OUR STORY

To start off on the right foot and to have a better understanding of our story and where we are today in our fight for the return of our children, please click below to read the Blog Post I submitted on June 12, 2011.  It will help put things into perspective before you continue and as you follow our story… (click the story below)

THE “TRUTH” vs FALSE ALLEGATIONS (Esse Quam Videri)

Also, you can get to know our family by clicking on the following page…

OUR PRECIOUS GIFTS

CPS AND FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION… AT ITS FINEST!!! HOW TO DESTROY A FAMILY AND MANIPULATE FAMILY COURT – FOR DUMMIES!

This is a detailed view of the corruption that exists in our Family Courts (I refer to them as KANGAROO COURTS). A KANGAROO COURT or KANGAROO TRIAL is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

These courts (Judges, attorneys, and other court officials) obtain their authority here in North Carolina largely from chapter 7B of The North Carolina General Statutes. These statutes, as a whole, are questionable at best; many are absolutely unconstitutional. The reason is MONEY! These KANGAROO COURTS require this very loose form ofdiscretion (amounting to repeated violations of the rights of both Children and Parents) even just to exist. Without these loosely defined, very liberal statutes, these KANGAROO COURTS would be OUT OF BUSINESS! And make no mistake about it, THIS IS VERY MUCH A BUSINESS (or what actually amounts to ORGANIZED CRIME)!!!

Also, a very integral part of this corruption is Child Protective Services (CPS); and in this particular area of North Carolina, Wake County Human Services is the County Agency that oversees this arena. Below, you will see examples of how this agency, its agents, and other collaterals (foster care givers, Guardian ad Litem volunteers, mental health professionals, and others) HARASS, LIE, MANIPULATE, VIOLATE COURT ORDERS, COERCE, INTIMIDATE, COMMIT PERJURY, VIOLATE LAWS (Federal and State), and the list goes on! This system is BROKEN and they all know it! This corrupt system produces HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars in Federal Funding for the states annually; and infinitely more for the participants (judges, attorneys, social workers, mental health professionals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, women’s shelters, foster parents, foster care facilities, only to name a few).

This timeline represents the period of time in which CPS has been harassing the REALE FAMILY. It all began in October of 2009 and is an active, ongoing battle to this very day. It may seem long, but if you have the time, I feel it is worth EVERY MINUTE. This could happen to ANYONE! This IS happening, as you read this, to OTHERS, not just THE REALE FAMILY!

MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT ALL THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMS OF THIS DESPICABLE NIGHTMARE OF CORRUPTION! ESPECIALLY OUR CHILDREN!

Ephesians 6:11
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Psalm 18:2
2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

2 Timothy 4:18
18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

2 Thessalonians 3:3
3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

1 Corinthians 10:13
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

10/15/2009 The Reale family’s first encounter with Child Protective Services was the result of a so-called anonymous call alleging Abuse, from Ronald’s estranged, mentally ill sister KELLI ANN REALE. This is a person who had virtually no contact with him or his family for almost 25 years. The first “surprise” visit to his home was very pleasant and uninteresting. JILL GREEN (Social Worker) was very cordial and polite with Ronald, his wife Debra and each of the children. JILL GREEN asked only appropriate questions and seemed very satisfied with her questions and her observations throughout the home. She even issued the required Safety Assessment circling “No” for ALL indicators, even in question 8 where the safety factor states “Child is fearful of caregiver, other family members, or other people having access to the home” and goes on to allow check boxes providing the following examples; 1) Child cries, cowers, cringes, trembles, or otherwise exhibits fear in the presence of certain individuals or verbalizes such fear, 2) Child exhibits severe anxiety related to situations associated with a person in the home, 3) Child has reasonable fears of retribution or retaliation from caregiver.

In an effort to advance their agenda; once CPS filed their Neglect Petition (filed on June 22, 2010 – 8 months later) it has since been reported throughout their various court documents that the social worker who issued this report in October 2009 had concerns of the children seeming “fearful” (remember this is 8 months later???). Why was this not noted on the Safety Report that was issued on site when the document clearly provides the opportunity? In fact what JILL GREEN observed were very polite and respectful children who were playing in the yard when she arrived and who were, in fact, taking turns sitting in Ronald’s lap (seemingly seeking security from a strange person in our home, which seemed very normal) during the interview process and other discussions (quite far from “fearful”). Upon completion of her visit, JILL GREEN could not say enough about how impressed she was with the family home and the children. Also since the filing of the Neglect Petition, have been accusations that Debra would not disclose anything in Ronald’s presence as a reason why she did not disclose any abuse allegations during this visit. The truth is that Ronald was not even home when the worker first arrived. He was approximately 45 minutes from home when he received a call from his wife explaining the situation. Therefore Debra had at least 45 minutes to disclose anything.

10/29/2009 On a follow-up visit by JILL GREEN’s supervisor RICHARD HAYNER it was much of the same. Ultimately a “letter of findings” was sent to us via US Mail dated 10/29/2009 reporting no findings of abuse in the Reale family home. This was signed by both JILL GREEN and RICHARD HAYNER (supervisor).

01/24/2010 Continuing to harass this family, Social Worker SAUNDRA JUDD came out for another visit to the home; another anonymous call from Ronald estranged, mentally ill sister KELLI ANN REALE, this time alleging Neglect. She too was very polite and cordial at that time. She explained the allegations pertaining to our home school program and our children being outside without the proper clothing in the cold (yeah, with a household income that exceeded over $100,000 at the time???). She specifically stated that this was not anything to do with allegations of abuse. As she proceeded to interview each child she questioned them about their schooling and if they wear jackets outside when it is cold. They confirmed that they do wear their jackets when they need to. A couple of them even found the question funny. The children were playing outside at the time so they came inside one at a time and talked with her. SAUNDRA JUDD also questioned each of the children about Abuse even though she had already made it clear that she was there for other reasons. Once again no disclosures of Abuse were made by Ronald, Debra, or any of their 7 minor children. She too observed the sleeping areas and had the opportunity to observe the family’s classroom setup with 4 school desks, a dedicated TV and DVD player, among other things. She also question Timothy (15) specifically regarding his comfort level while being home alone with the children from time to time. Not only did he describe his comfort level he also described his knowledge of our discussions regarding safety and our safety plan for him in the case of an emergency. SAUNDRA JUDD was very impressed with this. Timothy also mentioned that he and Stephen both had cell phones to contact either mom or dad at any time if we they not at home. SAUNDRA JUDD was very impressed with the family’s home and their children much like the previous visit by JILL GREEN and her supervisor RICHARD HAYNER back in October. SAUNDRA JUDD also issued the required Safety Assessment circling “No” for ALL indicators. She too couldn’t say enough about how impressed she was with the family’s home and their children. She even spent another 10 minutes with Ronald and Debra making small talk about church and other miscellaneous topics.

03/08/2010 Due to marital differences, Debra Reale (“Debra”) left the State of North Carolina for California with the parties’ 7 minor children. Unrelated to any of the harassing visits by CPS in the previous months.

03/29/2010 Ronald Reale (“Ronald”) applied for, and obtained, an emergency custody order from JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN in North Carolina.

03/29/2010 In the meantime, following the advice of Saundra Judd (Social Worker for Wake County Human Services), Debra applied to a California Court for a restraining order to prevent Ronald from exercising his rights under Judge Christian’s order. In violation of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1979, c. 110, s. 1; 1999-223, s. 3; N.C.G.S. chapter 50-A), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738A, a California Commissioner issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

Note: Saundra Judd was contacted by Ronald’s estranged and mentally ill sister, Kelli-Ann Reale, who jumped at the opportunity to exploit the marital differences between Debra and Ronald. SAUNDRA JUDD (Wake County Social Worker) re-inserted herself into the life of our family by contacting Debra and warning her, even threatening her that she could be charged with a crime if the children were not returned to North Carolina; further advising that Debra could avoid this by making a Domestic Violence complaint and seeking a Protective Order while in California.

Also, Ronald never responded to, appeared, nor acknowledged the unlawful California TRO in any way, shape or form! Under California and Federal Law, the order was void ab initio (from the beginning) since Ronald, Debra and the children were residents of North Carolina (not California), and Ronald had no connection whatsoever to the State of California. Lacking Subject matter and ultimately personal jurisdiction over Ronald, California did not have the authority to enter any such order! Period!

04/05/2010 An amended ex parte emergency custody order was issued by JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN in North Carolina granting Ronald immediate sole temporary physical and legal custody of the minor children and directing Debra to immediately surrender the minor children to Ronald.

04/152010 A telephone hearing that took place between the California and North Carolina Judges and all parties were directed to appear before the JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN on May 3, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. for a temporary custody hearing.

05/03/2010 JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN unlawfully issued a Domestic Violence Protective Order (“DVPO”) against Ronald on her own motion. Debra did not file a motion for a DVPO pursuant to G.S §50B-2 (a) while in the state of North Carolina either before her departure on March 8, 2010 or after her return on May 1, 2010 up to and including her appearance on May 3, 2010 in Judge Christian’s courtroom. The DVPO was unlawfully issued and Void ab initio. After 10 long months of Ronald attacking this UNLAWFUL ORDER entered by this corrupt KANGAROO COURT JUDGE Ronald was able to see the order “set aside” (as though it never existed) by the same, JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN. This after Ronald filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and a Petition for discretionary Review with the State Supreme Court.

05/03/2010 JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN also entered a Child custody addendum to the DVPO, granting temporary custody to Debra and no visitation for Ronald; also in violation of the relevant statute; N.C.G.S §50B. This after Debra did not offer any evidence and in fact, did not even testify.

05/03/2010 JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN entered a Voluntary Support Agreement, ordering Ronald to pay $1,408 per month for the support of his minor children. This was presented by Ronald of his own accord solely for the purpose of providing support for his children during this time of separation; it was neither suggested by the court nor requested by Debra.

05/03/2010 During the DVPO hearing, in the absence of jurisdiction, JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN clearly acted improperly and unlawfully by ordering that Ronald be detained in handcuffs and escorted to Bank of America by two deputies, and was kept in handcuffs, ordered to withdraw ALL but $1.00 from his account and surrender it to the court by threat of 30 days in jail. The deputies carried out the order, delivered the cash to JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN, and returned Ronald to the courtroom, still in handcuffs. This order was not only in the absence of jurisdiction but also was in the absence of any legal or otherwise judicial authority. JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN was not satisfied with the support commencing on the upcoming Saturday (payday), but rather demanded it start immediately! Yeah, that’s right, 5 days was not soon enough to begin the voluntary support agreement presented by Ronald, which included $200/mo. in excess of the current state guideline for child support totaling $1,408 per month!

