Excellent document concerning common errors in assessing child abuse accusations.  If your child is a toddler the accusations will originate with the accusing parent, normally during a weekend visit.

You and your attorney need to focus on the following, make sure your attorney  does not go looking for ghosts. Focus on the accusing parent, keep it a narrow focus.

”The child’s account is inaccurate due to parent interviews or poor interviews by CAC or law enforcement.”

Normally with Loudoun CPS it will be a combination of an accusing parent, a hand picked psychologist chosen by Sandra Glenney.

Take a look and read this document.

Another report from the San Diego Grand Jury, a critical point made by the grand jury is the following (page 23). Keep in mind , to date no special grand jury has been called to investigate the practices of Sandra Glenney or Loudoun County Child Protective Services.  Sandra Glenney is a believer. She simply doesn’t understand the science behind false allegations operates.

”Of particular interest is the information the Jury
received about the Little Rascals pre-school case in North
Carolina. Eighty-five percent of the children received therapy
with three therapists in the town; all of these children
eventually reported satanic abuse. Fifteen percent of the
children were treated by different therapists in a neighboring
city; none of these children reported abuse of any kind after
the same period of time in therapy.”

What is chilling in the statement is the correlation between a therapist who is a believer and a reasonable therapist. In the ”Little Rascals Case” 85% of the children received therapy from specific therapists. All of these children reported abuse.

The children who received therapy from outside therapists did not report abuse; get the connection. The  following statement should be taken to heart by you and your attorney.

”Testimony given by children after a year
in therapy with therapists who are ”believers” should be treated
with deep skepticism.”

This does not concern Glenney at all. she is a proponent of repressed memory.  The child will stay in therapy as long as required to produce a disclosure.  You and your attorney need to vigorously oppose any therapists chosen by Glenney.

PTSD is an argument that Glenney and her expert witness will use to convince the court that abuse has occurred. In other states, cities and counties the Courts value research but not so much in Loudoun.  There are judges who sit on the bench in Loudoun that will abandon their responsibility and adopt the opinion of the expert witness. Dr. Mary Lindahl, is quick to assign a diagnosis of PTSD but fails to testify to the truth in cases of false allegations.  In the Ballard case, the conviction was overturned due to the testimony of Dr. Richard Luscomb.

The defendant’s final issue for review is whether the trial court erred in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Richard Luscomb. Dr. Luscomb’s testimony concerned symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome exhibited by victims of child sexual abuse and that the children he interviewed from the Georgian Hills Day Care Center exhibited these symptoms.¹ The defendant objects to the expert testimony on the grounds that there is no reliable scientific basis for the syndrome and that this jurisdiction does not recognize the syndrome as a reliable and generally accepted concept in the medical community to diagnose child sexual abuse. The issue is one of first impression for this Court. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently found such testimony inadmissible in sexual abuse trials and this Court has consistently denied permission to appeal in those cases. See, State v. Dickerson, 789 S.W.2d 566(Tenn. Cr.App. 1990); State v. Schimpf, 782 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1989); State v. Myers, 764 S.W.2d 214 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1988).   Y

The PTSD argument is an old trick, discredit in many municipalities but not Loudoun. The fact the Lindahl withheld so much information for so many years discredits her as an witness.   The Judges in Loudoun may not be that savvy to the tricks and semantics of Glenney and Lindahl.

’

Science is one of those terms people like Benjamin Smith are utterly unable to grasp. Sandra Glenney suffers from this as well.  The attached document discusses how to weigh evidence during sexual abuse investigations utilizing Bayes’s theorem.  It doesn’t help that Benjamin Smith is a proven and documented liar.  It doesn’t help that Glenney is a grossly  incompetent attorney. Glenney and Smith are so incompetent in addition to their lack of scientific understanding.

The document states the importance of understanding evidence.  What people like Glenney and Smith consider as evidence isn’t , it is their imagination running wild.

Your attorney needs to demonstrate to the Court the lack of real evidence in your case.  Glenney will not present any  real evidence , your attorney needs to stress that fact. Real evidence speaks for itself.  In other words keep score of the evidence against the allegation of abuse. For example , Glenney will present nightmares etc…. as evidence of abuse. Your attorney needs to present a study to the Court that states that nightmares occur with many children.

You need to counter and contest everything that Glenney presents.

The attached article written by Dorothy Rabinowitz elaborates upon the Kelly Michaels case (Wee Cared Day Nursery). If you want to know what goes through the mind of Sandra Glenney and her expert witnesses; read the article.  The Michaels cases occured in the 80’s , her conviction was overturned in the 90’s.

The facts stated by Rabinowitz are relevant to Loudoun County today. Glenney remains stuck in the 80’s.  She fails to acknowledge the latest research in the fields as does her expert witnesses.

The social worker described in the article is exactly the type of mindless employee that is acts as a Child Abuse Investigator in Loudoun.  It is troubling to realize the Loudoun County Child Protective Services has not progressed. It is by all accounts a miserable failed organization.

Rabinowitz highlights in lieu of real evidence , hearsay testimony is sufficient to convict someone. Believe me Glenney does not require physical testimony, in her small mind her hand-picked ”mental health professional” can stand in for real evidence.

Attached is the second part of Dr. Bruck’s testimony. You and your attorney need to read this testimony. It highlights how to bring literature into the Courtroom. Keep in mind Sandra Glenney isn’t capable of bringing research into the Courtroom, she doesn’t know it.

This is critical, you bring research into the Courtroom you are going to confuse Glenney and her expert witness. You are going to force that expert witness to acknowledge that he or she hasn’t read the literature and doesn’t it. The judge will hear this and take note

Glenney is only going to offer hearsay and the opinion of the expert witness, there will be no tangible evidence.

The attached document is part 1 of Dr. Bruck’s testimony during a hearing concerning the Amirault case.  Your attorney needs to read this and observe how to bring real science into the Courtroom. Sandra Glenney and CPS is not capable of introducing any type of scientific literature into the Courtroom.  They simply do not know it.

The document ”A follow up to the San Diego Grand Jury report” could easily read Loudoun County Child Protective Services. The issues described in the document are prevalent here. As an example , the professionals that are employed by San Diego sound very familiar to those who are employed by Loudoun CPS and Sandra Glenney.  The professionals have an agenda , that is to help CPS build their case with fabricated evidence.  As in Sand Diego, the Loudoun Board of Supervisors do nothing to correct the issue.

”The staff of these organizations appear to lack objectivity and allow themselves to be entangled in CPS misconduct for their own financial gain.
Instead of helping children, they aim to help CPS. These are two very different goals. The first is to help children recover from any trauma that may have occurred, the second is often to traumatize children and brainwash them to assist CPS is generating evidence falsely to be used against CPS’s chosen targets, even if their targets did nothing illegal.
CPS and law enforcement feed incomplete and biased information to therapists who are supposed to be helping children. Often truly abusive parents have engaged in brainwashing tactics on their children, also, hoping to help build false accusations against the other parent. These behaviors all result in the focus of the therapy being on building a CPS or criminal case often against a parent who did not do anything illegal, not discovering what really happened or did not happen and helping the children deal with it. Accused parents are not provided the opportunity to talk with these therapists or to find out what is being discussed, even though it may be substantially inaccurate.