Subject: A Letter to My Attorney and GAL

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 00:52:56 GMT

I just faxed this....

February 27, 1993

Carol A. Wright, Esq.
7100 North High Street, Suite 209
Worthington, Ohio 43085
Bus #: 848-4140
FAX #: 885-1783

Steve Daulton, Esq.
Bus #: 224-1222
FAX #: 224-1236

Carol and Steve,

Well I had my companionship time, or parenting time with my sons today
-- via Cathy Wayne's agency and a witness named Debbie Walsh or Welch, I
forget. However, the agency could not come up with anyone for Sunday,
and I asked Andrea about my Sunday time with my sons and she refused to
discuss it, after flatly stating, "No, the visit will not take
place."

I missed six regularly scheduled visits with them in the last six weeks
-- mostly the weekday visits -- all allegedly due to illnesses. Two of
those were made up. Then Andrea pulls the "pay to see your children"
rabbit out of her hat, again. And all y'all can say, is "Hey, you
agreed to it."

Well fine. I also agreed that all scheduled time with my children that
is missed due to Andrea or an illness of the children should be made
up. What about that? Will they be? Is Andrea perfectly in the right
when she denies me the visit on Sunday because the agency cannot do it,
and because I couldn't come up with anyone brave enough to be roped
into this deal after being given 48 hours notice?

I'm finally burned out on this whole deal. I got screwed to the gills
by one of the most manipulative, dishonest women to ever get a divorce.
Why? Well, to put it simply, gender discrimination. I can't afford to
keep running up tabs that I have to pay completely.

Until the next child support order is changed, my child support is and
has been, for over a year, $1038 per month. But, because I got paid for
some overtime last year and because I worked a whole year at $22.90 per
hour, I made more money. And the daycare raised its prices. Add it all
up and I get the child support amount deducted from my pay changed to
$1144 -- an increase of $106 per month. Then, we add in the $200 per
month deduction for the GAL/PI/evaluation/witness and my new deduction
amount is $1344 -- net.

According to the latest order, an additional $100 is taken from Andrea.
Yeah, right.  My base CS goes up $106 per month, but you take $100 away
from her. No, the court took nothing away from her. The court increased
her CS, what she receives, by $6 per month. Mine went up $306. And then
you tell me, "Hey, she has to pay her share." Right. And all bears in
the woods are constipated.

I have been living on $760 every two weeks ($1646 per month) take home
pay for over a year. This will now be reduced the difference of $1344
and $1038 (306). So now, I have to live on $618 every two weeks ($1340
per month). Because the bill to be paid by the deductions is currently
at approximately $4500 (including the PI bill), and estimating a low,
low, low -- extremely conservative evaluation bill at $1500, the total
bill to be paid would be approximately $6000, with NO payments for a
witness for me to see my children. That means that I am looking at 2
years of these deductions. The total time I am scheduled to see my
sons is 50 hours per month (roughly 7% of the month (somehow it was
argued to me that this was "more" than Rule 25's 21% of the year -- and
that is why I had to give up one weeknight visit every other week at
the last court date)). At the $8.90 per hour rate of this latest
agency, the GAL/PI/eval/witness bill would increase by $445 per month.
Over a year, that would add an additional $5340 to the bill, and,
therefore, another two years to the deductions from my pay.

So, I cannot afford to pay anyone to see my sons. And, after today, I
will not pay anyone to see my sons. I don't care if it is minimum
wage. The bills have to start decreasing and I have to get out from
under this cloud of debt.

Does this mean that I don't want to see my sons? You know, in your
hearts, the answer to that one. My sons are more dear to me than
anything. I will have to try alternative avenues of approach. For one,
I am requesting, for the umpteenth time, and I will not be dissuaded
from this again, that my parents both file for grandparents'
visitation rights. The Supreme Court of the US has affirmed that their
visitation rights should be granted. I know Andrea will try to make
them out to be evil villains. That's her ploy. Who cares? They're not,
and everyone who knows them knows they are NOT. (Hell, everyone who
knows me knows that I'm not the person she tries to make me out to be.)
The US Supreme Court has affirmed that grandparents' access rights
should be granted. I guess I'll get to see them when my parents do, at
the very least.

