WIDELY USED FAMILY COURT PSYCHOLOGIST, DR. DONALD HIEBEL, ACCUSED OF AFFAIR WITH CLIENT 30 YEARS YOUNGER, ACCEPTS MASSAGES FROM ANOTHER!

In a complaint filed on November 3, 2014, Dr. Donald Hiebel, a psychologist and a major proponent of a controversial theory known as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), is accused of conducting an affair with a female client 30 years his junior. 


Dr. Donald Hiebel is affiliated with Roeder and Polansky Family and Child Associates located in Middletown, CT  and also has a private office in West Hartford. The client, designated as "Jane Doe" received psychotherapy from Dr. Donald Hiebel from January 21, 2013 until approximately July 9, 2013.

According to the Complaint, from January to July 2013, Dr. Donald Hiebel provided psychotherapy for Jane Doe in order to assist her in obtaining shared custody of her minor son and to help her with emotional and psychological problems.  Then in the summer and fall of 2013, Dr. Hiebel and his patient, Jane Doe, began to spend a considerable amount of time together.  Dr. Hiebel told Jane Doe that he intended to divorce his wife so he and the client could be together.  During that time they had several sexual encounters in Dr. Hiebel's West Hartford office, at Heibel's homes and also other locations. 

Further, according to the complaint, Dr. Donald Hiebel advised Jane Doe to break up with her boyfriend at the time who was paying for her apartment, her mental health fees, as well as her attorney fees.  Then Dr. Hiebel borrowed $5,000.00 from a friend and used that money to pay all of Jane Doe's living expenses.  This money was funneled through his company, Roeder and Polansky Family and Child Associates checking account and corporate credit card.  When Jane Doe considered having therapy with another mental health professional, Dr. Hiebel advised against it.

As a consequence of this alleged inappropriate sexual relationship, Jane Doe is claiming that she has suffered various damages including "shock, mistrust of medical professionals, extreme emotional disturbance, hospitalizations, instability, humiliation, emotional devastations, and extreme emotional disturbance."  She also ended up losing custody of her son.  As a result, she complains that she will be "forced to expend sums of money for additional custody litigation and medical care."

Even more shocking is that Dr. Donald Hiebel's business partner, Dr. Keith Roeder, was aware of this relationship and advised Jane Doe to hide relationship from the father of her child.  The Complaint alleges that Dr. Keith Roeder "advised Doe to show the child's father a former apartment rather than her current apartment that she shared with Hiebel."  Eventually, in January 2014, when Dr. Hiebel decided to return to his wife, Jane Doe became extremely upset and was eventually hospitalized. 


Dr. Donald Hiebel's wife, Navarre Hiebel, apparently filed for divorce in May 2014, but withdrew the complaint, possibly when it became clear that the affair was truly over.

A consultant hired to evaluate the case records regarding Dr. Donald Hiebel and Jane Doe provided an initial opinion that there "appeared to be multiple gross lapses of professional judgment and standards of care on the part of Dr. Donald Hiebel and his associate, Dr. Keith Roeder" in the conduct of psychotherapy with Jane Doe.  This includes on Dr. Hiebel's part a lack of proper documentation of Jane Doe's record, concealing the fact that Jane Doe had a history of substance abuse, as well as possibly filing fraudulent reports to the Court in regard to her custody matter.

Another troubling aspect of the relationship Jane Doe had with Dr. Donald Hiebel is that apparently Jane Doe assisted Dr. Hiebel in his practice typing his reports on other patients, noting down his voicemail messages, as well as other tasks.  In fact, during her meeting with the consultant, Jane Doe stated that "she still had a box of records from [Dr. Hiebel's] office in the trunk of her car--including the records of an individual who had sued Dr. Hiebel..." 


The Complaint also details a relationship Dr. Donald Hiebel maintained with another woman, a friend of Jane Doe's, and a former patient of Dr. Hiebel, who provided massages to Dr. Hiebel in exchange for coaching assistance in her custody matter.  The consultant report states that Dr. Donald Hiebel and this friend "vacationed together and spent some holidays together as well (Christmas)."