05/03/2010 During the DVPO hearing, once again in the absence of jurisdiction and continuing to act improperly and unlawfully; after the trip to the bank JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN ordered Ronald was to be held in handcuffs and later in a detention cell until 5pm (without cause and without provocation). There was no contempt order or any other supporting documentation ever filed. Ronald was not provided any food, water and was without his diabetes medication during this unlawful incarceration from approximately 9am to 5pm. Yet again, this order was not only in the absence of jurisdiction but also was in the absence of any legal or otherwise judicial authority.

05/10/2010 Ronald misses Joseph’s Birthday (4-years-old).

05/27/2010 Ronald misses Timothy’s Birthday (16-years-old).

06/18/2010 Approximately six weeks later, during the week of June 14, 2010, the Debra contacted Ronald and the two began the reunification process by re-establishing the family residence and seeking a marriage counselor.

06/22/2010 Wake County Human Services (“WCHS”) received a call from a disgruntled, estranged family member complaining about a violation of the protective order. Alleging a violation of the DVPO, WCHS filed a petition for removal of the seven minor children from both parties. At that time, Timothy was still in the State of Nevada residing indefinitely with his paternal grandparents. This was not mentioned in the petition, but is required.

06/23/2010 Subsequently Ronald and Debra’s seven minor children were taken into custody by Wake County Human Services. Alleging a violation of a DVPO the initial petition filed states in part; “The juveniles are NEGLECTED JUVENILES in that the juveniles are in need of placement because they… are exposed to an injurious environment.” Debra recanted all previous allegations in detail (3 separate affidavits). No other evidence existed nor was any ever presented.

06/23/2010 JUDGE ERIC CHASSE entered an Order for Non-Secure Custody placing 6 of our 7 minor children on the legal custody of WCHS with full placement authority. On the same day, Stephen, Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin were placed in the physical custody of their 24-year-old cousin NATASHA WILDE-BRANT

06/27/2010 Ronald and Debra’s son Timothy (16-years-old) was abducted from Nevada by JULIE RIGGINS (a social worker for Wake County Human Services), where he was residing with his paternal grandparents (and was not mentioned in the petition); and transported to WRENN HOUSE in Raleigh, NC through July 2, 2010.

Timothy was in the State of Nevada residing indefinitely with his paternal grandparents when the juvenile petition was filed in North Carolina on June 23, 2010 and amended on June 24, 2010. This information was concealed, and withheld from the petition, being required expressly by § 7B‑402 (b), “the petition, or an affidavit attached to the petition, shall contain the information required by § 50A‑209; more specifically § 50A‑209 (a) (3) demands that specific information such as the names and addresses of persons not a party to the proceedings who has physical custody of the child be submitted to the court.

Furthermore, efforts to conceal Timothy’s address resulted in the address of their other children being withheld from the petition, pursuant to § 7B‑402, Petition; (a) “the petition shall contain the name, date of birth, address of the juvenile…” Since Timothy Brant was not “residing in or present in the district” when the original and amended juvenile petitions were filed, WCHS did not have the standing to include him in any petition pursuant to § 7B‑400, Venue. This is yet another fatal defect in the original juvenile petition filed on June 23, 2010. In re D.D.J., the Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because when petition was filed (a) the child was not in DSS custody and was not residing in or found in the district; and (b) DSS, not having custody of the child, did not have standing to file the petition, In re D.D.J., 177 N.C. App. 441, 628 S.E.2d 808 (5/2/06).

After filing the juvenile petition, WCHS authorized it’s agents to travel to the State of Nevada, restrain Timothy, and ultimately transport him unlawfully across state lines from the State of Nevada to the State of North Carolina. This was effectuated by the inappropriate use of local law enforcement in each jurisdiction, including use of the already overwhelmed NCIC (National Crime Information center – Missing Persons) database. Timothy was reported missing by WCHS after Ronald and Debra declined to transport him to North Carolina citing the fact that he was now residing with his grandparents in Las Vegas. This fatal defect goes well beyond simply not having standing to file a petition, as it broaches the realm of various kidnapping statutes in either jurisdiction and at the federal level, not to mention the misuse of law enforcement, filing a false police report, and the perpetration of fraud in general including but not limited to, withholding the address of each minor child required when filing a juvenile petition.

Timothy was not missing, but rather he was living with his grandparents (Ronald’s parents) in Nevada indefinitely. He was placed with them by Debra when a one-way plane ticket was purchased for him on Delta Airlines flight 4094 departing on June 21, 2010 from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, connecting in Minneapolis on flight 1651, arriving in Las Vegas, Nevada in the afternoon on June 21, 2010. He never even stepped foot back in North Carolina until JULIE RIGGINS, by and through WCHS, unlawfully restrained, removed and transported him back across state lines from State of Nevada to the State of North Carolina.

Once again WCHS did not even have “Standing” to include Timothy in the original juvenile petition filed on June 23, 2010; see N.C.G.S. 7B-400 which requires that the minor be residing in or present in the District. Timothy was not residing or found in the District at the time the petition was filed. In fact he had not been in North Carolina for several months and was residing indefinitely and quite happily in the State of Nevada at the time WCHS filed the petition on June 23, 2010. The uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is not even applicable since no claim to continuing jurisdiction was ever in question. None existed in North Carolina.

Lacking proper “standing” to include Timothy in the juvenile petition and further questions as to the manner in which WCHS chose to unlawfully restrain and relocate him “across state lines” in the very least amounts to violations of Article 38 Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, § 7B‑3800 Adoption of Compact, Article III, and various other State and Federal kidnapping statues along with other miscellaneous penalties for fraud. To name a few…

N.C.G.S. Article 38 Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, § 7B‑3800 Adoption of Compact, Article IV Penalty for Illegal Placement “The sending, bringing, or causing to be sent or brought into any receiving state of a child in violation of the terms of this Compact shall constitute a violation of the laws respecting the placement of children of both the state in which the sending agency is located or from which it sends or brings the child and of the receiving state. Such violation may be punished or subjected to penalty in either jurisdiction in accordance with its laws. In addition to liability for any such punishment or penalty, any such violation shall constitute full and sufficient grounds for the suspension or revocation of any license, permit, or other legal authorization held by the sending agency which empowers or allows it to place, or care for children.”

N.C.G.S. § 14‑43.3 Felonious restraint, “A person commits the offense of felonious restraint if he unlawfully restrains another person without that person’s consent, or the consent of the person’s parent or legal custodian if the person is less than 16 years old, and moves the person from the place of the initial restraint by transporting him in a motor vehicle or other conveyance. Violation of this section is a Class F felony. Felonious restraint is considered a lesser included offense of kidnapping. (1985, c. 545, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 1147; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)”

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 55 § 1201 Kidnapping, (States in Part)
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when…

(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;

(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended.

(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years.

(g) Special Rule for Certain Offenses Involving Children…
(1) To whom applicable.— If—
(A) the victim of an offense under this section has not attained the age of eighteen years; and
(B) the offender—
(i) has attained such age; and
(ii) is not—
(VII) an individual having legal custody of the victim;

(C) the sentence under this section for such offense shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years.

07/02/2010 Our son Timothy (16-years-old) was placed with his 24-year-old cousin NATASHA WILDE until being removed for “behavior” on September 29, 2010. Prior to removal, Timothy engaged in violent fantasy with various on-line gangs and other illicit activity through his unmonitored access to Facebook, despite Ronald’s pleas to JULIE RIGGINS and NIKKI LYONS (Wake County Social Workers) to intervene. Timothy declared that he was “a Serial Killer with the Dark Carnival, a Body Burner – burning the dead bodies of the assholes that front Juggalo’s. One love for family of Juggalo’s and Fuck the rest. All you haters go kill yourselves motha fuckas I’m a Juggalo and I’m not fat and saggy.” Timothy also drove a car into a ditch that belonged to NATASHA WILDE’S live-in boyfriend (without a learner’s permit or driver’s license) while 3 of our other children were in the backseat (Hannah – 7, Sarah – 6, and Matthew – 9).

07/09/2010 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered an Order Continuing Non-Secure Custody (from a hearing held on June 30, 2010), authorizing the placement of our 7 minor children with their 24-year-old cousin NATASHA WILDE and her husband (a U.S. Marine); although the two had been separated for quite some time and in the process of a divorce. In fact, NATASHA WILDE was currently residing on the Military base with friends and was effectively without a residence at the time of original placement on June 23, 2010. Once NATASHA WILDE obtained a small 3BR/2BA apartment, this arrangement would now include NATASHA WILDE’S mother ROBIN DOMINGUEZ and NATASHA WILDE’S younger sister (9-years-old). So; 8 minor children (ages 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 9, 11, & 16) and 2 adults living in a small 900 sq ft 3BR/2BA apartment??? My children were forced to sleep 2 to a bed for over a year. Don’t forget, that Robin and her nine year old daughter were now living off the support provided by me and the state assistance supplementing NATASHA WILDE.

08/22/2010 Ronald misses Benjamin’s Birthday (3-years-old).

08/26/2010 The Court adjudicated Ronald and Debra’s 7 minor children Neglected based on stipulations and the existence and ALLEGED subsequent violation of the DVPO entered on May 3, 2010 by JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN; and subsequently entered its dispositional orders on September 3, 2010. Review hearing was set for October 20, 2010.

Among other things, the Order on Adjudication and Disposition provided for weekly supervised visitation between Ronald and his minor children (once the DVPO is modified or expired) for a minimum of one hour; supervised by WCHS at the agency or in the community. In violation of this order, WCHS withheld the children and refused to produce the children for any such visit.

09/07/2010 Ronald provides $340 in Cash support for his children to Social Worker JULIE RIGGINS of WCHS. Ronald provides $310 in food/snacks.

09/22/2010 Ronald provides $200 in Cash support for his children to Social Worker JULIE RIGGINS of WCHS. Ronald provides $230 Hooked on Phonics (Grades pre-K thru 2nd), and $110 DVD Player (Hooked on Phonics was returned to Ronald 4 months later – unopened) (DVD player was reported lost by Social Worker Julie Riggins). Running total $1,190.

09/23/2010 Ronald and Debra miss Hannah’s Birthday (8-years-old).

09/29/2010 Ronald enrolled in and attended first of ten court ordered Anger Management classes. (10 weeks)

09/29/2010 Ronald enrolled in and attended first of ten court order Positive Parenting classes. (10 weeks)

09/29/2010 Ronald and Debra’s son Timothy (16-years-old) was removed from the care of his 24-year-old cousin and placed in WAKE HOUSE (a group home) until January 2, 2011. In the interim, Timothy was placed on DRUGS to “control” his behavior, arrested at least twice with criminal charges in Raleigh, NC pending, and engaged in sexual acts with boys and girls while under the influence of the DRUGS administered by Wake County Human Services, and is now “cutting” also referred to as Self-injury or SI.

