic group), social and historic understanding of the plight of their people.

11 Children who could “pass,” i.e., hide their racial heritage, do so at the risk of denying all ties to their family, hiding and denying their own ethnic identity; these are actions which have a negative impact on their self-esteem and which can lead to documented and studied issues such as self-loathing.

12 I refer again to Justice Harlan’s sole dissent in the Plessy v. Ferguson case before the Supreme Court in 1896:

This question is not met by the suggestion that social equality cannot exist between the white and black races in this country. That argument, if it can be properly regarded as one, is scarcely worthy of consideration, for social equality no more exists between two races when traveling in a passenger coach or a public highway than when members of the same races sit by each other in a street car or in the jury box, or stand or sit with each other in a political assembly, or when they use in common the street of a city or town, or when they are in the same room for the purpose of having their names placed on the registry of voters, or when they approach the ballot box in order to exercise the high privilege of voting.

This is as valid today as it was 113 years ago. When access to the law requires social standing, equal before the law does not exist for those socially and economically deprived: while the mother, a White Jewish woman, spent well over $100,000 in legal fees, I had to litigate self-represented while fighting a life-threatening disease.

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN MULTI-ETHNIC YOUTH

The development of multi-ethnic/bilingual children presents particular challenges:

n The development of an ethnic identity requires frequent and constant contact with members of that identity with whom the individuals share a common (e.g., family) bond. In the case of a multi-ethnic child, the matter becomes even more specific and clear-cut as to with whom they can establish this identity when only one parent represents virtually all aspects of the children’s multiple ethnic facets, and the other does not, refuses to apply available resources to their development, or even further, demonstrates a dismissive, disdainful and derisive attitude towards those racial, cultural and linguistic gifts.

n Racial and ethnic group differences have a significant impact on children's social development, although the impact varies with age and specific ethnicity. The role of heritage in a child's development is affected by history, as well as by social context and immediate environment. Since having a multiple ethnic heritage has a different, perhaps more problematic, effect on a child's development (Herring, 1992), it is important to actively help multiracial children acquire a positive self-concept. They need exposure to models of all the ethnicities they embrace and to multiracial people generally. They need to understand what it means to be multiracial, and to acquire culturally-linked coping skills that include ways to deal with racism and discrimination (Wardle, 1987). Because there are few integrated, stable, and tension-free racially mixed communities in the U.S. that can facilitate positive identity formation in interracial children (Miller & Rotheram-Borus, 1994), families and schools must work hard to provide a supportive community that affirms multiracialism.[19]

n […] the identity development process for multiracial youth is more complicated than for monoracial youth, both because there are so many possible choices and because families, peers, and society in general can exert strong--and frequently contradictory--influences on youth who are already struggling with internal conflicts.[20]

WHAT IS RACISM?

Racism, which according to the United Nations is indistinguishable from ethnic discrimination, appears in many forms in a given society; it can be found in the way in which one racial group is systematically and legally deprived of opportunities and freedoms afforded others, such as was characteristic of South Africa’s Apartheid or of the United States’ Jim Crow. Racism can be found in the insidious manner in which a group of people is targeted by law enforcement for ‘racial profiling’ and so are victimized by greater legal scrutiny and stricter judicial sanction (resulting in disproportionately higher incarceration rates).

Racism also takes place when one or more groups are commonly represented as having inherently inferior, substandard, contemptible, or disreputable qualities – such as is the case today in the United States as manifested by prevailing negative stereotypes of Hispanics and African Americans alike.

Another, even more insidious form of discrimination takes place when the ethnic heritage of one group is considered unworthy or lacking in value, and is methodically exterminated: between the 1870s and the 1930s the United States government removed many Native American children from their tribes and interned them in boarding schools in order to ‘civilize’ or ‘assimilate’ them by dispossessing them of their language and identity:

Based on nationwide studies conducted between 1969 and 1974, 25 percent to 35 percent of Indian children were removed from their homes and placed in non-Indian foster or adoptive homes by state courts and welfare agencies. The alarming rate of out-of-home placement of Indian children with non-Indian families came to be viewed as a form of cultural genocide.[21]

The result was the creation of the Indian Child Welfare Act in order to protect the rights of Native Americans, their tribes, and their children to their ethnic identity.