Maybe I'll be able to find some brave sole who will go with me when I
see my children. I will look, ask, beg, plead. I've found this is not
easy. Everyone and their sibling fears Andrea. They see what she has
been able to do to me. These innocent people don't want to lose: 1)
their visitation rights to their children, 2) their children, 3) their
good reputations, 4) their livelihoods, 5) a great deal of money
defending themselves, or 6) their current life-style. 50 hours per
month would be a major burden for anyone, and if I spread the load
around, which I will endeavor to do, I risk alienation for demands put
upon many people. You cannot imagine what it is like to have to beg
people to give up many of their own personal hours to help me to simply
have a relationship with my children. And, when I cannot promise them
that it will be short term, that makes it even harder. After all, when
we were in court in August and September, I accepted the "deal" because
I assumed that everything was going in place then, immediately. I
assumed that the psychological evaluation and "determination of this
family's dysfunction" would quickly put an end to this travesty. Now,
here it is, six months later, and neither of us has met with Dr. David
Tannenbaum, whom I did not want to do this evaluation (a forensic
psychologist specializing in sexual deviants, a person to whom
Children's Services sends their "substantiated" cases for "treatment"
and collection of further evidence seems like a real objective person
to do an evaluation, eh?) Even when I reveal, "Hey, one of my friends,
a man with a Ph.D., is going to sue Dr. Tannenbaum for incompetence,"
it's still him. Well, at least he has the same background as Dr. Elissa
Benedek, president of the American Psychological Association, so
maybe he will be a good choice. I don't know.

Steve, you tell me that, if I didn't do what Andrea alleged, then,
yeah, I've been royally screwed in this divorce. Well, for the
umpteenth time, I didn't do it. So, yes, I have been royally screwed.
Drs. Richard Gardner, Timothy Campbell, Gordon Blush, Elissa Benedek,
Lee Coleman, Lawrence Spiegel, Arthur Green, William McIver, Margretta
Dwyer, Alayne Yates, Diane Schetky, Domeena Renshaw, Graham Jeambey,
Leroy Schultz, Ralph Underwager, Hollida Wakefield and lay and
professional experts Kim Hart, Karol Ross, Sunny Burmeister, Doug
Besharov, Jay Milano, Peter Firpo, Dean Tong, David Levy and many, many
other well-respected objectivists have asserted that the vast majority
of these allegations that arise in custody/visitation disputed divorce
cases are not only false, they are malicious (80% quoted by Under-
wager and Wakefield). They also have discovered that 75% of the mothers
making these allegations are also borderline psychotic personalities.

It is interesting that the number of substantiated cases of child
sexual abuse, based on police files, is around 50,000 in the entire US
per year. Yet, according to Franklin County Children's Services, we
have 8,000 to 10,000 substantiations a year in this county. Hmmmm....
National magazines and newspapers have reported in the last year that
sexual abuse allegations against the father now come up in 20-33% of
all custody dispute divorces. What's wrong with this picture?

The state, in sitting on its hands and thinking that it is protecting
children in divorce cases such as this, is rewarding psychotic,
malicious and pathological behavior on the part of the accusers. The
state, the courts, the psychology profession and the officers of the
court, entrusted to sort out the mess and do the right thing for
everyone, not to WIN for clients or maintain the misandrist status quo,
when they reward such behavior, are doing what is in the worst
interests of children.

That is very much the case in this divorce, with its allegations.
Andrea threatened me a week before she made these allegations when I
told her the child endangerment charges were going to be dismissed (one
of the signs of a person making false allegations is numerous other
allegations) -- one week before standard parenting time and rules were
to be enacted by the GAL, you, Steve. (A big thing to consider with
these allegations is timing. The allegations, made against men with no
history of sexual deviancy, very often come up at significant times.
The thing that the accuser is asking you to buy into is this: the
accused person, with no history of abuse, all of a sudden, in the
midst of very public scrutiny (the divorce and custody dispute), while
having the accused's (the vast majority of which are men) parenting
skills called into question for months (the accuser has to build this
history that didn't exist previously), in the quest for sole custody,
which numerous comprehensive and objective studies have asserted is not
in the best interests of children unless one parent is TRULY abusive,
this accused person, while being so challenged, prodded and scruti-
nized, takes up child molestation as a hobby. That doesn't strike you
as odd?)

At the encouragement of a psychology profession run amuck, a children's
services system that cares little about children, but cares everything
about future funding, and because of the ignorance of the officers of
the courts that are supposed to be conscientious and informed on such
matters, but are, unfortunately, elected or appointed and therefore
only have to meet minimal requirements for the job (qualified), these
cases serve to destroy innocent people, and reward criminal behavior on
the part of the person making the allegations. The accuser (usually
Mom) gets everything, the accused (Dad) gets destroyed -- and there is
little that can be done about it. But, what tragedy is this? Well, if
you are a misandrist, a person, such a Referee Don Martin, who believes
that mothers should be the sole custodial parent unless Mom wants Dad
to be involved in the children's lives, or unless the mother is
unequivocally unqualified to be a parent, it is NO tragedy. It is
merely a means to an end.