10/04/2010 Ronald enrolled in and attended first of ten court ordered Parenting Adolescents classes. (10 weeks)

10/06/2010 DR KARIN YOCH of Main Street Clinical Associates in Durham, NC produced a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION of Ronald on behalf of the Wake County. At a minimum this evaluation was conducted in violation of the American Psychological Association’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by engaging in “multiple relationships” 3.05 and by promising to conduct further evaluations, also creating a “conflict of interest” 3.06. Ronald requested a copy of his evaluation once it was completed and received by WCHS on October 29, 2010; he was repeatedly denied. WCHS stated that they “owned” the information and would not consent to provide him with a copy. Ronald finally received a copy on December 1, 2010 (32 days later) only after he released his attorney of record (Steve Combs turned it over to Ronald with other documents).

10/11/2010 Ronald provides $300 in Cash support for his children to Social Worker JULIE RIGGINS of WCHS. Ronald provides $120 in food/snacks. Running total $1,610.

10/27/2010 Ronald and Debra miss Sarah’s Birthday (7-years-old).

10/29/2010 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN, in a session conducted in the DV rotation, “modified” the DVPO to effectively remove the children and allow her to assume jurisdiction over matters of current visitation. JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN failed to recognize that the original DVPO entered by JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN was in fact, void lacking subject matter & personal jurisdiction.

This NEW “Modified Order” was the final requirement to allow visits to commence between Ronald and his six minor children. Regardless of this fact, WCHS inappropriately continued to withhold the children from the court ordered visits for an additional 70 days with regard to Benjamin and Joseph (January 7, 2011) and 103 days with regard to Matthew, Hannah, & Sarah (February 9, 2011).

11/04/2010 Ronald provides $800 in Clothing for school and other items to the social worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $2,410.

11/05/2010 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered a Juvenile Order which, among other things, partially modified the previous Order on Adjudication and Disposition entered on September 3, 2010 as to visitation between Ronald and his 6 minor children. This current order from a hearing held on October 20, 2010 modified the visitation schedule between Ronald and his 6 minor children from weekly to every other week; still to be supervised by WCHS at their agency or in the community. Stephen (11-years-old) has been, and continues to be withheld from visiting Ronald since June 23, 2010 (over 420 days as of August 17, 2011)

11/08/2010 DR. KARIN YOCH, JULIE RIGGINS AND Ronald participated in an “INTERPRETIVE SESSION” whereby DR KARIN YOCH, among other things, established that Ronald “should not” attend DOSE (Domestic Offenders Sentenced to Education) until or unless his personal therapist made such a recommendation; and that Ronald’s personal therapist may establish his/her own goals in reference to any diagnosis and/or treatment.

11/09/2010 Ronald provides $94 in hygiene items requested by Social Worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $2,504.

11/10/2010 Ronald provides $407 in AWANA books (children’s bible study materials) and other Christian books to the social worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $2,911.

11/22/2010 Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem SUSAN VICK filed a Motion for Review to modify the children’s visits with their father Ronald. This motion seeks visits to be deemed Therapeutically Supervised Visits and that the children are not required to attend. Hearing set for December 16, 2010.

NOTE: Court Ordered visits had not yet begun between Ronald and his 6 minor children Stephen, Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin; and were being withheld by WCHS in violation of the current Order on Adjudication and Disposition without cause or explanation.

11/24/2010 Ronald begins weekly COURT-ORDERED counseling sessions with Dr. Richard Hester.

11/25/2010 First Thanksgiving day not celebrated and not together as a FAMILY UNIT. Ronald not allowed contact – not even phone contact.

11/30/2010 Ronald releases Private Attorney, Steve Combs.

12/06/2010 Ronald filed a Motion to Set Aside the DVPO.

12/06/2010 Ronald Completed Parenting Adolescents (10 Week Course).

12/06/2010 Ronald provides $100 in gift cards to McDonald’s, DQ to the social worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $3,011.

12/08/2010 Ronald Completed Positive Parenting (10 Week Course).

12/08/2010 Ronald Completed Anger Management (10 Week Course).

12/09/2010 Ronald provides $476 in Clothing to the social worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $3,487.

12/11/2010 Ronald provides $32 in digital photo frames to the social worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $3,519.

12/17/2010 A visit had been scheduled for December 17, 2010 (this was to be the first scheduled visit with Joseph (4) and Benjamin (3) after no contact for over 170 days). The visit was cancelled by JULIE RIGGINS Social Worker just 2 hours prior to the scheduled visit by email.

12/25/2010 First Christmas day not celebrated and not together as a FAMILY UNIT. Ronald still not allowed contact – not even phone contact.

01/01/2011 Ronald provides $290 in outdoor activities to the social worker JULIE RIGGINS for his children. Running total $3,809.

01/03/2011 Ronald and Debra’s son Timothy (16-years-old) was placed in the care of his aunt and uncle, GERARD and RHONDA ANDERBERG in California. During this placement, Timothy has been expelled from High School, demonstrated extreme outbursts of anger – even nearly being discharged from the “Young Marines” program (which, during a review hearing JULIE RIGGINS – Wake County Social Worker so willingly boasted about as being successful and positive for Timothy); and Timothy has continued to engage in sexual acts with girls and boys while in the ANDERBERG’S care.

01/07/2011 Ronald’s first visit with Joseph and Benjamin did not take place until January 7, 2011 (a full 70 days after the modification of the DVPO – required to allow visits). Prior to any of these visits Ronald had not seen any of his children since June 23, 2010 (198 days). That was for only 1 day. Prior to that, Ronald had not seen his children since March 8, 2010 (305 days). Ronald has attended all scheduled visits on time and followed all requirements/rules pertaining to these visits. This first visit was perfect, were it not for the cold, lifeless environment of the Triangle Family Services facility; the boys were anything but lifeless… They were incredibly excited to see their dad, even after 198 days of deprivation! From the very first visit the boys expressed their desire to “stay” with dad, even to go home with him. I sent the following email to my Pastor and other family members recalling the visit…

From: Ron Reale [mailto:ronreale@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:21 PM
To: ‘Myron’
Cc: ‘Debbie H.’; ‘mom’; ‘dad’
Subject: Visit with the boys

Myron

Everything went very well with the visit today. The boys “RAN” straight to me with hugs and kisses. We played together at a feverish pace (about 40 minutes). They were all over me. They were taking turns engaging and playing as if they had not missed a day with me. During the entire visit, Natasha and the Licensed Therapist were present, it was a small room about 8 X 10. After the visit, the therapist noted that she was Very Pleased with their greeting me, the interaction/playing (they seemed to naturally include me) and their departure; and she stated that she would definitely recommend ongoing visits “without hesitation.” Joseph (4) gave me 3 hugs on his way out. The last one as they were walking out the door and he “RAN” back to me to hug me once more. Benjamin (3) was very upset and did not want to go. They told him he could come back and see me next week and he said “I want to come back now.” I was a mess after I got out of there. Thanks for your prayers. What a disaster this process is…

Ron

01/10/2011 Julie Riggins of WCHS sent an email to Ronald stating that WCHS will no longer accept direct support from Ronald on behalf of the children.

01/10/2011 Ronald and Debra miss Matthew’s Birthday (10-years-old).

01/11/2011 Ronald provides $69 in toys for visit with Joseph and Benjamin (later donated to Triangle Family Services). Running total $3,878.

01/14/2011 Ronald visits with Joseph and Benjamin for a second time. Stephen, Matthew, Hannah, and Sarah are still being deprived of court ordered visits with their father. Another great visit, much like the previous…

01/14/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered a Juvenile Order modifying her previous order entered on November 5, 2010 as to visitation between Ronald and his 6 minor children. This order from the hearing held on December 16, 2010 ordered that visitation between Ronald and his 6 minor children NOW be deemed Therapeutically Supervised Visits at a cost of $142.50 per visit (Ronald to bear the cost). This was primarily in response to a NEW Start-up Program offered to WCHS and the Guardian Ad Litem in support of their collaborating affiliate agency Triangle Family Services. No other new evidence had been presented other than the fact that the DVPO had, in fact, been properly modified to allow for visits to commence back in October. This marks at least the third time visitation has been modified and they had not even begun with Stephen, Matthew, Hannah, or Sarah.

01/19/2011 Conference Call with Joyce Williams (children’s therapist); in attendance in the conference room on the 4th floor of WCHS located on 220 Swinburne St. was Ronald Reale (Respondent Father), Myron Yandle (Ronald Reale’s Pastor), Julie Riggins (Social Worker), Pauline Handrahan (Social Worker). In attendance via telephone was Ms. Williams of Carolina Psychological Health Services in Jacksonville, NC.

Ronald made the following statement at the start of the conference call with Ms. Williams; “I was informed for the first time through Julie’s testimony at a hearing on December 16 that you were not willing to meet with me in person or by phone, and that your supervisor had recommended that action.” To which she interjected stating; “Actually what it comes down to is, you all would have to pay for every hour that I was traveling and meeting.” Ronald then responded stating; “I offered to come there and meet with you and I think that was our original plan. Julie and I had originally decided that obviously I was going to come there and not have you travel this far. So was there any reason we could not meet in person other than that?” She responded, “We decided to do it this way and I think it’s actually much more efficient.” Ronald responded, “So that’s the reason, for efficiency?” She then stated, “That’s a guess on my part; I would also want Julie’s opinion.” Ronald then expressed his concern; “that it was represented to the court in a court order as a statement of fact, by Julie, through her direct testimony that I had done something through some sort of communication that had prompted you and your supervisor to decide to prohibit a meeting with me in person.” She stated, “Actually I’m more confused than ever.” Based on the result of this part of the conversation Ronald must say that he is the one who is confused. This is the same “agenda related” rhetoric and play on words that has been a top priority of WCHS from the start. Clearly Julie Riggins misled the court into believing that there was something awry here, with regard to setting up a meeting between Ronald and the therapist meeting with his children when there was nothing of the sort.

As Ronald continue to explore the rest of the conversation that resulted from this conference call, there were several issues of concern that were discussed. For example, Ronald was informed during this conversation that the children have been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. When he asked for clarification stating; “What else have they been diagnosed with?” Ms. Williams responded, “Nothing else.” She went on to further reiterate that “the children are without both parents; they are adjusting to a new school, and a new home, a new world, etc.”

Ronald presented the following information with regard to how this Adjustment Disorder is viewed throughout the psychiatric community.

“The American Psychiatric Association considers adjustment disorder to be a residual category, meaning that the diagnosis is given only when an individual does not meet the criteria for a major mental disorder. For example, if a person fits the more stringent criteria for major depressive disorder, the diagnosis of adjustment disorder is not given.”

“Prognosis: Adjustment disorders usually get better quickly without any remaining symptoms.”