And yet another form of racism consists of trivializing the heritage of a given group, thereby reducing and downplaying the worth of its ethnic identity. Such is the case In the Marriage of Overton when the mother sardonically suggested that a good way to promote the children’s African American heritage would be to enroll them in ‘dance lessons’:

Alex has shown a real interest and talent for dance, and there are a variety of classes offered nearby in hip-hop, African dance, jazz and tap. Perhaps enrolling him in such a dance class or even at a dance class at an African-American cultural center in Boston would be a good non-religious way to make him feel his heritage and feel part of his community. Julia could do the same when she’s old enough for the classes, but in the meantime she and I could go and watch.

Equating African American culture to simply “dance” is one of the most denigrating and insulting enactment of the racist stereotype that has been established in American Culture from the 1930s onward by way of the Minstrel Show which portrayed Blacks as ignorant, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, joyous, and musical. Written by the children’s own mother, the reductive equivalency of Black culture to “dance” is at the very core of the stereotyping that was demonstrated in the Jump Jim Crow song and acts which in turn lent their name to the Jim Crow segregation laws that dominated our existence for over a century.

2. PROTECTION OF CHILD VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE AND NEGLECT

In October of 2006, only months after a move away to Boston which I vehemently opposed, my son Alexander Jesse Overton, of 5 years of age was assaulted, sexually abused, and finally raped by three older children, ages 11, 9 and 7, while his mother regularly left him alone in their company so that could play “doctor” with him, frequently unsupervised in the house of two of the older children,. The repeated pattern of sexual abuse culminated with the rape of my son; charges were placed against the older two individuals by the Norfolk District Attorney. The mother not only refused to inform me of the incident until after Alex was interviewed by the police and the District Attorney[22], but also prevented Alex from communicating with me about it during our webcam visitations. “Kid’s play doctor – that happens”[23] summarizes the chilling indifference the Court has presented towards a five-year old victim of CSA.

During his subsequent visitation to San Diego/Tijuana Alex disclosed great details regarding the pattern of neglect leading to his assault. These disclosures were recorded and provided to the Family Court. The mother had directly denied that there was any possibility that Alex could have been abused more than on that final incident in which he was raped. However, Alex’s own recorded disclosures directly contradict his mother’s sworn testimony. The mother would later dismiss the manner in which Alex’s disclosures contradicted her testimony by stating, “I understand that it is fairly common for traumatic events to become distorted in a young child's mind once time has past.”[24] The Family Court gave Alex even less credibility than did his mother.

On December 4, 2006, as retaliation for my reporting of Alex’s recordings to various authorities and in yet another perjured sworn declaration, the mother stated that a psychologist had declared that my conversations with Alex constituted “abusive” “interrogations” and that the Court should deny the upcoming Winter visitation. All attempts to have the Court order the mother to identify the phantom psychologist failed, as well as any attempt to order the mother to explain why she allegedly took the transcripts to a psychologist while at the same refusing to take Alex himself. All the while I argued that the mother was refusing psychological treatment as this would result in a validation of Alex’s disclosures.

Subsequently, the Family Court refused to take any action against the mother for her failure to inform me of the rape, for her interference with Alex’s communication with me regarding the same, or for her false declaration during December 4th ex-parte. The Court also refused to hear or consider recordings of Alex’s own disclosures, in his own voice which would have not only revealed the manner in which the mother had deceived the authorities, but also would have given great insight into the lack of supervision Alex experienced and the extent of the abuse to which he was subjected.

Furthermore, the Family Court refused to take action against the mother for refusing to provide psychological treatment to Alex – even two years after the assault – or for her refusal to comply with Court ordered psychological assessment of the child which would impact her custodial status. In this respect the Court accepted the mother’s declaration that she lacked funds for the forensic evaluation for Alex, while ignoring my argument that this statement was incongruent with the over $100,000 of parental ‘gifts’ for which she had liberal access to spend on litigating against me, or that said evaluation would have been at no cost had Alex returned to California.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is one of the most damaging assaults against a child’s safety and welfare:

“Surveys likely underestimate prevalence due to underreporting and memory failure.[25] Although official reports have declined somewhat in the U.S. over the past decade[26], close to 90% of sexual abuse cases are never reported to the authorities.[27] CSA is associated with serious mental and physical health problems, substance abuse, victimization, and criminality in adulthood.[28] Mental health problems include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and suicide.[29] CSA may interfere with attachment, emotional regulation, and major stress response systems.[30] CSA has been used as a weapon of war and genocide and is associated with abduction and human trafficking.[31]”[32]

CSA is also a tremendous social problem. If the personal risks to a child under its jurisdiction were not justification enough for a “change of circumstances” and a “best interest analysis” of the children’s custody, then the social costs of CSA alone should have warranted such action: “Based on data drawn from a variety of sources, the estimated annual cost of child abuse and neglect is $103.8 billion in 2007 value.”[33] Yet despite what is common knowledge to every institution dealing with victims of CSA, the San Diego Family Court took no action against the mother for her neglectful supervision, her denial of my joint-custodial rights, her interference with my communication with Alex, her obvious deceit to the Court, or for her delay and refusal to provide our son with therapy.

3. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW:

In the Marriage of Overton is a case that began before the Superior Court of California with numerous illicit acts, including filing a Petition for Marital Dissolution in August of 2005 after we were already legally and fully divorced in Guam in December of 2004, and the filing of a fraudulent Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) intended on defrauding me of both substantial amounts of money and in depriving me of contact with my children.

The irrefutable evidence that leaves no question that the MSA presented before the Court in November of 2005 was a fraud and not the “self-same” marital settlement agreement I had signed during the original divorce on October 13, 2004, is to be found on page 2 of said document where it states: “There is presently on file in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Case Number D491976, a proceeding for dissolution of marriage between the parties. The Petition was filed by the wife on August 15, 2005. The Court acquired jurisdiction of Husband on August 22, 2005.” It is simply impossible for a document containing the above references to matters that transpired on August 15 and August 22, 2005 respectively to be the same document signed in its final and complete form on October 13, 2004 – nearly a year prior the events described.

The mother and her attorney colluded in a fraudulent second divorce with a forged version of the original MSA. Despite this and other material evidence of fraud during the filing and litigation of the 2005 MSA, the Family Court refused to even hear arguments to this effect and chose to protect the mother from the consequences of her illicit actions, seeking the least punitive means possible to vacate the Order (FC 2338.5, absence of a Notarized Signature page in an MSA, rather than for fraud under FC 2122). The Court also refused vacate the order in a timely manner that would not coerce me into accepting Minor Counsel’s Report and recommendations.

When I discovered the extent and detail of the mother’s fraudulent actions, I filed a timely motion to vacate the November 2005 order. The mother retaliated by entering ex-parte twice before the Court (March and April 2006), both times denying me legal notice and obtaining restraining orders based on false accusations that I had attempted to abduct the children into Mexico. Later the Court, even after discovering the mother’s deceitful manipulation of its authority and referring to said actions as “perjury,” refused to take action against the mother or her attorney. The Court would even, upon request and not motion attempt to remove its previous reference to “perjury” from the record.

On December 18, 2006 the mother would appear in Court and testify falsely in order to obtain an imputation of my income and child support I could not hope to pay. The Court would repeatedly refuse to hear my arguments, review my evidence, or give due process to my motions regarding the mother’s perjury and my attempts to set aside the illicit imputation of my income. This resulted in the accumulation of child support arrearages that would later provide the Court justification to absolve the mother from paying Court ordered visitation costs. Consequently, I missed numerous Court ordered visitations with my children.

From the very beginning of the case the Court provided the mother with a mantle of protection from what should have been the legal consequences of her crimes of moral turpitude. I was denied anything resembling equal protection under the law: the Court would impose sanctions upon me, such as ordering me to pay the full community debt for, according to the mother’s attorney, not complying properly with orders for discovery, and ultimately declaring me a vexatious litigant for demanding action from the Court against the mother’s iniquitous tactics.