After stating that, I'd like to reveal some things .... First of all,
the following is a verbatim quote, intact, of a post a woman made to
USENET not long ago.

>Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>Path: cbnewsk!att!linac!uwm.edu!wupost!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!serval!crow.csrv.uidaho.edu!janl
>From: [email-masked] (Jan Lambert)
>Subject: Responsibility for half...
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>Keywords: shared custody
>Sender: [email-masked] (USENET News System)
>Organization: Washington State University
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
>Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:40:50 GMT
>Lines: 40
>
>surely it has been my experience (and the experiences of xxfoxx
>close friends of mine) that "s hared custody" is not in the best
>interests of the child. Such "shared" children are treated as
>property, things, prizes in the game of "gotcha" between two
>people who cannot, for one reason or another, tolerate the
>sight of each other in the first place. "Shared" children I
>have had experience with are subjected to abuses such as
>administration of foods the child is allergic to (causing
>the child to be severely ill while in the custody of the
>other parent), arbitrary changing of bedtimes, denial of
>activities the other parent has given active support to the
>child's participation in, and refusal to return the child
>to the other parent when the time arrives to do so. The child
>is forced to go to the other parent whether he/she wants to or
>not, and proof xxfxx of child abuse by a medical doctor has
>been ignored by the courts on the grounds that the child
>cannot "tell" what is happening to him or her.
>
>I am strongly against shared custody for the above-stated
>reasons, and have more reasons if anyone cares to ask.
>
>As for the mother (usually the CP) having to bear half the
>cost of child raising, it has also been my experience (both in
>the case of raising my own son, and the cases of my single-mother
>friends who are raising children) that a greater percentage of
>OUR income goes into raising the child than does the father's.
>However, we have preferred this inequity to having to hassle
>with said fathers' presence in our lives. In an oft-quoted
>truism of the '70's "if you take their money, you have to take
>their shit, too." We preferred to be left alone in peace to
>raise our children rather than try to rectify the financial
>inequity and see our children suffer abuse, and to having to
>take more abuse ourselves.
> 
>--
>Email to: [email-masked]
> if that doesn't work, try [email-masked]
> My computer bytes back...but only in little bits.
> ([email-masked]..)

It's the politically correct rhetoric of the 90s. Men are bad.

You know, I can't recall when I've seen someone express Andrea's
beliefs so succinctly. This is just the kind of attitude of empowered
and controlling mothers who believe they are the default sole custodial
parent after a divorce, how having a different bedtime for the
children is a sign of the other parent's evil disregard for the child,
how her hysteria in making abuse allegations against the father has
been challenged by professionals who wouldn't go along with her version
of things (this mother must have run up against someone who had been
around the block a couple of times) (e.g., "proof xxfxx of child abuse
by a medical doctor has been ignored by the courts on the grounds that
the child cannot `tell' what is happening to him or her"), how the
other child got "severely ill" in the other parent's presence, solely
because of the other parent's stupidity, etc. Most of these mothers,
the ones who demand control and insist that everything be done their
way, and that they get everything, will stoop to making such
allegations when pressed. And just why not? The allegations work in
their favor in the vast majority of cases, and very, very rarely, if
ever, has it cost them one iota.  The only men who can defend
themselves against these heinous allegations are those that either: a)
have a lot of resources, knowledge and money, or b) those who benefit
from court or professional people in positions of authority to do the
right thing, for the children.

You cannot understand how vile Andrea's actions have been in regards to
my and children and to me -- long before this divorce started, how much
they and I have had to tolerate, and how viciously she has attacked me
at every opportunity -- using them as pawns in her quest to hurt me.
This from a woman who idolizes Dr. Elizabeth Morgan. Yes, Dr.
Elizabeth Morgan, a woman who photographed her daughter with crayons
and spoons stuck inside her vagina to illustrate to the court, "see,
this is what my ex-husband did," a woman who wrote a book, _Custody_,
before she made allegations against her ex-husband in which she stated
(from memory), "Men are all well and good, but they are not for raising
little children," a woman who hired a publicity agent within a month
of the time that she made her allegations. Andrea told me, "Doctor
Morgan is a national hero." With heroes like this, this country is
doomed.

Why have my children and I had to tolerate Andrea's misandry? 

