Mothers Of Lost Children – Indiana

Support for Noncustodial Indiana Moms

Archive for June 2009

Angie Warnock is Blamed for Her Own Death

with 14 comments

Another local blogger, Stuart Showalter, has chosen to blame Angie Warnock for her own death, stating that she should not have gotten protective orders:

“Angela Warnock’s use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.”

How interesting he claims the Protective Order was a leverage tool, when she had the hearing on Thursday last week to uphold and extend.  Joseph made the run to the courthouse on Friday to file for divorce.

In the hearing last week, the judge continued the preliminary order that Warnock should have no contact with his family.  Love also suggested that the couple take their dispute to divorce court. Joseph Warnock filed for divorce the next day.

More Stuart:

“Parental Alienation is damaging to the child. Instead of promoting independence, the alienating parent encourages continued dependence by the children. The parent may insist on sleeping with the child, feeding the child (“It’s easier if I do it”), and taking care of these rites of passage longer than normal child development calls for. One theory about why a mother will act this way is that when a father takes his share of joint custody is that it is like asking her to give away part of her body. One mother said, “He is going to remove my right arm and take it for the weekend.” It feels like the mother has lost a profound part of who she is as a person. She feels fractured, pulled apart.”

Claims of  “parental alienation” are well known by professional bodies and as such, is not accepted by any for use against another parent.   

2006 – The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges also discredited the theory.  It stated:

The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.

To see this report “Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide by Clare Dalton LLM,, please click here, and go to Page 24. 

So whipping out the “parental alienation” card on this one Stuart shows just how twisted fans of this syndrome are.  More Stuart:

“Instead of encouraging the necessary interaction with both parents some battling spouses instead choose to use the children as a weapon against the other. Keeping children away from their fathers can have significant damaging effects. Children from fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, [Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census]; 71% of pregnant teenagers. [Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services]; and 71% of all high school dropouts [Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools].”

Actually research shows children are less at risk with mothers than with fathers.  How do you think the effects of seeing their father stab their mother to death works Stuart?  Is having a violent father around better than no father?  I know that is how the “father’s rights” advocates feel.  What about the children, Stuart?  What about the children?

“Often times children are withheld from the other parent as punishment for a perceived wrong. This is commonly done through restraining orders which in the majority of cases do not even involve an allegation of violence. [False DV Allegations Cost $20 Billion] Douglas Darnell, Ph.D. Cites that a parent who physically or psychologically rescues the children when there is no threat to their safety reinforces alienation by placing in the child’s mind the illusion of threat or danger. An alienator may assume that if a parent had been physically abusive with him or her, it follows that the parent will assault the child. This assumption is not always true.”

So Stuart blames Angie for her own death:

“This is another case that demonstrates that a Protective Order does not protect and may actually lead to the death of a parent who was otherwise not threatened. In child custody cases every effort should be made to ensure that the children maintain healthy relationships with both parents. Not doing so can not only damage the children but, as in this case, cost the alienator her life.”

Shame on you, Stuart Showalter.  Because of abusive fathers and other father’s rights supporters who use claims of “parental alienation” against women who have genuine fear of their lives, lives will continue to be lost.  As these women continue to die, more and more people will realize the lies you spread are self-serving and dangerous.  And more children will continue to lose their mothers.  Shouldn’t the focus be on stopping violent fathers from doing this, rather than on another “blame the woman” again rant?

Any legislator that buys into your argument needs to be voted out of office. 


Also see:  Former Miss Kauai killed in stabbing at Indiana home , He Swore He’d Never Hurt Her and Former NeoNazi/Skinhead Fights for Boone County Fathers While Blasting Mothers

He Swore He’d Never Hurt Her

with 4 comments

…then days later Joseph Warnock murdered his wife in front of their daughters.  A protective order is only a tool, but often doesn’t stop violent men.  It has happened over and over again here.  Only when the courts and authorities start taking domestic violence seriously will violent events like this lessen.  Even with protective orders, Angela was told by the judge to take it to family court.  Violent acts by batterers are dismissed by family court judges “in the context of a custody dispute” or divorce and are not taken seriously.  Until this happens, we will continue to see more women lose their lives or continue to be beaten until the family courts arrive to finish the job on her and the children. 

