Evidence supports A1: This is a court transcript that is a testimony by the court appointed counselor who was in fact the counselor that was appointed for the Father. After you read this testimony, you will now have even a better understanding of the type of individual who was making all of the false allegations against me. Evidence supports Ab1: Becky Price, social Worker reports nothing of how difficult it was on me to protect my daughter from George Sloan due to the fact that George was granted joint custody by Judge Sandra Hemphill, Judge Corolyn Whitington, and Judge Mylvyn Weisman. Due to the three child abuse restraining orders that were also granted to George. Not even the police could help me get my daughter out of George's house due to the judges granting George joint custody and child abuse restraining orders. Evidence supports A2: This is another court transcript that is a testimony by the court appointed counselor. As you read the time line, you will see the child abuse restraining orders that were granted to the Father by the judges of the St.Louis Family courts. Evidence supports 1: Date and Time Report was received Saturday December 9, 1995 - A Law Enforcement Offense Incident Report/Type of incident Assault 3rd degree where the offender, the Father was arrested for assault on me. Evidence supports 1a: See Photo that was taken of me by the officers of the court following the assault charge on December 9, 1995. Evidence supports 2: 9 days later after Assault charges were made on December 9, 1995, on December 18, 1995 The Missouri Department of Social Services received the first false hot line report from the Father. Evidence supports 3: 4 months later after first false hot line call was made on December 18, 1995, On April 20, 1996 The Missouri Department of Social Services received the second false hot line report from the Father. Evidence supports 4: 2 days later after the second false hot line call was made on April 20, 1996, On April 22, 1996 The Family Court of St. Louis County, Missouri The Father filed his first petition for a child order of protection using false allegations. Notice how many allegations we are up to by now. Evidence supports 5: On April 22, 1996, The Family Court granted the Father a child order of protection, giving him custody without a trial. I was not even present or contacted on April 22, 1996. Evidence supports 6: 2 weeks and 5 days later after The Family Court of St. Louis, Missouri granted the Father a child protection order, On May 10, 1996, The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri 21st Judicial Circuit dismissed the child protection order from the father, an order of the court finds pursuant to 455.010 to 455.085 RSMo that the Petitioner (Father) has not proven the allegations of abuse or stalking by a preponderance of the evidence. Evidence supports 6a: On May 10, 1996, an electronic recording was made of the Fathers testimony stating that "When he was changing the baby she began licking her own nipples in an erotic or auto erotic way. Electronic recording could not be presented to you due to the difficulties of installing the evidence into the computer, but this electronic recording is in my possession as well as in the courts. (note; the baby was only 2 years old when the Father testified on May 10, 1996) (also note: The father demonstrated this act by placing his hands on his chest and bends his head down and acts out a licking motion in front of the Judge.(Also note: that this is the very same judge that granted the Father a child order of Protection with out a trial and without my presence or knowing) The Father testified that this incident happened at his Mother's house where he was living. Also, note that, even after false allegations, and a dismissed case, dismissing all allegations that the father made, the father was not held accountable for violating a child custody order. Evidence supports 6a1: On May 10, 1996, Judge Sandra Hemphill awarded George Sloan reasonable visitation and temporary custody of Alexis that would allow George to now have legal temporary custody of Alexis. This is what the truth was regarding "the case in the past" (referring to Becky Price's report dated on March 9, 1999) How did Becky Price expect me to protect Alexis from George Sloan if the judges were granting him temporary custody orders unless she had to do some creative writing in her reports to cover up how it was the Judges who failed to protect Alexis. Evidence supports 6b: 6 months later, after the testimony by the father on May 10, 1996, on October 26, 1996, the Guardian Ad Litum wrote a letter stating that there was a possibility of harm to her client (meaning my daughter) by the father and she recommended that the father only receive supervised visits. Evidence supports 7: On January 2, 1997 a deposition of the father testifying was allowed. I will share with you the stories the father revealed to the court officials about his institutionalized stays, his arrest when he shot the golfing partner of the chief of police, etc. He also contradicts himself re guarding the false hot line call he made on April 20, 1996. Evidence supports 7a: On January 2, 1997, the father contradicts his hot line call that he made on April 20, 1996. Page 62 of the deposition. Evidence supports 7b: On January 2, 1997 the father testifies that he was given medication by a Dr. for the treatment of the mental disease called Acute Brain Syndrome. Page 26 of the Deposition. Evidence supports 7c: On January 2, 1997 the father testifies that he shot into the home of the golfing partner of the chief police. Page 31 of the Deposition. Evidence supports 7d: 997 the father testifies that the bullet from the gun he shot into the golfing partners house went into his arm. Page 36 of the deposition. Evidence supports 7e: On January 2, 1997 the father testifies that he has been institutionalized. Page 34 of the Deposition. Evidence supports 7f: On January 2, 1997 the father testifies to the names of the institutions and to the length of time he was required to stay. Page 35 of the Deposition. Evidence supports 7g: On January 2, 1997 the father testifies that he never told me about these past incidents before we were married. Page 80 of the Deposition. Evidence supports 8: One month later after the Deposition hearing, the divorce between the father and mother was dissolved on February 3, 1997. The same guardian Ad Litem, Jerylynn Bowie Hill, who wrote the letter on October 26, 1996, (see evidence 6b) stating that the father should have supervised visitation, did not make her concerns known once she was in front of the Judge during the Divorce hearing. Even with the added learned new information she obtained while witnessing the fathers testimony during the deposition hearing, she still said nothing out of concern for my daughter, The father was granted reasonable visitation rights, without any required supervision. Evidence supports 9: Two months after the divorce was final on February 3, 1997, on April 8, 1997 the father makes another false claim to a MSW Licensed Clinical Social Worker. April 8, 1997, the father reports to the Clinical social worker that he knew how to perform vaginal examinations on the child because one of his friends taught him how to. He also pulled out a tape recorder trying to get the social worker to listen to him interviewing my daughter with specific detail. Evidence supports 10: 2 months later after the divorce was dissolved from the father, I re married a new man on April 9, 1997. Evidence supports 10a: Two weeks later after I married someone new, the father makes another false report to the police, claiming that my son was home alone. Notice on the police case review sheet where it says, no report needed. Also, notice where it says full order against him and caution coded for OBS. The St. Louis County Police Department defines this code as; OBS -- Organic Brain Syndrome (Dementia/Delirium) - sometimes used with the modifier 'extreme' as in "subject is extremely OBS" or "violent OBS." Evidence supports 11: 3 months after I re married on April 9, 1997 and 3 months after the father made another false claim to the clinical social worker, on July 7, 1997, the father took my daughter to be tested for drugs, making a false claim that she had been given drugs. Evidence supports 12: 8 days after the father took her to get a drug test claiming that my daughter had been given drugs, on July 15,and 16 of 1997 the father took her to a forensic psychologist to have an evaluation done making false claims that she had been abused. On his admission form, you will find it interesting to learn what he labeled himself as being. Evidence supports 12a: 3 weeks after the father took my little girl to a forensic psychologist on July 16, 1997 claiming that she had been abused by the Mother, on August 8, 1997, the father called and made another false hot line report to the Police Department and to Child Protection Services. Evidence supports 12b: On August 8, 1997 the father made another false report, claiming that I had drugs in my house. The Police conducted a thorough drug search inside of my home on August 8, 1997 Evidence supports 13: 3 days after the police conducted a through drug search in my house based on one of the many false allegations that the father had made, on August 11, 1997 the St. Louis County Police Department collected a tape recording that was owned by the father. This was a tape of the father interviewing my daughter with specific details. Evidence supports 14: 7 days after the father made another false hot line call to child protection services and to the police department, on August 15, 1997 he filed another petition for another child protection order. This time, the father would include the new husband, my son and myself. The police department conducted a through investigation that would last for several months. We had to go to a child advocacy center to be interviewed, my son was interviewed behind a dark glass window, and my little girl who had been staying with her father for a couple of months once it was time for the children to be interviewed by the child advocacy center. The father spent all of that time preparing her for her interviews, by teaching her to say she had been abused. My daughter had a script memorized, any time the father would give her the q or just say one certain word, she would begin to say her memorized script. The father began coaching her way back in March or April when he first began to take his tape recording around to different professionals of the community. Evidence supports 15: 2 days after the father filed another petition for order of child protection, on August 17, 1997 I called the police because the father was not returning my little girl back to me according to the court ordered custody agreement. Evidence supports 16: 2 days after I reported to the police that my daughter was not returned to me, on August 19, 1997 the police department began sending reports of their ongoing investigation to the Neglect/Abuse Division at the St. Louis County Family Courts. So they were informed about the vaginal examinations the father was doing, and they were informed about the tape of the father discussing explicit detail subject matter of sexual abuse to the child. Evidence supports 16a: 2 days after I reported to the police that my daughter was not returned to me, on August 21, 1997 a letter from the Forensic Psychologist was dated and signed and sent to the Detective who was leading the investigation. Evidence supports 17: 3 days after the police investigation report was sent to the Family courts of St. Louis County, on August 22, 1997 the Family Courts of St. Louis County sent a message to the Guardian Ad Litum that would be the person who would decide what was in the best interest for the child, he received a message informing him that the father was fabricating allegations, and is determined to be an inappropriate custodian for the child, and there was evidence that the father was fabricating allegations to harass the mother. This was 3 days before the Guardian would appear in front of the Judge to decide where the child goes based on these false allegations. Evidence supports 18: 3 days after the Family court of St.Louis informed the Guardian that there was evidence of the father fabricating allegations and that he was an inappropriate custodian for the child, reported by the Detective investigative unit, the family court of St. Louis County, granted the father child order of protection that he was