Jack Tarpey, the first doctor who evaluated us for the courts, reported
that Andrea was "generally rigid in her pattern of adjustment,
unreliable as an informer, and unwilling to seek help from others." In
the vernacular, an uncompromising liar who won't do what is in her best
interests. He also stated that she seemed to him to be "an angry,
manipulative individual who, while outwardly conforming, may tend to
express her anger indirectly." For instance, forcing me to pay to see
my children, screwing me in every possible way legally in this divorce.
He went on to say, that on April 28th, 1992, several weeks before
Andrea alleged that I molested my sons, that she stated that "at one
point Mr. Scott Dagenfield had asked her if her husband ever `fondled'
the boys since he (Aaron Hoffmeyer) was sexually immature." On May 14,
1992, after Andrea had made her allegations formally, Dr. Tarpey called
Scott Dagenfield. He writes, "In the conversation with Mr. Dagenfield,
he indicated that he never discussed any fear that Aaron Hoffmeyer may
have fondled or been sexually inappropriate with his sons with Ms.
DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer." Later he states, "one must question the possibility
of [the allegations] being a manifestation of the passive/ aggressive
tendencies noted through her personality testing. ... one must consider
her ongoing behaviors as they may relate to those observed tendencies
within her personality." He wraps up his surmisal with this:

   "A particularly problematic observation stemming from this evaluation
   was the statement by Ms. DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer approximately one month
   before raising sexual abuse allegations against her husband. That
   statement (previously noted) was about concerns of Mr. Scott
   Dagenfield that her husband might behave inappropriately. That Mr.
   Scott Dagenfield categorically denied ever making such a statement
   to Ms.  DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer raises serious questions not only about
   her ability to reliably represent situations in which she is
   involved, but also perhaps about a new scenario she was envisioning
   in this ongoing family drama. If the ongoing placement of these
   young boys in this drama and the active alienation of these boys
   from their father is found to be true, one would have to question
   very seriously Ms. DiSalvo-Hoffmeyer's desire to act in a way that
   is in the best interests of her children.  If, in fact, any of this
   ongoing situation has been at all orchestrated to further her own
   control or position of dominance within this situation, it would
   also raise serious questions about her belief that her children's
   best interests would be satisfied by having a healthy, ongoing
   relationship with their father."

This is the opinion of a man who saw and talked to Andrea, what, a
couple of hours?  So why is this still going on?

Do you think Andrea wants me to have a relationship with my sons -- or
do you believe she accepts that she has to, to keep the child support
reservoir on F? Do you think she takes delight in being able to use the
system to screw me at every turn?

Dr. Tarpey's report was written June 29, 1992 -- fully eight months ago.
What has happened since then? Well, Andrea was given every opportunity
to coach my children for an evaluation by Children's Hospital last
summer. She did just that. My son's statements, excluding non-prompted,
inappropriate statements, described, at worst, their father helping
them after going to the bathroom--wiping my son's butt.  Still, due to
inappropriate responses, Dr. Charles Johnson, after refusing a court
order to videotape his interview with my sons and performing the
interview with only people that were hostile to me present, fills out
the forms stating that abuse was substantiated. The children were never
asked any questions related to coaching. No, "Did someone tell you to
say that?" or "Did your mommy tell you to say that?" The interview was
not a search for the truth, it was a hanging court. Then, in deposi-
tions, Dr. Johnson wilts when told that a private investigator has
revealed that the mother had told numerous lies about this very
allegation. He stated that he NEVER tries to see if the children were
coached, he doesn't know how that can be done. He stated that his
investigation was not to determine if the children had been coached,
his only expertise was in detecting physical signs of abuse. Therefore,
he and his legal team decided they would not ask any questions, the
answers to which, might reveal coaching. Yet, in his original report,
he substantiated with NO signs of abuse.  But, after hearing from you,
Steve, about the reliability of this mother, he stated that he kinda
grades these things on a scale from 1 to 10, where 5 is "don't know,"
10 is "obviously guilty" (evidence, confession, witnesses), and 1 is
"obviously false" (evidence, confession, witnesses), and that this
case was, at first, without hearing anything at all from my side, a
6. But, after talking to you, Steve, and after being professionally
grilled by you, Carol, he stated that now it looked like a 4. He went
on to say that being the case, we should be looking at sole custody for
the father.

However, the documents weren't changed, although the case was not
pursued any further by anyone. Then we find out from one of the
witnesses present at that evaluation that even Dr. Johnson had
misrepresented what happened at the interview.  The good doctor is not
so good. He bends the truth in his pursuit of all these evil child
molesters.

Next, we find out that the Brascott's, Andrea's neighbors, think
Andrea, not only a lousy mother, but a psychopath. They fear for their
lives and their livelihoods living next to her. She vandalizes their
cars and tries to blame it on me. She literally begs Susie Brascott, in
a crying fit, not to testify against her. The Brascotts move away from
Andrea at the first opportunity.