From The Indianapolis Star:

Brownsburg murder suspect swore he’d never hurt his wife

Posted: June 25, 2009

DANVILLE, Ind. — A few days before Joseph L. Warnock was accused of stabbing his wife to death, he swore in a Hendricks County court that he would never harm her or their two daughters.  “I love my wife. I love my kids,” he testified in a hearing June 18 on Angela Warnock’s request for a protective order. “I love my kids more than anything else in the world.”

On Wednesday, Joseph Warnock was back in the Hendricks County Courthouse, charged with murder in the death of his 38-year-old wife late Sunday.  A not-guilty plea was entered for him, and his trial was set for Oct. 6.

Prosecutors say Warnock, 41, broke into the family home in Brownsburg’s Eagle Crossing subdivision despite the court order granted at Angela Warnock’s request.  He found his wife and daughters asleep, and he stabbed the woman repeatedly, investigators said.  The girls, ages 12 and 8, were not physically harmed, and they ran to hide until he left, authorities said.

Three days before her death, Angela Warnock also was in the courtroom, asking for a permanent order prohibiting her husband from contact with the family. A temporary order was issued in May.  The Warnocks told widely different stories in that 80-minute hearing in front of Judge Karen Love.  “I’m not a violent person. I would never do anything that would put them in harm’s way,” Joseph Warnock said.

He said he was concerned that his wife recently had taken $9,000 from their bank accounts and planned to take their daughters to Hawaii, possibly not to return to Indiana.

However, Angela Warnock said she was afraid, calling her husband an alcoholic and a cocaine addict.  She told the judge of verbal abuse, irrational behavior and unexplained disappearances for days at a time.  She testified that the preliminary court order hadn’t stopped her husband from stalking the family with up to 18 phone calls a day, gifts and cards, text messages and flowers.  “The man knows no boundary,” Angela Warnock testified. “He knows no rules.  The (temporary) order that said no phone calls meant nothing to him.”

She testified that the previous three weeks “with him out of the house were the best three weeks my children have had in years.”

“I’ve exhausted myself trying to clean him sober, rehab him sober, be his friend. I’m trying to express what a danger he is,” she testified.  Warnock testified that he was getting counseling for his addictions, and “90 percent of the time in the last 10 years, I’ve been clean.”

In the hearing last week, the judge continued the preliminary order that Warnock should have no contact with his family.  Love also suggested that the couple take their dispute to divorce court. Joseph Warnock filed for divorce the next day.

Also see:  Crime of Passion? No, it was MURDER  and Angie Warnock is Blamed for Her Own Death

Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children – Getting it Wrong in Child Custody Cases

with 2 comments

This is an article that should be made manditory reading for all court officials.  Here is an excerpt:

As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences. This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 that became widely used (sometimes in a form called Parental Alienation) despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar discussion of more recent proposals concerning Alienated Children (AC), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.

To download “Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children – getting it wrong in child custody cases” by Carol Bruch, please click here.

Crime of Passion? No, it was MURDER

with 2 comments

Again, another murder is watered down in it’s description…a crime of passion?  Get real, this is murder.  This was a violent act in front of their children!  Thankfully he was caught!  

Joseph Warnock captured.

Joseph Warnock captured.

From The Indianapolis Star:

Man arrested in stabbing death of estranged wife

By Bruce C. Smith
Posted: June 23, 2009

BROWNSBURG, Ind. — In the last minutes of Father’s Day, police believe, a Brownsburg man violently stabbed his estranged wife to death.

The couple’s two daughters, ages 8 and 12, slept with their mother as the attack began before midnight Sunday. The girls ran and escaped injury, police said.

“Daddy stabbed Mommy,” one of the girls said in a 911 call after her father left early Monday. They hid in a closet about 20 minutes, police said.

Joseph L. Warnock, 41, is charged with murder in the death of Angela A. Warnock, 38. He was arrested about 9 p.m. Monday north of Brownsburg and taken to Hendricks County Jail in Danville.

Detectives said Angela Warnock was stabbed many times. Sheriff’s Detective Sgt. Charles Morefield described injuries to her arms as “defensive wounds, like she tried to resist.”

“This looked like a crime of passion,” he said.  (No, this is MURDER)

A judge had ordered Joseph Warnock to stay away from the family home in the 10400 block of Splendor Way in the Eagle Crossing subdivision, about a half-mile west of 56th Street and Raceway Road on the Hendricks-Marion county line.