Currently, there is no way in Family Court to obtain legal action against a litigant who is benefiting from the Court’s acquiescence to perjury or other forms of deception. Knowingly deceiving a Court of law for the purposes of obtaining unfair benefits for oneself or unjust detriment to another party subverts the very process upon which the Constitution is based. The reason why actions such as perjury, forgery, and fraud are not only penalized by the law but are considered acts of moral turpitude is that they subvert, undermine, and sabotage the entire legal process. The very point of making individuals take oaths or affirmations before a Court under penalty of perjury is in order to preserve the integrity of this juridical process. “Under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California” means absolutely nothing in Family Court.

Perjury is defined as the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding." The manner in which perjury is a winning tactic in Family Court’s across the country is incongruous and inconsistent with the severity with which it is encountered in all other dimensions of the legal system. The Matter of Martinez-Recinos[34], for example, illustrates how institutions of the California judicial system – other than Family Court – take the issue of perjury as being quite serious. It also clarifies the criminal as well as the immoral nature of the crime of perjury:

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a unanimous en banc precedent decision finding that a California conviction for perjury constitutes an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(48)(S) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The decision upholds an immigration judge's decision finding a lawful permanent resident Salvadoran respondent removable and ineligible for any relief from removal as a result of an aggravated felony conviction. [...]

The BIA began its consideration of the appeal by examining subsection (S) of the "aggravated felony" definition of INA section 101(a)(48). Subsection (S) applies to "an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year." The BIA then compared the California statute under which Martinez-Recinos was convicted with the federal statute defining the crime of perjury in order "to determine whether the state law shares common material elements with the federal law." The California statute applies to persons who, "having taken an oath" to "testify, declare, depose, or certify truly" in any case where an oath may by California law be administered, or having declared or certified under penalty of perjury in any case where such declaration or certification is permitted by California law, "willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false." The BIA concluded that the federal statute defining perjury, 18 U.S.C. section 1621 (1994), contains essentially the same requirements. […][35]

Lying before a Court, any Court – is an immoral act, an act of “moral turpitude,” an act which declares and demonstrates the corrupt nature and iniquitous character of the individual committing said act. It is a tragic irony, as well as a fundamental incongruity within the application of the law, that while other state and federal Courts deal severely with perpetrators of “moral turpitude,” Family Court, in which assigned primary caregivers are entrusted with the responsibility of shaping children’s moral character, as a matter of course avoids the issue altogether. Simply put: My five year old son would not have been raped if prior to the move away to Boston the judge would have applied the legal standard of “moral turpitude” to his mother after her repeated acts of perjury, fraud, forgery, and collusion before the Superior Court of California.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Court grant this Petition for Review.

Dated: November 8, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

By _________________________

James Alexander Guerra Overton

EXHIBIT 1

COPIES OF MY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX DECLARATIONS

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

PURSUANT TO RULE 14(c)(1)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 14(c)(1), I hereby certify that the number of words contained in this Petition for Rehearing, including all materials after the Table of Contents and excluding this Certificate, is 8, 234 words as calculated using the word count feature of the computer program used to prepare this brief.

Dated: November 9, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

By _________________________

James Alexander Guerra Overton

---

[1] SOURCE: Statement of Minors Counsel Terrence Chucas before the Superior Court.

[2] Professional Spanish Language competency evaluation in Tijuana, Mexico

[3] SOURCE: Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/135 of 18 December 1992, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm

[4] SOURCE: “Small town killing puts focus on crimes against Latinos,” October 22, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/22/lia.shenandoah.killing/index.html#cnnSTCText

[5] SOURCE: HARLAN, J., Dissenting Opinion SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 163 U.S. 537, Plessy v. Ferguson, ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, No. 210 Argued: April 18, 1896 --- Decided: May 18, 1896. Found in http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZD.html.

[6] SOURCE: The Library of Congress >> Exhibitions “With an Even Hand” Brown v. Board at Fifty. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html (Introduced and applied as the basis of the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v Board of Education, 1954).

[7] SOURCE: “Who is Black? One Nation's Definition” (1991), by F. James Davis, retired sociology professor, Illinois State University.

[8] SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2009/2010454NP4.pdf

[9] SOURCE: The Nation’s Report Card, Mathematics, Grade 4 National Results, http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/gr4_national.asp?tab_id=tab2&subtab_id=Tab_3#chart

[10] SOURCE: The Nation’s Report Card, Mathematics, Grade 4 National Results, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2009/2010454NP8.pdf.