allowed to keep for a total of, since around the end of July of 1997 due to the courts giving him custody, he had granted custody for about two and a half months straight without any visits that the courts would allow me to have. This order and judgment was granted to him without even a trial, and the same guardian that knew of the fabricated allegations was standing there in front of the judge that day. Plus the same judge that granted the father this child order of protection was the same judge that granted our divorce who knew what the father had testified to in his deposition for the divorce. Evidence supports 19: Two and a half months later after the father received his child protection order, on September 24, 1997 the police department gave a final conclusion to their ongoing investigation that began on August 8, 1997 that there would be no charges filed at this time and the status of this case was classified as inactive. Evidence supports 20: On September 24, 1997 the Clinical Social Worker wrote in her report that the D.J.O. advised her that she would be subpoenaed to testify regarding fathers inappropriate and bizarre behavior. Note, that the D.J.O. is from the family courts and works right along side with the judge in this case. The D.J.O. is revealing that he too is also aware of the inappropriate behavior patterns of the father, and also knew of the vaginal examinations conducted back on April 8, 1997 that was reported to the Clinical Social worker by the father on April 8, 1997. The Family courts are the ones who allowed him to have a child order of protection. Also, note that in her documented notes, it says that on October 8, 1997 she sent a letter to the Guardian concerning the fathers mental state. Evidence supports 21: 6 days after the police report was reported as an inactive case and no charges would be filed, on Sept 30, 1997 the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, dismissed the child protection order that was granted to the father, that was filed on August 15, 1997. Still, the father was not held accountable for violating a custody order, allowing him once again to use a series of false allegations to override a custody order. Still the court officials did absolutely nothing to protect my daughter and granted the father unsupervised visitations, with over night stays at his house even though there had been reports by the clinical social worker, the forensic psychologist, the police detective unit, that were sent in to the juvenile courts, and the Guardian ad litem and Child protection Services who kept these reports in their files that informed them all of the vaginal examinations conducted on my daughter by her father. Evidence supports 22: 9 days after court officials dismissed all allegations on Sept 30, 1997, on October 09, 1997 the court officials began to set up services for me through Domestic Relations Services. Evidence supports 22a: 2 weeks after Domestic Relation Services began their initial assessment of the case, on October 22, 1997, I was now apart of the courts ongoing programs. In order for the court officials to keep me in their programs they would first have to figure out how they were going to keep my daughter caught up in the system. So, they could not give her back to me, they would have to find a reason to put her in foster care. This way they could apply for federal funding for my daughter and myself. Evidence supports 23: After the Child Order of Protection was dismissed on September 30, 1997, dismissing all allegations that were previously made by the father, on October 24, 1997 the father began a series of new allegations, and still child protection Services was instructed to interview regarding the new allegations only. How many different false allegations have been made against me by the date of October 24, 1997? Evidence supports 24: 5 days after the father began a new series of false allegations on October 24, 1997 the judge granted the father another child protection order. Evidence supports 25: 6 days after the judge gave the father another child protection order over the child, on October 31, 1997 Child protection services removed her from his care and custody and placed her in foster care when they could have given her back to me. On October 29, 1997. Transfer Summary report by Child Protection Services reports how all of the professionals new about the vaginal examinations. The GAL and the Juvenile Courts had the police investigation report in their hands by August 19th, 1997, and the Juvenile Court officials were passing this information on to the GAL by the date of August 22, 1997, just three days before the St. Louis Family courts would give a Child Abuse restraining Custody Order to the Father. Read closely, and notice how the judge sends my daughter back home with the father on the same days that the court officials are discussing about who has this information in their files. Also, Notice in their notes how the police did not want anything more to do with the new allegations made by the father. Evidence supports 25a: On October 29, 1997 and October 31, 1997 a Summary Report by the Child Protection Services reports of what the "ultimate" reasoning was for placing my daughter in foster care. While at the same time they would hold on to "the now new allegations" that were made by the father.New allegations that were made even after the police detective unit submitted their final report indicating that no charges would be filed and the case is inactive. Evidence supports 26: I divorced the new husband, sold my house, and moved far away from where I once lived. Child Protection Services seemed to have this way of seeking false avenues of attack, such as a new husband. Child Protection Services knew that the Father, simply threw the new husband in to the big mess of false allegations that he had previously been making before the new husband was even involved. Still, they wanted to use him as their weapon against me, so I decided that I would have to divorce him, and thats what I did. One year and a half of marriage, had to end due to the pressures of Child Protection Services. I was officially divorced from him, and out of his life, one full year before the courts terminated my rights to my daughter anyway. Back to Top