During the conference call with Ms. Williams, Ronald also asked if she could speak to allegations of the children exhibiting “fear” or having “nightmares.” Ms. Williams stated, “I never said that.” Ronald then replied, “So they are not experiencing nightmares?” to which she replied, “I never said that either,” adding “all children have nightmares from time to time. They are not exhibiting anything that I wouldn’t consider to be normal or what any child might experience.” This was an allegation specifically generated by WCHS and later inserted into my psychological evaluation and discussed by Dr. Yoch during the assessment. During the call Ronald expressed his concern for these prior allegations generated by WCHS to which Julie Riggins replied, “Mr. Reale is blowing this all out of proportion, our agency never thought of those statements as anything more than what normal children experience.” However, the psychological evaluation completed by Dr. Yoch states the following, “When he was read examples of the children’s concerns as voiced during the July mental health evaluations (e.g. nightmares, fear of him) he seemed to doubt the veracity of these reports and was glad to hear that Matt made supportive statements about his father.” The GAL in their Notice of Intent to Introduce Residual Hearsay Evidence stated; “The children are unavailable to testify given their long-established fear of the respondent father…Additionally some of the children experience nightmares regarding the respondent father.”

It was revealed by Ms. Williams that “Hannah absolutely wants to visit with Ronald, Sarah was ‘iffy’ but that goes up and down, and the boys Matthew and Stephen do not want to visit.” When Ronald asked why the boys did not want to visit she never really provided an answer. She did state the following, “The children never disrespect you; do you understand what I am saying?” She then followed that up with, “let me say it in a different way; they never talk bad about you.”

It should be noted that in October Stephen was the only one who did not want to attend visits with his dad. In December at a hearing on regarding visitation it was announced that Matthew only wants to visit with me once. By January 19, 201 during the conference call with their therapist it was revealed that Sarah was not willing and that neither Stephen nor Matthew was willing to attend visits. What an interesting pattern. By the way Stephen also declined to visit with his mom in July when she had her first visit. Later he attended the next visit and when she asked why he was not willing to come see her last time, he said “because of the court thing.”

Since then, Therapeutically Supervised, fee based visits have been established between Ronald and all the children except Stephen. The rate is $95 per hour ($142.50 per visit). All the children have expressed loving, caring emotions and been very clingy from the very first visit. None has wavered and all have eagerly attended each and every visit (even expressing the desire for more frequent visits and/or to come home to live with Ronald once again) despite what was previously reported by their therapist.

01/21/2011 Ronald visits with Joseph and Benjamin for a third time. Stephen, Matthew, Hannah, and Sarah are still being deprived of court ordered visits with their father.

01/21/2011 Ronald files Petition for Writ of Mandamus requesting that the North Carolina Court of Appeals direct JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN to “set aside” her unlawful DVPO.

01/23/2011 Ronald and Debra miss Stephen’s Birthday (12-years-old).

02/01/2011 Ronald obtained a letter from his therapist Dr. Richard Hester in response to a direct request from JULIE RIGGINS (Wake County Social Worker). Dr. Hester is a Pastoral Counselor with Triangle Pastoral Counselors (a recommended group on Wake County Human Services Website). The letter is summarized as follows:

First Letter/Report…

Dr. Richard Hester, Board Certified Licensed Pastoral Counselor

I am responding to your request for a report dated 1/24/11 on Mr. Ronald Reale’s therapy with me as part of the process of his being able to visit his children. First, Mr. Reale has provided me with the full copy of Dr. Yoch’s psychological evaluation which I have reviewed. Second, as to my credentials I am a Board Certified Fee-Based Practicing Pastoral Counselor in the State of North Carolina. Third, I have seen Mr. Reale weekly for 9 sessions 11/24/10 to 1/2811.

I have assigned to Mr. Reale a diagnosis of 309.9 Adjustment Disorder Unspecified. Treatment goals that have emerged are (1) to understand the circumstances that have led to his separation from his wife and the loss of the custody of his children, (2) to understand his contribution to this problem, (3) to understand his personal story including his present emotional state of mind as he weathers this difficult situation, and (4) to develop a different story for his relationship with his family in the future.

The treatment plan is, first, to investigate the problem of his marital separation and loss of custody of his children, to see how it developed, and to identify Mr. Reale’s contribution to it. From this investigation, we then explore an alternative narrative that will draw out his own capacities for slowing down his thinking and actions in order to make considered decisions; to show empathy for his wife, children, and others; to draw on his spiritual resources; and to respond wisely to legal and social service agencies and employees. The primary objective in exploring these things is for Mr. Reale to understand himself better so he can improve his relationships with members of his family. The treatment modality is to draw out and explore the important stories in his life and to find those narratives from the past where he has slowed down, shown wisdom, cooperated with others, and expressed empathy toward himself and others, believing he can build on these experiences to change patterns that have not served him or his family well.

You ask about Mr. Reale’s compliance with treatment. He initiated contact with me and asked for weekly sessions. He has come to each session on time and ready to work. He has been able to shift from talking about the circumstances of his separation and effort to regain custody of his children to more time talking about himself—his actions, his needs, his feelings, his plans.

As for case notes, at the end of each session Mr. Reale and I do collaborative documentation of our conversation. That is we both look at the screen of my laptop and I type as close as possible a verbatim report of that summary conversation. I begin with questions such as, “What do you want to remember from our conversation today?”

My Assessment

You ask for my assessment of Mr. Reale’s work in therapy as that relates to his being able to visit his children. In my work with him I have not found any reason that stands in the way of his seeing his children. I believe it would be beneficial for his children to see him and that it would also further my therapy work with him for them to have regular visits with each other.

He wants very much to be reunited with his wife and for them to be able to work out their differences so as to be better parents to their children. It seems to me that this is a fundamental goal and whatever your agency could do to promote this would be a contribution to the future wellbeing of the children.

To summarize my work with him in therapy, he is able to see and interpret these aspects of his personality: his belief he can fix anything, his being driven to succeed, his working excessively long hours, and as a result his not paying sufficient attention to his family relationships. I find this self-awareness to be a sign of a change that could lead him to develop a more engaged relationship to his family. I also note that he is allowing himself to acknowledge the pain he feels in his separation from his family—something he was not able to do in his psychological testing. He is able to see the difference between being “weak” and being “vulnerable” and to acknowledge his vulnerability. From the beginning of our work he has spoken about his “overwhelming nature” and how that has damaged his relationships. This is related to his definition of his problem as “not paying attention, not spending time, and not addressing problems and differences.” As he works to change this pattern I see him recognizing the need to slow down, to think about the consequences of his actions, and to consider different alternatives.

The testing psychologist speculated that Mr. Reale might engage in therapy only insofar as it helped him achieve the goal of being reunited with his children. I do not detect that he is trying to do this. I believe he is engaged in therapy as a way to understand himself and change behaviors that have caused him such trouble.

02/04/2011 Ronald visits with Joseph and Benjamin for a fourth time. Stephen, Matthew, Hannah, and Sarah are still being deprived of court ordered visits with their father. The visits were all supervised by Susan Ehrlich, Triangle Family Services and the following Summary was provided per Ronald’s request…

Joseph & Benjamin: Early Visits

We Met on January 7, 14, 21, and February 4, 2011 for 60-75 minutes. Throughout these family sessions, I provided a neutral, therapeutic, play environment which the boys enjoyed. I observed increasingly warm greetings each time the boys saw you, and observed that you followed their leads during their play. My observations indicate that you provided appropriate support, interests and positive interactions.

02/09/2011 Ronald’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.

02/09/2011 Ronald’s first visit with Matthew, Hannah, and Sarah did not take place until February 9, 2011 (a full 103 days after the modification of the DVPO – required to allow visits). Prior to any of these visits Ronald had not seen any of his children since June 23, 2010 (231 days). That was for only 1 day. Prior to that, Ronald had not seen his children since March 8, 2010 (338 days). Ronald has attended all scheduled visits on time and followed all requirements/rules pertaining to these visits including, but not limited to making payments of $142.50 for each visit and purchasing dinner for the children. A great visit for ALL. 231 days and the BOND between Ronald and his children is as strong as ever. Benjamin and Joseph were also at this visit. Stephen was withheld from the visit. 231 days and counting… Cost $95.00. No so-called Therapy took place. In fact ethics would not allow for such a thing. It is generally accepted that no person shall have more than one therapist (as a matter of professional ethics). This is more like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

02/14/2011 Ronald files Petition for Discretionary Review with THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA pursuant to petition for Writ of Mandamus denial.

02/16/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (second visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 238 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $237.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

03/02/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (third visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 252 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $380.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

03/07/2011 Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem SUSAN VICK filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking to limit the information Ronald may have access to with regard to Discovery and concerning Mental Health Records of his minor children. Hearing set for March 29, 2011.

03/16/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (fourth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 266 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $522.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

03/17/2011 Ronald obtained a letter from Triangle Family Services’ Susan Ehrlich, LCSW, ACSW reporting on 4 previous visits between Ronald and his youngest sons Joseph and Benjamin (January 7, 14, 21, & February 4, 2011). The visits were described with observations of “increasingly warm greetings” by the boys; and observations of Ronald “providing appropriate support, interest, and positive interaction during the family… sessions.” No negative observations reported.

03/27/2011 Ronald obtained a Report from Triangle Family Services’ Cori Goldstein, MSW, LCSW reporting on 4 previous visits between Ronald and Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, & Benjamin (February 9 & 16, and March 2 & 16, 2011). The visits were described as follows:

Supervised Visitation Report…

Cori Goldstein, Time Together (Triangle Family Services), Summary of Observation Notes

Overall summary of children:

The following information was obtained through the course of four visits. All children have appeared comfortable with Mr. Reale and have appeared to openly engage in conversations during the visitation time. Upon entering the room all children have gone up and hugged Mr. Reale without prompting, expect Joseph. Joseph, during his first two visits instantly began playing with toys in the room but did show affection towards Mr. Reale later in the visits. Throughout the visits, Mr. Reale maintained appropriate conversations with all children. During the first visit, Mr. Reale appeared to have to make more of an effort to keep the conversation going but all children were engaged in conversation with Mr. Reale. All children appeared to enjoy themselves most of the time with no signs of anxiety being demonstrated by any of the children. On a few occasions, a few of the children have become visibly upset and this will be addressed more specifically when discussing each child individually. When ending the visits all children have hugged Mr. Reale and expressed their love for him. All children have stated their disappointment with the visits ending and have progressively become clingier with Mr. Reale at the end of the visits. During the last visit the children attempted to delay the ending of the visiting by continuing to hug Mr. Reale and expressing their desire not to leave. All children have expressed that they want to stay with Mr. Reale and are excited about the next visit. Hannah, Sarah and Matthew have even expressed disappointment with having to wait two weeks for the next visit to occur. The children’s desire to extend the visits has progressively increased with each additional visit. It should be noted that the children’s desire to extend the visit appears to be more out of love for Mr. Reale than for fear of having to go back to foster care. All children, once outside of the visit room, have appeared comfortable with WCHS and have willingly left the building.