Jane Doe is currently being represented by Attorney Leslie Gold McPadden of Biller, Sachs, Raio & Zito in Hamden, CT  06518.  Clearly, Attorney McPadden has the strength of character and toughness required to take on this most difficult case.

Dr. Donald Hiebel is one of the most beloved, trusted, and highly respected psychologists in family court today.  In fact, when Jane Doe was advised to work with Dr. Hiebel, she was told that he "is like a God before the Court." Judges and attorneys have regularly requested Dr. Hiebel's services for co-parenting management as well as custody related mental health treatments and evaluations.  They have done this despite the fact that multiple family court litigants over the years have complained vociferously about his unprofessional behavior and incompetent treatment. 

Further, Despite the fact that many of these litigants have submitted formal complaints to the Department of Public Health, these complaints have been consistently ignored and summarily dismissed.  One can only speculate what harm and damage might have been avoided for many current and former clients of Dr. Hiebel had the Department of Public Health taken these complaints seriously. 

In this past year, a considerable group of family court litigants gathered together in a reform movement to fight the corruption and fraud they experienced in family court.  Reporters who then spoke to attorneys, GALs and Connecticut Judicial Branch representatives were told that the problem was that these litigants had mental health issues. 


This case of Dr. Donald Hiebel, which represents only the tip of the iceberg in regard to the complete lack of professional ethics among family court professionals, really forces us to raise the question:  When it comes to family court who really has the mental health issues?  Certainly not the mothers and fathers or children who have been the victims of these kinds of predators. 


I also think it is important to reflect on how the Family Court in Connecticut, let alone elsewhere, is understanding information provided by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals.  These people are certainly well educated in the field of behavioral health, but they are by no means Gods, not a single one of them.  They themselves, if asked, and that is the crucial factor, i.e. that they ARE asked, will acknowledge that the field of mental health has many limitations and they have very little ability or qualifications to make definitive statements about the family court litigants they evaluate.  Until family court judges and attorneys fully grasp this fact, they will continue to harm many parents and children by subjecting them to  corrupt mental health professionals who arrogantly go well beyond their professional knowledge in making statements to the Court regarding these folks for which they have no basis in either fact or science.

JINGLE BELLS AND PARENTING HELL: DIVORCE DURING THE HOLIDAYS!

I was just talking to an attorney a few days ago about some minor legal work I need done.  He was really interested in moving forward, but he said, "We are going to have to wait until January because the Family Court is now dealing with litigants coming in with complaints. 

It seems that parents don't know how to divide up their time with the kids during the holidays.  As my attorney put it, "They [parents] say they care about the best interests of the children, but when it comes to figuring out on their own how to handle the holidays fairly, they can't do it!  And the problem is," he said, "We only have so many judges to deal with these issues, so they will all be too busy for the next two months."  I'm like, "Right, that sounds correct to me!"


What I don't mention is what I know to be a fact--that this is a standard tactic abusive fathers utilize to launch ongoing attacks against protective mothers. 

Let me tell you how it is all supposed to happen, but does not.  Once you file for divorce, you are supposed to establish a parenting plan without a few months of filing.  The form you should use to do this is JD-FM-183 and the link for that is below:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/fm183.pdf


The form asks you to agree on basic issues such as who will have residential custody during the period prior to divorce (the pendente lite period), how visitation will be conducted, what are the drop off pick up arrangements, what will child support be, how will medical costs be paid, and how will you handle child care. 

Item #2 of this form specifically asks how the parents intend to handle holidays and school vacations. 

Still, despite the very clear mandate to settle the matter of how to handle holidays and school vacations, parents in high conflict divorce inevitably fail to answer that question and include it in their parenting agreement. 

So why does this kind of omission occur? 

Often, the attorneys involved deliberately omit the provision for holidays and school vacations as a way to stir up conflict and generate more income.  Attorneys get away with this because they will set up the agreement well before the holiday season or vacation, well before the people involved in the case begin to think about what is going to happen during the holidays and notice the omission.
 