Shortly before midnight, Warnock parked in a church lot about a quarter-mile from the home, walked through farm fields and broke in the patio door, investigators believe. He stabbed his wife with a steak knife, a weapon he apparently took to the house, detectives said.

Police and their dogs tracked Warnock to the church lot but didn’t find him during a search around Eagle Creek Park and nearby areas on the Northwestside of Indianapolis.

Sheriff’s officials said a caller reported seeing a man matching Warnock’s description sitting next to a utility box in the 10500 block of East County Road 600 North — about a quarter-mile from the Warnock home.

An off-duty officer working night security at Eagle Crossing arrested Warnock without incident, sheriff’s officials said.

“Our officers recognized him immediately,” Morefield said. “He just put his hands in the air and gave up.”

Warnock was shirtless and wearing shorts and tennis shoes. He was dirty and had light scratches on his body — the kind that might come from running through twigs, Morefield said.

Also see:  Happy Fathers Day: “Daddy Stabbed Mommy”, He Swore He’d Never Hurt Her and Angie Warnock is Blamed for Her Own Death

Happy Fathers Day: “Daddy Stabbed Mommy”

with 4 comments

From the Indianapolis Star:

Husband sought in Hendricks Co. killing

By Bruce C. Smith
Posted: June 22, 2009

BROWNSBURG — Two girls sleeping with their mother ran from the bed as their father stabbed her to death, Hendricks County police said today.

“Daddy stabbed Mommy,” one of the girls said to a dispatcher as she called 911 about 20 minutes after witnessing the violence around midnight Sunday.


Joseph Warnock

Police have a warrant for Joseph L. Warnock’s arrest on a charge of murder in the stabbing death of his wife. At noon, Hendricks County Sheriff’s Office authorities continued to search for the father using bloodhounds on loan from Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. 

They described Warnock as a physically fit, avid runner, and believed he could be around Eagle Creek Park. The bloodhounds were at the Warnock home in the 10400 block of Splendor Way in the Eagle Crossing subdivision, about a half-mile west of the Marion-Hendricks county line off 56th Street. 

Joseph, 41, and his wife, Angela Warnock, 38, were seeking a divorce. As part of court proceedings on Friday in Hendricks Superior Court, Angela had obtained a two-year extension on a protective order to keep her husband away from Angela and the girls. 

Detective Sgt. Charles Morefield of Hendricks County Sheriff’s Office said shortly before midnight Sunday that Joseph busted a back door on the patio of the home. Instead of driving to the subdivision, he’d parked his white Mitsubishi in a church parking lot and walked across a field to get to the house, police said. They have recovered the car and Joseph’s cell phone today. 

The two girls, ages 8 and 12, were sleeping in bed with their mother when Joseph came into the room and began stabbing Angela, the girls told police. The girls said they ran into a closet, escaping any injury, where they hid for at least 15 minutes while their father was in the home. When he left, they called 911.

Rest in Peace, dear Angela.

Also see:  Crime of Passion? No, it was MURDER


Carl Brizzi: Prosecuting Battered Women

with 10 comments

Hey, Carl Brizzi.  I heard you say on the radio that you were personally going to prosecute this.  Do you take this view when a man who has beat his wife, girlfriend or child has a case come to your office?  How come so many men get away with not going to court for domestic violence?  How come, if they do make it into court and are found guilty, they are put in a “diversion” program?  How come if a child is sexually abused, the prosecutor’s office turns it head because it is in the middle of a “custody dispute” and doesn’t warrant going after?

An employee for the Marion County Prosecutor’s office, who has to remain anonymous, believes Kay’s story is legitimate, but could not take action due to the custody dispute.

How come domestic violence is a total joke in the courts of Marion County…if a Protective Order is issued…it will be dragged into family court for hearing?  And we know how the judges really take domestic violence seriously here (NOT).

Why are you so interested in punishing this battered woman?  A women in fear of her life also.   Shouldn’t you worry a little bit more about the batterers and the child sex abusers here?

From The Indianapolis Star:

Mother faces neglect charge in tot’s beating death

Woman left room because she couldn’t bear to watch fatal beating, Brizzi says

By Jon Murray

Posted: June 18, 2009

Marion County’s prosecutor filed a felony neglect charge Wednesday against a woman who, he said, is only the latest mother to stand by while a boyfriend killed her child.