Discipline:

Mr. Reale has used appropriate redirection with the children in relation to inappropriate behavior on most occasions. An example was a time when Hannah used the word “sucks.” Mr. Reale asked Hannah not to use that word in an appropriate manner. Another example included a time when Joseph became upset when having to share food with the rest of the children. Mr. Reale discussed with Joseph the concept of sharing in a developmentally appropriate way. Joseph again later became upset with sharing and again refused to share. Once Joseph attempted to push another, Mr. Reale appropriately said that Joseph was all done but did not follow through on the request and allowed Joseph to continue eating. Discipline was discussed with Mr. Reale on one occasion following a visit. Mr. Reale was informed that he was allowed to use developmentally appropriate discipline during the visits and this could include time out if deemed necessary. Mr. Reale’ expressed that he did not use time out as a discipline tool. Mr. Reale then reported that he doubted that any form of discipline would be needed with his children during the visit.

Benjamin:

Benjamin has been affectionate towards Mr. Reale and has been open to play with Mr. Reale. Benjamin, on one occasion, showed his affection to Mr. Reale by sharing some of his Valentine’s cookies with him. Benjamin has also been involved in group play when prompted.

Joseph:

Joseph has displayed typical behavior appropriate for his developmental age. Joseph on numerous occasions has become upset and had difficulty with sharing. Mr. Reale has appropriately redirected Joseph throughout the visits. As noted previously, Joseph has also played more in the visits than shown affection with Mr. Reale. Developmentally, this has not been seen as an area of concern. At the end of the first visit, on 2/16/11, Joseph hid and appeared upset stating that he did not want to leave. On 3/2/11, although Joseph was still playing he was quiet, more reserved and had a sad look on his face as the visit progressed. This change in Joseph’s demeanor and effect was noticeable from the beginning of the visit. About 45 minutes into the visit Mr. Reale noticed Joseph was not himself and approached him to see if he was okay. Mr. Reale at that time told Joseph that he loved him but then focused his attention on another child. All the children but Matthew then went to the restroom and upon return Mr. Reale again asked Joseph if he was okay. Joseph informed Mr. Reale that he needed to again return to the bathroom. Therapist asked Joseph if he was feeling alright and he shared that his tummy was hurt. Joseph left the visit for about five minutes to go to the restroom with Julie Riggins, WCHS.

Sarah:

Sarah began visits somewhat more reserved but as visits have progressed Sarah has opened up more. During the first visit on 2/9/11, Sarah appeared to mainly initiate in conversation with Mr. Reale when spoken to. Although quiet, Sarah did not appear anxious or upset during the visit. Sarah has been affectionate with Mr. Reale and has appeared comfortable during the visits. Mr. Reale has also positively praised Sarah in relation to her academic skills. Sarah has appeared proud of herself by demonstrating her academic skills including math and reading. Due to Sarah’s quiet nature and the number of children in the visiting room, she has sometimes not been heard when speaking. On one occasion Hannah was consuming Mr. Reale’s time by reading individually so Sarah sat by her self-reading out loud. Sarah at one point during this time made a statement to Mr. Reale but this was not acknowledged due to not being heard. There is some concern that Sarah is not getting enough attention due to the number of children attending the visits. Sarah began to open up a lot more during the visit on 3/16/11 and was more talkative and initiated more conversations with Mr. Reale then in the past.

This could have been due to the fact that Hannah was upset for part of this visit and did not require as much attention.

Hannah:

Hannah throughout the visits has been clingier than the other children. She has been very affectionate and appears to need constant admiration from Mr. Reale. Hannah has required a lot of Mr. Reale’s time during visits and is constantly stopping her play to hug Mr. Reale or go sit on his lap. Hannah, throughout all visits, has routinely expressed her love for Mr. Reale. Hannah has asked some questions related to Mr. Reale’s relationship with her mother. An example was in reference to Mr. Reale still wearing his wedding ring. Hannah asked about where Mr. Reale lives now. Hannah has also shared that other children at the school have talked negatively about their mother as well as asked Mr. Reale if their mother has a house. Mr. Reale has appropriately addressed Hannah’s questions if he knew the answer and then redirected the conversation. Hannah does not appear to notice the redirection and does not appear to be affected by the change in the topic of conversation. On 3/16/11, Hannah appeared upset in relation to Sarah receiving a dollar from Mr. Reale from the tooth fairy. Hannah removed herself from play and sat quietly. On a few occasions Hanna mentioned that she had also lost two teeth. Hannah only joined back in play during the visit when asked by Mr. Reale to come and read. While reading Hannah shared to Mr. Reale that it was not fair that Sarah received a dollar. Hannah appeared to remain upset about the dollar even after the visit was over. Hannah after the visit reported that she was upset that she did not receive money from the tooth fairy since she had lost two teeth. This was addressed with Mr. Reale following the visit where he reported that Hannah was only upset because Sarah said that she would share her dollar but later refused. It was pointed out to Mr. Reale that Hannah was also upset because she had lost teeth and not received a dollar. Mr. Reale reported that he could not give Hannah a dollar as well because then Matthew would have also reported that he lost teeth and he did not have enough dollars’ for everyone. Mr. Reale agreed that in hindsight he probably should not have given Sarah a dollar.

Matthew:

Matthew has remained positively engaged throughout all of the visits. Matthew has routinely expressed not wanting the visits to end. On 2/16/11, Matthew shared sadness when he learned that the next visit would be in two weeks. Matthew expressed his desire to see his father weekly. On 3/2/11, Matthew stated “no” indicating that he wanted the visit to continue when therapist gave a one minute warning. At the end of the visit on 3/16/11, Matthew asked Mr. Reale when he was going to get to see him more. When Mr. Reale reported that Matthew would get to see him in two weeks and that no matter what he still loved him, Matthew responded, “I want to live with you.” During this visit Matthew also continued to go back to give Mr. Reale extra hugs and had to be directed that the visit was over numerous times. On 3/16/11, Matthew entered the session and went to a dry erase board and drew the word “dad” with a heart around it. Matthew has also continued to test boundaries during the visits. An example would include sneaking more candy after being told he could only have one piece. On a few occasions, Matthew has asked Mr. Reale questions in relation to WCHS involvement, past decisions made and future desires. Examples include questions about moving “every single year,” why “those people” came to talk to them and if they would be allowed to visit at Mr. Reale’s home. When asked about visiting at Mr. Reale’s home, Mr. Reale responded, “someday.” The therapist was then required to intervene and explain the rules of visitation to the children. Matthew then shared with Mr. Reale, “I want to live with you.” Once making the statement Matthew looked at therapist to clarify if he was allowed to talk about that. Once informed that he could talk about anything he wanted and that therapist would redirect if needed, Matthew again stated, “I want to live with you dad.” Mr. Reale responded by saying, “I love you.” Mr. Reale has done an appropriate job of minimally acknowledging all questions and then redirecting the conversation. This technique appeared to work during the first few visits but Matthew is progressively beginning to ask more questions. I have addressed my concern with Mr. Reale in relation to the need to answer Matthew’s questions. At first Mr. Reale expressed a desire to continue with the re-directing techniques until this begins causing Matthew some distress. Following the visit on 3/16/11, Mr. Reale agreed to a visit individually with Matthew to answer some of his questions but expressed a need for the visit to be very structured and thoroughly planned. Therapist agreed with this and with WCHS’s permission has emailed Matthew’s individual therapist to arrange a phone conversation to discuss continuing forward with the individual session. One concern in relation to Matthew is that on occasion he appears to take on a parental role with the other children. On one occasion Joseph became upset and left a game to go and sit against the wall. Mr. Reale chose to actively ignore Joseph at this time, which was appropriate, but Matthew went to Joseph to comfort him and encouraged him to resume play in the game. After the visit, when discussing this with Mr. Reale, he acknowledged Matthew helping Joseph. Throughout the visits as well as outside of the visits I have noticed Matthew appearing to demonstrate parental roles with the younger children. Although this can be typical of an older child in a large family it should be noted that attention needs to be given to monitoring this and decreasing the occurrence as much as possible.

03/27/2011 Ronald obtained a letter from his therapist Dr. Richard Hester in response to a request from Ronald for submission to the court during an upcoming hearing scheduled for April 12, 2011. Dr. Hester is a Pastoral Counselor with Triangle Pastoral Counselors (a recommended group on Wake County Human Services Website). The letter is summarized as follows:

Second Letter/Report…

Dr. Richard Hester, Board Certified Licensed Pastoral Counselor

I am writing to the court about my therapy with Mr. Ronald Reale. I first saw Mr. Reale on 11/24/10 and have seen him weekly for fifteen sessions, the most recent on 3/11/11. Any gaps in this weekly sequence have been due to my schedule. Mr. Reale initiated this therapy and has demonstrated his intention to understand what has happened to separate him from his wife and children and how he can become a better husband and father.

In recent weeks he has been having supervised visits with his children, and he reflects on these visits in therapy. He describes in thoughtful detail his emotional interaction with his children. He connects with them in an intimate way that he says has taken their relationship to a different level. In what he tells about the visits I hear a capacity for empathy and tenderness. He is able to let the children take the lead in play with him. When I asked him in our most recent session to describe the emotional interaction between him and his kids in these visits, he said, “I have the opportunity to not just express to them my emotion but to really feel a different emotion within myself as I share time with them. It’s an emotion that is less repetition and status quo and more personal and a closeness that is not something we have experienced in the past as much. I think it is more of an enhanced closeness. I’ve always felt closeness but I think this is more of an enhanced closeness.”

He talks frequently about his wife, and although they have had their differences he has never criticized her. In this same session he said this about her: “I can’t imagine just how much pain she’s in being separated from her kids and not being in a place she wants to be. I guess I’m willing to accept all that but I still feel a strong desire to protect her and to provide for her emotionally and to support her emotionally.” Ron is able to explore his feelings and his behavior in a non-defensive way. He is able to talk about how he allowed himself to be so caught up in his work that he neglected family relationships. His descriptions of his interactions with his children and other people demonstrate an ability to empathize with others and to make an effort to see things as they do.

These capacities for introspection and for empathy are characteristics I do not associate with a person who would abuse his children or his spouse.

I hope the court will remove the restrictions that have been placed on Ron’s relationship with his family. I think this would be a path toward improved emotional health and general welfare for everyone concerned.

NOTE: Dr. Hester has a copy of the Psychological Evaluation commissioned by WCHS administered by their contracted agent DR. KARIN YOCH. Dr. Hester has not recommended DOSE for Ronald and in fact, states in his second report after approximately 17 sessions “These capacities for introspection and for empathy are characteristics I do not associate with a person who would abuse his children or his spouse.”