So this particular kind of evil scheming takes considerable foresight and prior planning!   

More attorney's fees get generated by fights over who gets the children during holidays and school vacations than get generated by any of the more crucial matters such as who gets custody or who gets the mansion in the country. 

It is remarkable how many abusive men are able to dupe their ex wives into agreeing to parenting plans without holiday and school vacation provisions.  Then they will rigidly refuse to allow their exes to see their children during those times.  It is a way to exercise power and control over these mothers and imply to such mothers that father runs family court behind the scenes--which often they do.  This is how an abusive father will demonstrate to protective mothers how such mothers are completely powerless and will never have a chance to participate in their children's lives. 

You would think dealing with this kind of issue would be a no-brainer, and that the GALs involved in these cases would simply tell the offending fathers to do the right thing and arrange for their ex-wives to see the children, particularly during Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

Instead,  the majority of them act dumb and say they have no power and can do nothing about it, despite the fact that they almost have sole decision making regarding who gets custody of the children and this  gives them tremendous moral authority, even though they may not be able to file motions with the Court. 

Routinely, litigants in family court see examples of how GALs, attorneys, and judges simply ignore a situation where abusive fathers deny mothers access to their children during holidays and school vacations and don't consider it of any consequence. 

I know you would think that judges seeing fathers refuse to allow the children to see their mothers during major holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas would automatically recognize that as abuse.  Instead, judges routinely ignore the underlying message of the abuse of power and control that underpins cases of this kind.  What is more, Courts appear to give fathers a free ticket to abuse further.

This is not say that women don't fight back because they do file motions asking for access during the holidays and school vacations.  However, the vast majority of attorneys will not defend a mother's right to see her children during these times.  And they almost knowingly allow the opportunity for action on provisions in regard to the holidays and school vacations to slip by them during negotiations over parenting plans. 

In my case, during the first year of my divorce, the attorneys gave my ex husband every last school vacation and every major holiday without any explanation and simply ignored me when I complained. 

I believe that if they actually did a survey, this happens to the vast majority of women in high conflict divorce and the quiet understandings that allow these situations to continue are part of the pro father environment in which such divorces take place.  

I am writing this blog now because I know that there are hundreds of mothers across the state who are facing circumstances like this. 

No, you will not be allowed to see your children at Thanksgiving or at Christmas.  Yes, this is a barbaric circumstance which exposes the stupidity of family court far more than any other example I could think of.  

It is ridiculous because how could any good father thinking about the best interests of the children perpetrate such wrong doing. 

It is ridiculous because how could any GAL ever imagine that denying children access to their mother over the holidays is in the least bit in their best interests. 

And it is ridiculous because attorneys and judges do not lift a finger to stop this situation from occurring. 

People ask me all the time how could this be?  They ask me why the local media doesn't expose this wrongdoing.  They ask me how a court system that is supposed to be about justice and the truth and the best interests of children could allow it. 

All I have to respond to such questions is a stolid silence, because the truth is that nobody cares at all. 

Attorneys make tons of money receiving and sending correspondence about the issue. 

Judges attend to the small minority of such cases that make it to court and clog the system during November and December.  Doing so gives them an excuse to tell State Legislators, "We have an enormous workload, and there aren't enough Judges available!"

But no one is willing to stop the money train and sanction attorneys who fail to fill out the paperwork properly; no GAL is willing to turn to a warring couple and say the parent who reaches out first and establishes a reasonable agreement regarding holidays and school vacations is the parent I am more likely to consider for residential custody of the children. 

If they did, this merry go round would stop immediately. 

As I was researching this topic, I looked up a few terms.  One of them I consider pertinent designates the Chinese form of execution known as "the death of a thousand cuts."  I can recall one of my attorneys had a flicker of recognition regarding what I was going through and used that term to describe my experience.