Rachel Goodmann, 21, told investigators after the March 11 incident that she went to a bedroom because she couldn’t stand seeing her 15-month-old daughter, Lilliana Goodmann, being beaten with a belt, according to court documents.

The beating, in an apartment in the 2100 block of Amerherst Drive, led to Lilliana’s death two days later and a murder charge against Tayuan Chism, 18.  Goodmann, accused of failing to intervene or seek treatment for Lilliana, could face 20 to 50 years in prison if convicted.

“We’ve seen a pattern where mothers allow these men, who are not the natural fathers of their children, to use extreme discipline or even beat them,” Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said.

Brizzi said Goodmann, who cooperated with police after Lilliana’s beating, arranged to turn herself in today.

Prosecutors say Chism beat the toddler on and off with a belt for as long as two hours, leading to internal bleeding and a skull fracture.  Police said a man and a 17-year-old girl awoke to sounds of the beating, grabbed the girl and took her to the hospital.

Last month, in another child-death case, a Marion Superior Court judge told Charity Bailey, 22, mother of 3-year-old TaJanay Bailey, that she had been “passive toward the torture of your daughter.”  He gave her 35 years in prison. Her boyfriend, Lawrence L. Green, got a 65-year murder sentence.

Coparenting Counselors?

with one comment

Article on Parenting Coordination can be found at:

Parenting Coordination, a bad idea


  • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
  • Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
  • Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
  • Parenting coordination violates privacy
  • The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
  • Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
  • Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
  • No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
  • No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.
  • Nothing qualifies a stranger make family decisions for other people
  • Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
  • Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract
  • There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
  • Parenting coordination does not, in the long term, alleviate court docket congestion
  • Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
  • Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
  • Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds
  • Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
  • Parenting coordination is not confidential
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
  • Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
  • Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, better adjusted
  • Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed the state’s police power
  • Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
  • They align with guardians ad litem and other court appointees to “focus on the children”
  • They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
  • They are given unwarranted authority to impose or recommend sanctions against parents
  • There are no studies of parenting coordination methods or techniques
  • There is no research into parenting coordinators’ efficacy, and there cannot be
  • Decisions are based on the parenting coordinator’s private agendas, values, and beliefs
  • Most parenting coordinators lack psychological insight
  • Parenting coordination is not “co-parenting therapy” which rarely works anyway
  • Mental health professionals are ignorant of the repercussions in law of their ideas
  • There is no valid “training” because there is no body of knowledge to base training on
  • Decisions are made without actual knowledge of people’s households and daily lives
  • Parenting coordination provides a forum for the arguing of minutiae, not just major decisions
  • Parenting coordinators frequently make bad decisions
  • The parenting coordinator has absolutely no incentive to work himself or herself out of a job
  • Parenting coordinators tend to be individuals who can’t make a go of practicing their profession
  • Many have axes to grind; others need to re-live and normalize their own family-of-origin issues
  • Parenting coordination is unregulated and practicably unable to be regulated
  • There is no effective oversight, and there cannot be
  • There is no recourse against the parenting coordinator for malfeasance or malpractice
  • Parenting coordinators have control to self-generate their work and churn fees
  • The claim of parenting coordinators that they sought this role in order to “help” people is specious
  • Parenting coordination proceedings are informal, outside court, and not subject to effective oversight
  • Parenting coordinators can report conversations and events differently from how they really happened
  • Parenting coordinator can cover themselves by blaming parents for the failure of the venture
  • Parenting coordinators give parents make-work at whim
  • Parenting coordinators may not have any personal parenting experience
  • Parenting coordinators may not have experience being primary caregivers, or as single parents
  • Many of those drawn to the field are by nature meddlers, incompetents, or petty tyrants
  • Parenting coordination is dangerous
  • Parenting coordinators have missed domestic violence
  • Parenting coordinators have assumed facts that are not true
  • Parenting coordinators have perceived emergencies or situations incorrectly
  • Parenting coordinators have mischaracterized events
  • Parenting coordinators have made egregious judgmental mistakes
  • Parenting coordinators have lied outright and there is no basis to presume their “good faith”
  • There are no ethical guidelines that practicably can be enforced
  • There are, and can be no enforceable practice parameters, only vague aspirational generalities
  • Parenting coordinators will be biased because of the nature of human relationships and the role
  • Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has more credibility than either parent
  • Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has the ear of the judge, and
  • because the parenting coordinator has relationships with supportive guardians ad litem, and
  • because the parenting coordinator has other courthouse referral relationships who will back him or her
  • Court oversight is illusory because it’s easy to claim a parent is uncooperative or lying
  • Court oversight is illusory because it’s expensive
  • or there is not enough time to get a hearing
  • or the party doesn’t have a lawyer post-decree, and
  • because the judge who appointed the parenting coordinator did so because he didn’t want to hear it
  •  Parenting coordination is proof that joint custody does not work 