Similarly, it was pointed out by Brooke Buchman, M.A., LPA, HSP-PA in the summary of her Psychological Evaluation of Ronald conducted on March 7 & 10, 2011; “It is the opinion of this clinician that Ronald does not appear to have an impairment in his parenting skills due to psychological symptoms. It should be noted that he does not appear likely to abuse his children.”

03/28/2011 Ronald obtained at least 10 letters from members of the community such as employer, church members, and other friends indicating by example of the following 2 letters…

First letter…

KP (Children’s Ministry Director)

I am writing this letter on behalf of Ron Reale who my family and I have had the pleasure of meeting about a year ago. I am the Children’s Ministries Director at First Baptist Church of Morrisville and our ministry has been extremely blessed by having Ron join our church and become actively involved in all aspects of the children’s ministries.

Ron is very friendly and a wonderful children’s leader. All the children look up to him and seek him out for fun and games. One of my sons who is 10 years old is fortunate to have him as his AWANA Leader and he absolutely adores him. Ron is able to find just the right balance between fun and friendship and authority and leadership which makes him an awesome addition to our team. He enthusiastically volunteers for any opportunity to help with all church events often to be seen cooking on the grill for the kids, supervising large events and patiently working with all ages of kids at Vacation Bible School and in our AWANA Club. I would never hesitate to ask Ron to take care of my children or any of our church children and he is one of the first people I ask whenever a children’s worker is needed.

KP

Second Letter…

MK (AWANA Leader)

It is my great pleasure to know Ron Reale, and I am writing this letter as a testament to his personal character. While I have known Ron for only about a year, we have spent a good deal of time together as fellow members of First Baptist Church Morrisville. Ron frequently contributes to discussion in our Sunday school class, showing him a man of humility and wisdom. This is a rare combination of personality traits in today’s society, and one cannot help but notice their manifestation in Ron. We are also group leaders for our AWANA program. It was during the new group leader orientation that I discovered Ron’s contagious laugh and gained an even greater appreciation for his dedication to acting on his beliefs. Ron is honest and genuine -an all-around great guy.

While these traits make Ron someone for whom I would without reservation support in any endeavor, it is his relationship with my daughter that sets him apart. My daughter has always been a great judge of character, and cautiously forms relationships with both her peers and adults. Since September, my daughter has been part of Ron’s AWANA group. She came home from the first night’s meeting with glowing reports of her new leader. She frequently comments on how Mr. Ron is “cool” because he “just gets how kids think” and how he makes everyone feel comfortable, whether they’re finishing lots of sections of their book quickly or are struggling to make slow progress. “He is so nice to all of us,” she says.

Several weeks ago, our family schedule changed, and my daughter now attends Wednesday night choir rehearsals with me. When she realized that Ron was our sound technician, she immediately asked if she could spend this time in the sound booth. Ron has patiently taught her the technical aspects of running sound for worship services. They are often singing along with the choir from the sound booth, and occasionally giggle together as they forget his special relationship. As a parent, the greatest demonstration of my trust is allowing someone to spend time with my children. I have zero hesitation or concern when it comes to entrusting Ron with my daughter’s time and impressionable mind. I close this letter with the most powerful tribute I know. When asking my daughter why she enjoys her time with Mr. Ron, her reply says it all, “Because he is a Godly man.” I respectfully request that you consider this input as you make your decisions regarding Ron and his family.

MK

03/28/2011 The DVPO was set aside by JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction.

03/30/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (fifth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 280 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $665.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

03/31/2011 Ronald then made application to set aside the Order on Adjudication and Disposition pursuant to Rule 60, which was denied. This continues to be in dispute and the issue is before the North Carolina Court of Appeals as follows: There no longer can be any dispute that the DVPO allegedly violated by Appellant was properly found to be VOID for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the order appealed from however, the Court took the position that, even though everything flowed from the void order, the placement order could stand. This is basic error.

In North Carolina, all proceedings founded on a void judgment or orders are themselves regarded as void. Such a judgment or order “is in legal effect no judgment,” as “it neither binds nor bars any one, and all proceedings founded upon it are worthless.” Hart v. Thomasville Motors, Inc., 244 N.C. 84, 90, 92 S.E.2d 673, 678 (1956). “A universal principle as old as the law is that the proceedings of a court without jurisdiction of the subject matter are a nullity;” Burgess v. Gibbs, 262 N.C. 462, 465, 137 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1964).

The court here, however, relied upon the stipulation of facts submitted at the time that the petition was heard. Obviously, neither Ronald nor Debra would have entered into the stipulation but for the mistake of law, i.e., the void DVPO; and as such the stipulation cannot bootstrap the illegality. Cf. State v. Prevette, 39 N.C. App. 470, 472, 250 S.E.2d 682, 683 (1979)

A stipulation of facts is not sacrosanct and is properly set aside in circumstances such as these where it is based upon the undue influence and duress caused by the void DVPO. See Estate of Carlsen v. Carlsen, 165 N.C. App. 674, 678, 599 S.E.2d 581, 584 (2004) (proper justifications for setting aside a stipulation include: misrepresentations as to material facts, undue influence, collusion, duress, fraud, and inadvertence); Lowery v. Locklear Constr., 132 N.C. App. 510, 514, 512 S.E.2d 477, 479 (1999) (same). There can be no question that the stipulation was executed under duress and a misrepresentation of material facts, i.e., the supposed validity of the DVPO.

When the DVPO fell for lack of jurisdiction so did the stipulation supporting the order of adjudication and disposition, and the order itself. In short, once the DVPO fell for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all proceedings based upon it fell as well.

04/07/2011 Ronald commissioned a FULL Psychological Evaluation by an independent, fully licensed and approved agency KRAFT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.A. (also licensed and practiced in conducting evaluations on behalf of Child Protective Services); which was conducted on March 7, 2011 and March 10, 2011 by Brooke Buchman, M.A., LPA, HSP-PA. The results are summarized as follows:

Ronald’s profile suggests he is a rule-follower who may have a tendency to minimize any problems he is experiencing. He may experience feelings of resentment when he does not express his true feelings. He is not likely to take risks for fear of making mistakes. He likely behaves in a consistent and socially acceptable manner. He is likely seen as sociable and easygoing by others. He may make a good first impression, but may have difficulty forming close relationships with others. However, he is likely viewed as outgoing and self-confident by others. He likely has marital problems and may be impatient. Ronald may not be easily overwhelmed by emotional turmoil. He does not appear to have a high potential for abuse. It should be noted that his score for the ego-strength scale indicates that he has the ability to maintain emotional stability. It should be noted that his Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF=80) score indicates that if symptoms are present, they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors.

Diagnostic Impression:
AXIS I: V71.09 No Diagnosis
AXIS II: V71.09 No Diagnosis
AXIS III: V71.09 No Diagnosis
AXIS IV: Marital problems, situational stress due to custody proceedings
AXIS V: GAF=80 (highest end of the scale)

GAF=71-80: If symptoms are present, they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors; no more than slight impairment in social occupational or school functioning (e.g., temporarily falling behind in schoolwork).

GAF=81-90: Absent or minimal symptoms ( e.g., mild anxiety before an exam ), good functioning in all areas, interested and involved in a wide range of activities, socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems or concerns ( e.g., an occasional argument with family members )

Behavioral Observations:

Ronald was pleasant and cooperative throughout the assessment process. He was alert and oriented in all spheres. His mood and affect were congruent. He appeared forthright when responding to questions.

Recommendations:

1. Ronald would benefit from continuing in counseling that uses supportive techniques designed to build coping skills, increase adaptive behaviors and improve interpersonal skills. It would be helpful for his wife to participate in these sessions so they may build a healthier relationship.

2. It is the opinion of this clinician that Ronald does not appear to have an impairment in his parenting skills due to psychological symptoms. It should be noted that he does not appear likely to abuse his children. (A Copy of the complete report is attached)

04/13/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (sixth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 294 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $807.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

04/15/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered order DENYING Rule 60 Motion to Set Aside the Order on Adjudication and Disposition.

04/18/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (seventh visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 299 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $950.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

04/25/2011 Ronald files notice of appeal, Denial of Rule 60 Motion to Set Aside the Order on Adjudication and Disposition.

05/04/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (eighth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 315 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $1,092.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

05/06/2011 Ronald filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and for Sanctions. Hearing set for May 26, 2011.

05/10/2011 County Attorney KENNETH MURPHY files Motion to Dismiss Appeal with District Court. Hearing set for May 26, 2011.

05/16/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered order DENYING Motion for Protective Order filed by the Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem SUSAN VICK; seeking to limit the information Ronald may have access to. This motion was filed back on March 7, 2011 and was before the court on March 29, 2011. The order was delayed considerably due to the Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem’s failure to reduce the order to writing in a timely manner. Ronald subsequently pursued the matter and ultimately demanded a written order be produced.

05/18/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (ninth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 329 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $1,235.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

Hannah was absent from this visit, without explanation. I sent the following email to WCHS.

From: Ron Reale
To: Julie.Riggins, Albert.Singer
Date: 05/18/2011 10:16 PM
Subject: Hannah

To whom it may concern (WCHS):
May I ask why you did not deliver my daughter Hannah to the court ordered therapeutically supervised visitation on Wednesday 05/18/2011? Is she ok? Since this was not communicated to me in advance of the scheduled visit, I am very concerned.
Ron Reale

Response from Julie Riggins (WCHS)…

—–Original Message—–
From: Julie.Riggins
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:17 AM
To: Ron Reale
Cc: Albert.Singer; John.Gustavson
Subject: Re: Hannah

We discussed her not wanting to go when we were at the PPAT on 5/11/11. She said that she no longer wanted to go one month ago but did come to the last visit anyway. However, on 5/9, she again told me and therapist that she did not want to go any more, so she was not brought tonight. I did ask Hannah tonight if she would like to come next week and she said no. (Also, Matthew was upset again when I picked him, saying he didn’t want to come, but he was over it by the time we picked up the two little ones from daycare)…
Julie Riggins

My Final Response…

—–Original Message—–
From: Ron Reale
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:12 AM
To: Julie.Riggins
Cc: Albert.Singer; John.Gustavson;
Subject: RE: Hannah

To whom it may concern (WCHS):

This does not answer my question. The fact is that you are under court order to deliver Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph and Benjamin to ALL scheduled therapeutically supervised visits. The visits have been regularly scheduled every two weeks since they began in February (after a period of over 90 days when you last decided to deliberately violate the court’s orders by delaying and/or refusing to produce my children for scheduled visits). Since you failed to bring Hannah to this most recent scheduled visit on May 18, 2011 and you are stating that it is your intention not to bring her on May 25, 2011, I will consider my options and act accordingly. Furthermore your explanation of your understanding of the most recent draft order with regard to future visits does not sound like you are moving in a direction that I can agree with. I will likely be filing a motion and order to show cause and for sanctions for your deliberate withholding of my children, and intent to withhold, from current and future visits; and to properly review visitation needs and guidelines.