The death of a thousand cuts, slow slicing (or lingchi) is a method of execution in which slices of flesh are systematically removed from the body of the condemned.  For a protective mother, each vacation she misses, each holiday without her children represents another slice taken from her flesh. 

All it would take to stop this travesty from happening would be for the Family Court to enforce the law, for attorneys who are, after all, Commissioners of the Family Courts, to enforce the law.  So why aren't they doing so?

 

ATTORNEY SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SHARED PARENTING!

WHERE VICTIMS ARE TREATED LIKE CRIMINALS: REFLECTIONS OF A FAMILY COURT ADVOCATE ON A DAY IN CRIMINAL COURT!

Last week I had my first experience of going to criminal court with a friend whose ex-husband rammed her car.  "This will not be a problem", she said in her heavily accented voice, "I am the victim." 


My friend, whom I will call Anya, is of Ukrainian extraction.  Of course, as a long time person who has participated in family court proceedings I do not consider anything at all "not a problem"--any time you appear in Court, any kind of Court, guilty or innocent you have a problem and, in my opinion, no matter what you are going in for, you have to be on high alert the moment you walk through the door until you leave. 

Criminal Court is an enormous concrete monstrosity located at 101 Lafayette Street in downtown Hartford.  It has none of the 1920s Herculean charm of the Civil Court located right across the way at 95 Washington, Street.  Once I arrived there, I had to walk up a very steep set of stairs to a common area where litigants, their relatives and supporters, sat around waiting for the Court Proceedings to begin.  Anya was sitting there with her folder of documents and it wasn’t long before a mutual friend of ours, Collette, appeared as well.   

Together, Anya, Collette, and I went down the massive staircase and walked over to the Office of the Victim’s Advocate to find out what was going to happen.  This Office was located in the same place as the Prosecutor’s Office and appeared to be abandoned.  However, we were able to find a single secretary who was able to locate Anya’s Victim’s Advocate.  We will call him Bill.  We asked Bill, what is going to happen during the proceedings today.  He didn’t seem to know for sure so he told us he would check with the prosecutor and meet us back upstairs. 
 

While he was off doing that, I thought about Anya’s situation which had brought her to Court today.  Like many abused women, Anya had been legally hounded through the Family Court system to the point where her ex had seized custody of the children and had her placed on supervised visitation despite the fact that she is a perfectly fit mother. 


Despite the supervised visitation, she had arranged by email to speak to her children after school.  So she parked her car outside the school building.  The kids were standing there with their bicycles waiting to speak to her as she started to cross the street.  Then the Father sped around the corner, his car at high speed and rammed into her car, thoroughly totaling it. 
 

His excuse?
 

He said that he thought Anya was intending to grab the children and flee the country.  These are kids who were born and brought up in this Country to a mother who now has absolutely no money after years of being in family court.  She is going to flee?  What—no seriously—she’s going to pack the kid’s bicycles in the trunk of the car and flee without money? 

Be that as it may, I can think of several better ways to stop an ex-wife from fleeing the country if you seriously believe that is what she is doing.  For example, you might want to check with your attorney or report her to the authorities.

Anyway, finally Bill, the Victim’s Advocate, returned and Anya, Collette and I huddled in a circle while Bill explained what was going to happen.   He stated it was agreed that Anya’s ex was at fault and the only question was the nature of the penalty. 


Bill explained that Anya would have an opportunity to speak to the judge and state her wishes and the opposing side would present any mitigating factors they believed should affect the extent of the penalty.  I asked Bill whether he would be assisting Anya in making her statement.  Bill said no he couldn’t do that because Anya has an attorney.  I said, as far as I know she does not have any attorney.  Bill insisted that Anya had an attorney. 
 

You probably, my reader, figure I should have stopped there and believed what an Officer of the Court had to say.  But, no, I don’t believe what any Officer of the Court says ever, ever, ever.  It is sad but these people misrepresent the facts all the time so you can never believe them.  I said, “If Anya has an attorney, then where is she?  Did your offices forget to inform her that there was a hearing today?”  I also said, “If Anya has an attorney, could you get the file for the case and show us a copy of the appearance for that attorney?”  Bill insisted, “There is an appearance for an attorney in the file.  I saw it.”  “Well, then," I said, "you shouldn’t have any problem going and getting it.”  For a while he stood there insisting we didn't have to see it.