The PI's investigation reveals lots of sordid facts and opinions,
inconsistencies everywhere in Andrea's statements to others, a
history of trying to make numerous allegations against me, signs of
planning this whole thing, starting at the time that I finally got the
court to give me back unsupervised parenting time with my children.

Now, Steve, you have asserted that you have to remain neutral in this
case, because you are the children's legal counsel. Well, yes, that is
definitely true at the inception of a case. But, after doing a very
costly evaluation and investigation, and, after witnessing the
behavior of everyone involved in this case for almost a year, your job
is not to remain neutral. The GAL's responsibility is to the children.
If one parent is obviously acting in the children's worst interests,
you are supposed to work to penalize that parent. You can choose
sides, if the need is there, in the children's best interests. I've
heard, through second-hand accounts, that you have stated that you just
don't know in this case, for sure. In other words, there was NO smoking
gun totally exonerating me and totally destroying Andrea. But you've
stated to me that you have a strong feeling about what has happened
here. Unfortunately, this is a feeling that you've not acted upon.
Jurisprudence is carried out every working day in this country,
based, rarely on clear and convincing evidence, but moreover, a
preponderance of the evidence. Informed, educated and objective judges
in cases similar to this one have looked at the preponderance of the
evidence and have made cut and dry decisions. What does the
preponderance of the evidence dictate in this case? The current status
quo? If yes, would your answer be the same if I had $25,000 to push a
trial in this case -- one with expert witnesses, such as Dr. Richard
Gardner and Dr. Timothy Campbell?

Steve, there are two things that I note in my interactions with you
that I find very revealing. The first was patting me on the head while
stating, "Ohio's not a community property state." That statement
reveals this: The laws in this country and in this state are screwed in
respect to divorce, they are very inequitable in favor of whoever
gets primary custody of children, 90%+ of the time, Mom. Rarely, if
ever, does one see such inequitable settlements as mine in a divorce in
which there are no children. You logically know that. Because she
gets the kids, as awarded by the court, she gets a disproportionate
share of the assets and he gets a disproportionate share of the debts.
Does that sound familiar? The second is numerous implications to me
about how bad you got screwed in your own divorce, but packaged with
the attitude, "Hey, what can you do?" This powerlessness in fighting
injustice is the prevailing attitude I perceive from men, in general.
The fight is so hard, the slope so steep, the injustices so obtuse, our
fate is sealed. Now, there are only a few things you can do when facing
such a prospect ... one is run, another is to just put it in your bag
of experiences and simply go on with your life and make the most of
everything left that isn't screwed, and another is to stand and fight.
Some people do all these things, in turn. But, I've determined there is
only one morally correct act -- Right The Injustice.

I was hoping that I would be able to adopt the "get on with your life"
approach long, long, long ago -- before the inevitable divorce started,
in fact. However, this crock is too rancid to tolerate. Do we have a
moral obligation to the rest of humanity to expose this travesty for
what it is? Or do we forget it and let our children try to clean it up,
along with our huge federal deficit? How many innocent victims of
malicious, uninformed, sexist and controlling parents does it take
before we say, "enough?"

	Respectfully submitted,

        (signature)

	Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
	Father of Alex (age 5) and Adam (age 4)

Andrea is taking our children to the Children's Hospital program for
sexually abused children. She used Dr. Johnson's report to get them
admitted to this program. Is the children's legal Guardian aware of
this? It is a twelve-week program, wherein, for an hour a week the
folks at Children's talk to each of my sons about sexual abuse -- abuse
that never happened to them. Is this what children who have not been
abused need to go through? Or is this Andrea trying to further her
cause? Andrea has also tried to pawn 50% of the costs of the evaluation
of my sons at Children's Hospital last summer on me. I assume she will
try to make me pay 50% of the bill to Children's for their latest
involvement with my children.

Andrea's calumniations, perjury, vile contempts, and malicious legal
manipulations and their effectiveness as a representative sample of so
many cases like this wherein the same kinds of allegations arise
(20-33% of all custody dispute cases now involve these allegations)
reveal a great deal about the sad state of affairs in US domestic
relations law and the preconceived notions of the officers of the
courts. First of all, the political rhetoric against men in the last
three decades has worked. Secondly, the effects of the Salem Witchcraft
Trials were small potatoes in comparison to the "atom bomb" strategy of
divorce. Thirdly, few people empowered by dominion to handle these
cases do what is right. Which one is saddest?

   "I've done much better than most women who had to give in to shared
   parenting...."
	- Andrea DiSalvo, December 20, 1992

   Adam: "My daddy can't come over to my house because he touched my privates."
   Dad: "Adam, who said that to you?"
   Adam: "My mom."
	- December 20, 1992