    Please visit the Liz Library.lizreads2

    Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition

    with one comment

    These people are bottom-feeders…they keep the battle going because it is a paycheck in their pocket.  This is a very good article from Richard Ducote.  Here is an excerpt:

    On July 17, 2000, the San Francisco Daily Journal published an editorial written by then sixteen-year-old Alanna Krause, an honor student and the daughter of a prominent and wealthy California attorney. The essay poignantly brought a very rarely seen ‘consumer’s’ perspective to the issue of guardians ad litem in private custody cases. She began her articulate discussion with accurate observations: 

    Hundreds of years of legal history have lead the United States to implement a system that ensures that every party in a legal proceeding gets a voice. We rest assured that, unlike in other nations, we cannot be incarcerated, so well thought out: God Bless America.

    But there is a forgotten minority that is not afforded those basic rights. They are not criminals or foreign aliens. In contrast, they are a group we hold dear- one innocent and well meaning, with no hidden agendas or twisted motiveschildren. 

    Instead of being actually represented, children get their ’best interests’ represented by adults. We children have no choice and no recourse when those adults have their own agendas. A case in point?  Mine. 

    Ms. Krause explained that during her parents’ nine year custody case in Marin County, California, she was forced to live against her will with her father, who she described as ’an abuser’ against whom she herself filed over nine reports with the county child protection agency and the local police.  According to Ms. Krause, life with her father was ’Hell,’ as he was a substance abuser who violently mistreated her and eventually intimidated her mother away from the expensive and frustrating litigation.  Of the attorney appointed to represent her interests, the equivalent of her guardian ad litem in other states, Ms. Krause complained: 

    The lawyer appointed to represent my ’best interests’ . . . spent her allotted time with me parroting my father’s words, attempting to convince me that I really wanted to live with him. She ignored my reports of abuse. . . .

    I wrote the judge letters, called her office and did everything I could to make myself heard. She ignored my pleas. I had no rights. I couldn’t replace my lawyer with one who would speak for me nor could I speak for myself in court. I couldn’t cross-examine the court evaluators or therapists and their claims were thus untouchable. I felt like I was witnessing the proceedings from the wrong side of soundproof glass. 

    After she eventually ran away from her father’s home at age thirteen, Ms. Krause was taken under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, where she was an actual party, unlike in the private custody case in Marin County.  Following new investigations there she was returned to her mother’s custody. Her editorial plea wisely explains the context of this article: 

    The practice of trying to ascertain what is in a child’s best interest exists because minors supposedly cannot speak for themselves. Yet, at 11, I could speak for myself. I had a mind and set of opinions, but no one seemed to care. 

    The judge denied my right to legal representation, especially when the court-appointed lawyer wouldn’t speak the truth. Granted there is no guarantee that hearing me would have inspired the judge to untwist her motives and unclench her hold on personal allegiances and biases, but who knows? At least is would have been in the court record. 

    Of course, Alanna Krause’s case alone does not mandate the abolishment of guardians ad litem in private custody cases. However, the inherent systemic problems manifested in her case, clearly representative of those pervasive in the nationwide use of such guardians ad litem, do establish the convincing argument that the role of guardian ad litem (GAL) must be abolished in private custody cases, i.e. litigation between parents and nongovernmental parties. This article examines the purported historical justification for the use of GALs, the plethora of criticism nationwide concerning their involvement, their poorly defined role, their particular failures in cases of child abuse and domestic violence, their unaccountability, their unjustified cost, and alternatives to their use.

    To read the entire article by Richard Ducote, please click here.