Eventually, Bill went in to see the prosecutor and brought him out to see us.  The prosecutor acknowledged that there was no appearance for any attorney in the file.  He continued on to state that since it wasn’t correct to proceed without an attorney, he would request a continuance and that the judge was very likely going to grant such a continuance.  He wanted to know if that was acceptable to Anya.  She said yes.  Once the prosecutor had left, Collette turned to me and said, “Honestly, the likelihood is that the prosecutor has already cut a deal and the decision has already been made. This hearing is simply a formality.  Nothing is truly at stake.”   I took that in without comment.  I’d just bet that an extremely high number of Court hearings have a similarly predetermined outcome.

The Court convened and my friend, Anya, stood before the judge with Bill, the Victim’s Advocate, at her side.  The prosecutor immediately explained that there was no attorney appearance filed in the case and since Anya was here without an attorney, the prosecutor asked the judge to grant a continuance.  The judge immediately nixed the idea of a continuance and said why would you need one?  The issue of guilt or innocence is not under dispute.  “We are only determining what the penalty should be.” said the Judge, “I think you [Anya] will do a perfectly fine job of expressing yourself without any need for an attorney.” 

I’m like so much for the idea that there was an understanding that there was going to be a continuance.  It felt like a deliberate deception—the kind of bait and switch I see so frequently in family court.  We had been told there was going to be a continuance, and suddenly it wasn’t on the table anymore.  Did this shift really make a difference in the scheme of things?  Maybe not.  But it is all part of a system that acts in a peremptory and unreliable manner and then blames litigants when they object.
 

To start the opposing side presented its case asking for a lenient penalty.  The attorney went into detail about how Anya’s ex was afraid that Anya was intending to flee the country.  I found that extremely insulting.  As I sat there, it felt as though Anya, who was indeed the victim in this case, (and that was confirmed since her ex was convicted and this was just the penalty phase of the case) was somehow being transformed into a perpetrator. 

The prosecutor then spoke up and mentioned that the case emerged from a high conflict divorce and that family court had five boxes of files on the case.  Again, I felt as though Anya, who was, in fact, the victim in the case, was being treated like the perpetrator.  The fact that her divorce case was high conflict, the prosecutor seemed to imply, was somehow Anya’s fault and detracted from her right to justice. 

The victim’s advocate and the prosecutor said nothing whatsoever about the property damage, nothing about the emotional damage to Anya, nothing about her exes subsequent verbal abuse, and nothing about the harm to the children who were there to observe the whole incident.  Lastly, the opposing attorney stated that her client had not intentionally rammed the back of Anya’s car, but that he was unable to locate his brake.  At that a titter of laughter spread through the audience of largely African-American, Hispanic and poor men and women sitting in the gallery. They were the last people to believe an explanation as stupid as all that.

Finally, Anya had the opportunity to speak.  She spoke about how her ex had committed similar acts of abuse before.  She went into the details of the crime, speaking about how witnesses heard the wheels of her exe’s car squeal loudly because he sped so quickly around the corner on his way to hitting her car.  But the judge was too impatient to hear it.  Even though he had assured Anya he would listen to what she had to say right to the end, after five minutes the judge was done and said, “Fine, fine, I get your point.  I think we are through here.”  Bill quickly jumped in and said, “I think what Anya is trying to say here, your honor, is that she does not agree with any leniency.” as if finally catching up on the fact that he was supposed to be on her side.

At that point, the judge issued his decision which was that Anya’s ex would have a restraining order against him for the next two years.  “May I approach, your honor?” said the opposing attorney.  The opposing attorney, the judge and the prosecutor went into a huddle that excluded Anya for several minutes.  Finally, it broke up and in a firm and hostile manner, the judge said to Anya, “I do not want to hear that you have deliberately gone close to your ex to force him into violating the restraining order.”  Again, I felt like saying, “Who is the victim here?”