In the mean time, I will be attending ALL scheduled visits, including next week and I expect that you will deliver all of my children pursuant to the current court’s orders. That being Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin.

You have still not been able to address Hannah’s reasons for not wanting to attend the visits. In fact, your referral to Matthew not wishing to attend is also sketchy at best, and very much incomprehensible. It seems from your description of the events involving Matthew that he is not wanting to leave school and his friends early on the day of the visits and may not want to make the 3 hour drive (one way). You continue to shed no light on Hannah’s purported decision not to attend the visits.

You should now be well aware after receiving the kids from the visit last night that I planned a Birthday Party for Joseph’s 5th birthday during this scheduled visit. Of course Hannah was deliberately deprived of this and I do not take that lightly. She was deprived of this due to your directly disobeying the court’s orders (again). It does not seem that there is any encouragement or positive reinforcement being provided to Hannah, or any of my other children with regard to attending these visits (especially due to the long 6 hour commute – round trip). To the contrary, as mentioned in my prior email, by your own admission you have engaged in practices and conversation with my children that has served to discourage and inappropriately coach them in a manner that would only seem to support non-participation in these scheduled visits. Discussing with them that they have “been approved by the judge” to live with their mother and not their father. Your coercive and intimidating tactics continue, even with small children…Shameful.

Here again, throughout the duration of my family being removed from me, my wife and one another, being separated, and placed into foster care, you (WCHS) and others continue to conspire and act knowingly and intentionally to keep my family separated in a manner that is contrary to court orders, contrary to the laws of the State of North Carolina, contrary to the policies and guidelines that are in place to control your own actions in similar circumstances, contrary to the express written, oral and implied agreements proffered and tendered to and executed by me and my wife, and in a manner that clearly constitutes interference with our custodial and familial rights, and are clearly deliberate and intentional violations of my entire family’s Constitutional and other legal rights and privileges.

What I do recall from the PPAT and subsequent emails was that you revealed your own negligence and the negligence of the caregiver, Natasha Wilde as to the safety of my children. Specifically, but likely not limited to, Stephen’s health issues whereby you described an incident when Stephen “passed out” and lost complete consciousness, while not receiving medical attention whatsoever. By your own admission, in fact, the event was not even reported by the caregiver, Natasha Wilde to yourself or anyone at WCHS until approximately 15 days later and was not reported to myself or my wife until at least 18 days later, all the while with still no medical attention provided. Since then, you have reported that he was taken in for a routine exam and referred to a specialist. You also suggested that the physician may need some family history to better determine a cause of this event. I immediately responded to that request by offering to speak directly with his attending physician to share this private and confidential information. I have not heard from anyone. Please follow-up on this very critical issue ASAP and please keep me informed of the status.
Preserving the record…
Ron Reale

05/23/2011 Ronald filed a Motion to Recuse and Request for reassignment of JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN.

05/24/2011 Pursuant to Rule 65, Ronald filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent injunction; to prevent the removal of his minor children from the State of North Carolina to the State of California. Hearing set for June 8, 2011.

05/25/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (tenth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 336 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $1,377.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

05/26/2011 Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem MELLONEE KENNEDY filed a Motion for Review, to suspend Ronald’s visitation with his minor children, alleging that his children do not want to visit with him. Hearing set for June 8, 2011. This motion was later withdrawn on June 3, 2011.

05/27/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered order DENYING Ronald reunification with his 6 minor children; and ceasing reunification efforts with Ronald. The Court further ordered reunification with Debra (in California at the time) and ordered that WCHS begin the ICPC process to prepare for the transportation of the children to California. The Permanency Plan was placement of the children with Debra.

05/27/2011 Ronald published his Website “ExposingTheRecord.org” exercising his First Amendment right to publish and discuss what he believes to be glaring improprieties in the Family Court System & Child Protective Services.

06/02/2011 JUDGE JAMES FULLWOOD entered order DENYING Ronald’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions.

06/02/2011 JUDGE JAMES FULLWOOD entered order DENYING WCHS’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

06/03/2011 Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem MELLONEE KENNEDY withdraws Motion for Review to suspend Ronald’s visitation with his minor children.

06/08/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN filed an “Affidavit” response to Ronald’s Motion to Recuse and Request for Reassignment.

06/08/2011 Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem MELLONEE KENNEDY made an “Oral Motion” for Ronald to “take down” his website or in the alternative to remove confidential information pertaining to his children. Citing 7B-2901 & 7B-3100

06/15/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (eleventh visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 357 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $1,520.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

06/15/2011 JUDGE JANE GRAY, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, entered a “Juvenile Order” with regard to Ronald’s Website; ordering the Ronald shall not publish any information that would reveal the identity of his children; referring to Chapter 7B in its entirety.

06/17/2011 JUDGE JANE GRAY entered an order DENYING Ronald’s Motion to Recuse and Request for Reassignment of JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN.

06/27/2011 County Attorney AL SINGER filed a Motion for Review to address a modification to Ronald’s visitation with his minor children. Hearing set for July 13, 2011.

06/29/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered an order DENYING Ronald’s Rule 65 Motion for TRO and Injunction, to prevent moving his minor children to California.

06/29/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (twelfth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 371 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $1,662.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

07/01/2011 County Attorney KENNETH MURPHY files Motion to Dismiss Rule 60 Appeal with The North Carolina Court of Appeals.

07/01/2011 Public Defender RICK CROUTHARMEL (Debra’s Attorney) filed a Motion to Continue the County’s Motion for Review due to a conflict.

07/08/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered Order Continuing Motion for Review pursuant to motion filed by RICK CROUTHARMEL.

07/11/2011 In response to the requirement to complete the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (“ICPC”) process, Debra filed a request for a DVPO in the Superior Court of California. This was required by the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services’ Courtney Barzandeh & Bruce Rudberg. JULIE RIGGINS cooperated with these two social workers, even providing them with a copy of the Void Order from the WCHS’ file after The Superior Court DENIED the initial request for protective order. Debra and Ronald had not any contact in over 11 months. Ronald has yet to find any such provision in the “Compact” that requires a “protective order.”

NOTE: RICK CROUTHARMEL, Debra’s public defender also suggested that Debra obtain a protective order after Ronald successfully attacked the unlawful DVPO here in North Carolina, subsequently set-aside as VOID. An email was sent by RICK CROUTHARMEL in the first week in April after 7 months of No-Contact between Ronald and Debra. This seems quite contrary to the ethical standards for attorneys.

From: Rick Croutharmel
To: Debra Reale
March 28, 2011

“This morning Judge Christian set aside the domestic violence protective order (DVPO). That means Ron no longer has a court order directing him to stay away from you. There is still a court order directing him to have only limited contact with the children (Judge Bousman’s order on Ron’s visitation).

You are free to do what you want at this point but I recommend you continue to stay away from Ron and keep your whereabouts hidden from him. Judge Bousman cannot enter an order directing Ron to stay away from you. Even if she could, she would not do so because she is waiting to see how you will handle the situation. If you return to Ron at this point, DSS, the GAL, and Judge Bousman will all probably see that as being bad for the children. You can also try to get another DVPO put in place in California. However, doing so will likely reveal your whereabouts to Ron. If you are interested in doing that, talk to Julie about it first to see how she feels about it.“

Of course she did not take his advice at that time, but is that how the Sixth Amendment gets interpreted these days? One can’t help but wonder if that sort of aggressive representation is within the ethics guidelines; i.e. representing your client zealously within the bounds of the law? We shall see. Do any of these statements ring a bell? A lawyer cannot assist his client in conduct he knows to be illegal or fraudulent. Furthermore, if a lawyer receives information that his client has conducted a fraud on a person or tribunal he/she must ask the client to rectify the fraud. If the client is unable and unwilling, the lawyer must reveal the fraud to the individual or tribunal.

07/11/2011 Ronald obtained a Report from Triangle Family Services’ Cori Goldstein, MSW, LCSW reporting on 8 previous visits between Ronald and Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, & Benjamin (March 30; April 13 & 18; May 4, 18, & 25; and June 15 & 29, 2011). The visits were described as follows:

Overall summary of children:

The following information was obtained through the course of eight visits. All children have appeared comfortable with Mr. Reale and have appeared to openly engage in conversations during the visitation time. Upon entering the room all children have gone up and hugged Mr. Reale without prompting. Throughout the visits, Mr. Reale maintained appropriate conversations with all children, using appropriate redirection from difficult questions and topics. All children appeared to enjoy themselves most of the time with no signs of anxiety being demonstrated by any of the children. When ending the visits all children have hugged Mr. Reale and expressed their love for him. On a few occasions some of the children have attempted to delay the ending of the visit by clinging to Mr. Reale or attempting to hide in the room, stating their desire for the visit to continue.

Discipline: The children, with the exception of Sarah, have all needed redirection by Mr. Reale regarding behaviors during the visits. Mr. Reale has used appropriate discipline with the children in relation to inappropriate behavior. The children appear receptive to Mr. Reale’s discipline strategies, which include acknowledging the negative behavior, discussing why the behavior is inappropriate and then pointing out other options to the negative behaviors. As the visits have progressed the children have displayed more negative emotions with each other which can be typical behaviors of siblings. Mr. Reale has used developmentally appropriate strategies to talk with the children about behaviors on most occasions. Mr. Reale also used positive reinforcement throughout all the visits; praising the children for positive interactions as well as cleaning up when prompted.

Benjamin: Benjamin has continued to be actively involved in play while at the visits. Benjamin has been open to affection by Mr. Reale. During the last three visits Mr. Reale has engaged Benjamin in reading a story, which Benjamin appears to really enjoy. During the last visit on 6/29/11 after stating goodbyes, Benjamin shared that “we are not going yet.” Mr. Reale appropriately responded “you have to” and Benjamin left the room.

Joseph: Joseph has been receptive to affection by Mr. Reale as well as started to engage in group play on occasion. Joseph when prompted participates in group activities with other children and Mr. Reale. Joseph has also enjoyed in the past few visits physical closeness with Mr. Reale during story time. On many occasions throughout each visit Joseph will make eye contact and smile at Mr. Reale. On 3/30/11, Joseph reported at the end of the visit that he did not want to leave. Mr. Reale responded with, “I love you” and Joseph left the visit room. On 6/15/11, Joseph attempted to extend the end of the visit again by grabbing onto Mr. Reale’s leg and refusing to leave. With some prompting, Joseph left the visit. On 4/’13/11, Joseph initiated conversation about an incident that had occurred prior to an earlier visit where WCHS stopped to allow Joseph to use the restroom on the side of the road. Joseph asked Mr. Reale if he got mad that he “peed in the grass outside.” Mr. Reale then asked Joseph where he heard this and Joseph responded “Julie said you got mad, Julie’s a liar.” Mr. Reale quickly responded. “No she is not” and then appropriately changed the subject.