[11] SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2009 Mathematics Assessments. http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/gr8_national.asp?subtab_id=Tab_3&tab_id=tab2#chart

[12] SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2007.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2007/2007496.asp

[13] U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2008. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/cps2008.html

[14] SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Money Income Of Families--Median Income by Race and Hispanic Origin, in Current and Constant (2006) Dollars. Table 672: Money Income of Families—Number and Distribution by Race and

Hispanic Origin: 2006 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html

[15] SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Money Income Of Families--Median Income by Race and Hispanic Origin, in Current and Constant (2006) Dollars. Table 668. Money Income of Households—Percent Distribution by Income Level, Race, and Hispanic Origin, in Constant (2006) Dollars: 1980 to 2006. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0668.pdf

[16] SOURCE: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail populations by race and ethnicity, 1990-2008, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/jailrair.htm

[17] SOURCE: Nation Gang Threat Assessment 2009, produced by the National Gang Intelligence Center.

[18] SOURCE: Gang Facts and Statistics, http://www.helpinggangyouth.com/statistics.html

[19] SOURCE: The Identity Development of Multiracial Youth, page 2, by Schwartz, Wendy, found in ERIC/CUE Digest, Number 137 http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/identity.htm.

[20] SOURCE: The Identity Development of Multiracial Youth, page 6, by Schwartz, Wendy, found in ERIC/CUE Digest, Number 137 http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/identity.htm.

[21] SOURCE: The National Conference of State Legislature’s Website, Issues & Research » State-Tribal » The Indian Child Welfare Act and the States

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/StateTribal/TheIndianChildWelfareActandtheStates/tabid/13275/Default.aspx

[22] The Norfolk District Attorney’s office would later state that they failed to notify me immediately of the incident because the mother did not inform them of the existence of Alex’s father, let alone of a joint-custodial court order.

[23] October 13, 2006, Judge Oberholtzer during Hearing in which I was requesting a Continuance and a change of circumstances due to the mother’s neglect in leaving my son unattended with much older children who routinely played “doctor” with him as the exclusive “patient.”

[24] Email from mother, Ms. Shawn Dolansky to me and to her lawyer Paul Staley, dated Thu, 8 Mar 2007 at 15:09:44.

[25] D. M. Fergusson, L. J. Horwood, L. J. Woodward, Psychol. Med. 30, 529 (2000). J.Hardt, J. Child Psychology Psychiatry 45, 260 (2004). C. S. Widom, S. Morris, Psychol. Assess. 9, 34 (1997).

[26] Child Maltreatment Report 1990 [-2002] (U.S. Department Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 2002).

[27] R. F. Hanson, et al., Child Abuse Neglect 23, 559 (1999).

[28] C. S. Widom, Child Abuse Neglect 18, 303 (1994). F. W. Putnam, F. W. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolescent Psychiatry 42, 269 (2003). D. Fergusson, L. Horwood, M. Lynskey, J. Am. Acad. Child Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1365 (1996). E. C. Nelson, et al., Arch Gen Psychiatry, 59, 139 (2002).

[29] B. E. Molnar, S. L. Buka, R. C. Kessler, Am. J. Public Health 91, 753 (2001). B. E. Molnar, L. F. Berkman, S. L. Buka, Psychol. Med. 31, 965 (2001).

[30] 15. M. D. De Bellis et al., J. Clinical Endocrinol. Metab. 78, 249 (1994).

[31] World Health Organization, World Report on Violence and Health (2002; http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/).

[32] SOURCE: The Science of Child Sexual Abuse, http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/articles/science05.htm

[33] SOURCE: Total Estimated Cost of Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States, Economic Impact Study (2007), by Ching-Tung Wang, Ph.D. and John Holton, Ph.D., link found in website by Timothy D. Kosnoff, Child Sexual Abuse attorney http://www.kosnoff.com/PracticeAreas/Societal-Costs-Sexual-Abuse.asp, website by Timothy D. Kosnoff, Child Sexual Abuse attorney.

[34] The Matter of Martinez-Recinos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 175, Int. Dec. #3456 (BIA Oct. 15, 2001).

[35] Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 15, No. 7, Nov. 16, 2001