After the hearing was over, we walked down the steps on our way out the building.  I was talking non-stop because I was so appalled by what I had seen and heard.  “You said that they understood that you were a victim, but I don’t call that being treated like a victim.” 

I explained to Anya that if I were a victim, this entire atmosphere would have completely traumatized me.  During the entire time we were there, I didn’t once hear the Victim’s Advocate express any concern about Anya’s well being or ask her how she felt or whether she needed anything to feel comfortable.  Instead, I heard absurd theories about Anya’s intention to flee the country, unjustified suspicions that Anya would set her ex up to be arrested, and I heard Anya’s pain invalidated simply because she is a victim of a high conflict divorce.  On top of that the Victim's Advocate treated Anya deceitfully and told her she was represented by an attorney when, in fact, that wasn't true.

In the end, I found it surprising that no one was willing to consider the bottom line in all these abuse cases here in Connecticut.  What Anya’s ex had done was a part of a pattern of bullying behavior that had been going on for a long time.  How was it possible that Anya was the parent still on supervised visitation?  Who could possibly trust the judgment of a man who had seen fit to ram his car into the Mother’s car while his kids were watching?  How could any responsible agency leave these children in his care?  For irrational, irresponsible actions like this you only have to direct your attention to our Connecticut Family Court for your answer!   

JOSEPH VISCONTI'S POSITION ON JUDICIAL REFORM!

I would have liked to establish what every politician's position is in regard to judicial reform, but Joe Visconti is the only one among all the candidates running for Governor who appears to have issued one.  So for everyone's information I am publishing it below.  Needless to say, I am fully in support of his position and commend him for speaking out:

Judicial Reform: Access to Justice

The heartbreaking stories about our probate, family, and foreclosure (civil) court systems are countless as the lives and rights of our children, parents, grandparents and those who have left us continue to be impacted by a court system rife with conflicts of interest, waste and indifference.
Recently Joe addressed the Supreme Court and asked how a foreclosure mill attorney can sit on the benchmark committee, which sets the rules for the foreclosure process.


Our probate system was recently given a sobering assessment by Forbes, stating it was riddled with conflicts of interest and antiquated procedures.
Lastly, the family court system has resulted in horror stories about exploitation and ethical lapses in the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) system that have made thousands of parents realize there is no justice to be found.


We can do better and Joe will demand reforms of the judicial system that must adhere to the letter and spirit of justice for all.  To help correct these problems Joe will create a Governor’s Task Force that will seek to:

• Identify conflict of interest and potential for collusion between judges, lawyers, and law firms.
• Improve the process to remedy complaints within the judicial system.
• Recommend changes to provide pro se parties the same access to the judicial process that is granted to those who can afford legal representation.  This includes allowing subpoena power and forensic analysis of documents.
• Reverse the lawyerization of the court system by expanding the role of judges in pro se litigation.

IS THE HARTFORD COURANT MANIPULATING THE NEWS? JOE VISCONTI AND DANI MCEVOY SPEAK UP ON THE SUBJECT!

NORM PATTIS MAKES COGENT REMARKS ON CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS IN JUVENILE COURT!

NORM PATTIS ASKS:

"Whose Best Interest Served in Child Custody Cases?

There are secret courts operating in our midst, and I am not referring to those tribunals whose focus is national security. I’m talking about something more basic and closer to home. I’m talking about our juvenile courts, where the fate of children is sometimes determined.

Consider the case of Jane Doe and John Doe, two Connecticut parents stuck in Kafkaesque proceedings. They are in the midst of a divorce. They have three children. Those children are now in foster care, and it is not clear when the parents will again have the right to raise them as they see fit. In fact, it is not even clear when the father will even get to see his children again."

For the full content of this article, please click on the link below:


http://www.pattisblog.com/index.php?article=Whose_Best_Interest_Served_in_Child_Custody_Cases__6683