Sarah: Sarah has continued to open up as the visits have progressed. She has appeared more engaged in play with Mr. Reale and the other children. Sarah has been receptive to greater attention and on occasion has demonstrated her love for her mother and father. On 4/13/11, Sarah wrote ‘I love you, dad and mom’ on the dry erase board in the visit room. On 5/18/11, Sarah also expressed her love for Mr. Reale and her mother by drawing a picture of her mother and father inside of a heart with the words ‘I love morn and dad’ written under.

Hannah: Hannah throughout the visits has continued to need attention and admiration from Mr. Reale. Hannah has continued to express a need for close physical contact (hugs, sitting on lap) on numerous occasions throughout the visits. Hannah spends most of her time in the visits engaged in activities with Mr. Reale, whereas the other children engage with each other along with Mr. Reale. On occasion, Hannah has also expressed a desire to not leave visits as evidenced by her hiding at the end of a few different visits. Hannah also stated on one occasion, “we are going to McDonald’s but I’d rather stay here” implying that she wanted to stay with Mr. Reale.

Matthew: Matthew has continued to appear to enjoy himself during the visits, although on 5/18/11 it was reported that Matthew did not want to attend the visit. On 5/18/11, Matthew stated prior to the visit beginning, “let’s get this over with” but was positively engaged once the visit began. Matthew has had a few opportunities to have individual time with Mr. Reale (when the other children are not present in the room) and appears to engage more with his father during this time. Matthew has decreased his questioning of Mr. Reale as stated in the previous report but has increased his frustration with his siblings during the visits. Matthew has appeared to be easily agitated by his Siblings especially when they are trying to “help” him with an activity. Mr. Reale has explained to Matthew the difficulty with the size of the room being so small but encouraged Matthew to be more understanding of his siblings wanting to be a part of the activity he is engaged in. Matthew has also had to be redirected on a few occasions for his behavior. Mr. Reale has expressed his disappointment with Matthew’s, as well as some of the other children’s choice of words. On one occasion, when Matthew became frustrated he used the word “freakin.” Mr. Reale discussed with Matthew the need to monitor what he says, especially in front of the younger children.

07/12/2011 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS dismisses Rule 60 Appeal as Interlocutory Order.

07/13/2011 Ronald visits with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (thirteenth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 385 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $1,805.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

07/18/2011 Pursuant to Rule 65, Ronald filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent injunction; to prevent his son Matthew from being separated from his five brothers and sisters for the first time in his life and being placed in a separate foster home.

07/18/2011 JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN entered an order DENYING Rule 65 Motion for Ex Parte Relief preventing Ronald’s son Matthew from being removed from his current placement.

07/18/2011 Debra Reale (Respondent Mother) left California to relocate back to her home in Morrisville, North Carolina.

07/21/2011 Debra arrived back to her home in Morrisville, NC.

07/22/2011 WCHS assembled a TDM to discuss moving Matthew from his placement with a relative caregiver to a Foster Home (more restrictive level of care). It was further announced that Stephen, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin will also be removed from the care of the relative NATASHA WILDE-BRANT (now divorced) and placed in separate Foster Homes (2 X 2).

07/26/2011 Ronald files Petition for Writ of Certiorari with regard to Judge Bousman’s denial of Rule 60 Motion to Set Aside the Order on Adjudication and Disposition.

07/27/2011 Ronald and Debra visit with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (fourteenth visit). Stephen is still withheld from visits with Ronald. 399 days and counting… This was the first visit between Ronald, Debra, and ALL their children except Stephen (who is still being withheld) and Timothy (who is now 17 and living in California – placed with a relative). Cost $142.50; Running total $1,947.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

07/27/2011 Ronald obtained a Report from Triangle Family Services’ Emily Shigley, MSW, LCSW reporting on 1 previous visit between Ronald and Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, & Benjamin (July 13, 2011). The visit was described in part as follows:

The following information was obtained through the course of one visit. All children have appeared comfortable with Mr. Reale and have appeared to openly engage in conversations during the visitation time. Upon entering the room all children hugged Mr. Reale without prompting. Benjamin began playing with toys in the room after initial hug while the other children sat at the table to eat lunch. Throughout the visit, Mr. Reale maintained appropriate conversations with all children. When ending the visit all children hugged Mr. Reale and expressed their love for him. All children stated their disappointment with the ending of the visit. The children expressed desire to extend the visit and expressed that they are excited about the next visit. It should be noted that the children’s desire to extend the visit appears to be more out of love for Mr. Reale.

Discipline: Mr. Reale used appropriate redirection with the children in relation to topics that were asked or issues with sharing. For example, Mr. Reale brought the children coins from a previous trip he took to Guatemala. The children each received two coins. Throughout the visit, the younger children, mainly Benjamin and Joseph dropped their coins. When they became distressed about another child picking up their coins, Mr. Reale appropriately found the coins and discussed with all the children the concept of sharing in a developmentally appropriate way for each child.

Benjamin: Benjamin was affectionate towards Mr. Reale and was open to play with Mr. Reale. Benjamin, on many occasions during the visit, showed his affection to Mr. Reale by sharing his food with him and initiating interactions. Benjamin showed affection by jumping on Mr. Reale’s lap and asking Mr. Reale to read or play with him.

Joseph: Joseph was affectionate towards Mr. Reale and initiated contact several times with Mr. Reale during the visit. Joseph looked to Mr. Reale for affirmation and feedback; for example, asking him what he should draw and showing Mr. Reale his toys. Mr. Reale appropriately checked in on Joseph when he was engaging with one of the other children. Joseph stated “Dad I want to go back to our old house” to Mr. Reale. Mr. Reale appropriately acknowledged Joseph’s statement by stating “you do?” and then redirected Joseph to another activity.

Sarah: Sarah ate with the other children, except Benjamin, and asked Mr. Reale for the Barbie book on the shelf. Mr. Reale got the book for her. Sarah flipped through the pages and then initiated engagement with Mr. Reale by asking him to help her find an object in the book. Mr. Reale sat down and interacted with Sarah. Sarah was affectionate with Mr. Reale and appeared comfortable during the visit. Sarah initiated contact with Mr. Reale several times throughout the visit. For instance, while Mr. Reale was engaging with Benjamin and Joseph, Sarah stated “daddy, come here, look they have other colors; do you want to help me draw?” Mr. Reale also positively praised Sarah in relation to her academic skills. Sarah appeared proud of herself by demonstrating her reading skills.

Hannah: Hannah was more verbal about wanting affection from Mr. Reale than the other children during the visit. For example, Hannah asked Mr. Reale to hold her on a few occasions. Hannah expressed her love for Mr. Reale throughout the visit. Mr. Reale noticed Hannah had gotten a haircut and doted on her. Hannah appeared to enjoy the affection. Mr. Reale asked Hannah several times about her reading and took an active role in the visit to assist her in reading. Mr. Reale positive praised Hannah on her reading and improvement.

Matthew: Matthew was engaged throughout the visit. Matthew sat back in the beginning of the visit and allowed the younger children to get attention from Mr. Reale. Matthew was much more verbally engaging toward Mr. Reale than the other children. This appears age appropriate, given Matthew is the oldest of the children that attended the visit. Matthew inquired a few times about things Mr. Reale brought to the visit For example, asking he asked what the I Pad was and did. He also asked engaging questions about the coins Mr. Reale brought the children from his trip to Guatemala. At one point in the visit, Matthew told Mr. Reale that he is going to camp. He expressed disinterest in going and stated he did not want to meet new people. Mr. Reale responded by supporting Matthew’s people skills. Matthew initiated conversations with Mr. Reale even when Mr. Reale was engaging with the other children. Matthew did not appear upset by Mr. Reale attending to the other children; however he did seem to want Mr. Reale to continuously know he was there and interested.

07/29/2011 Attorney Advocate for the Guardian Ad Litem MELLONEE KENNEDY filed Motion for Review and Motion to Show Cause ordering Ronald to appear and show cause, why he should not be held in contempt for violating an order of the court as pertains to his Website. The Order was entered by JUDGE JANE GRAY on June 15, 2011. Hearing set for August 24, 2011.

08/04/2011 Stephen, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin were separated for the first time in their lives; placed in 3 separate Foster Homes with strangers. Matthew was relocated to a new Foster Home to join Benjamin, while Hannah & Sarah, and Stephen & Joseph were also paired-up for this transition.

08/10/2011 Ronald and Debra visit with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (fifteenth visit, second visit with Ronald and Debra together). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 413 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $2,090.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

08/10/2011 County Attorney AL SINGER filed a Motion for Review to address a modification to visitation with respect to both parents and their minor children. Previous Motion for Review filed on June 27, 2011 withdrawn. Hearing set for August 24, 2011.

08/11/2011 WCHS assembled a TDM to discuss the status of the existing Permanency Plan. WCHS indicated that they “may” be in favor of the existing plan with “a few additions.” The parents Ronald and Debra prefer a Permanency Plan that involves the entire family.

08/15/2011 Ronald filed a Response to Guardian Ad Litem’s Motion for Review and Motion to Show Cause with regard to the allegation that Ronald was in violation of a court order entered by JUDGE JANE GRAY on June 15, 2011. Hearing set for August 24, 2011.

08/15/2011 Ronald filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with The North Carolina Court of Appeals, challenging JUDGE JANE GRAY’S Order with regard to Ronald’s Website.

08/16/2011 Ronald and Debra visit with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (sixteenth visit, third visit with Ronald and Debra together). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 419 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $2,232.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

08/23/2011 Ronald and Debra visit with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (seventeenth visit, fourth visit with Ronald and Debra together). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 426 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $2,375.00. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

08/24/2011 Ronald and Debra attended a hearing with regard to the County Attorney’s motion to review visitation, the Guardian Ad Litem’s motion to “show cause” pursuant to the violation of JUDGE JANE GRAY’S Order with respect to this “Website,” and Ronald’s oral motion to address Custody and the failure to implement the permanency plan from the last hearing. JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN did not render a decision on any of the matters, after a 4 hour hearing. JUDGE MONICA BOUSMAN did threaten jail time “indefinitely” if she finds me in Contempt! See the following: RALEIGH FATHER LOCKED-UP… FOR EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH! FATHER REFUSES TO MODIFY WEBSITE!

08/30/2011 Ronald and Debra visit with Matthew, Hannah, Sarah, Joseph, and Benjamin (eighteenth visit, fifth visit with Ronald and Debra together). Stephen is still withheld from visits. 433 days and counting… Cost $142.50; Running total $2,517.50. Still no so-called Therapy??? More like a Profit center, a cash machine, a real goldmine!

To Be Continued… 

Back to Welcome Page…

---