There had been a gross amount of “media” and “internet postings” referring to Shockome case. Some of these publications had been accurate on the facts of this case and some had been not, up to the degree of opposite.
Examples of anti- factual reporting include postings by Glenn Sacks, Cathy Young and numerous posting on “fathers rights” websites, which seem that they just took what Glenn Sacks had posted and ran with it, without checking the facts.
The following is the collection or summary of Shockome vs Shockome case, where citings are taken from actual court records, with exact location of such pinpointed – to avoid confusion or speculations.
All these documents are available and in possession of Yevgenia (Genia) Shockome and Timothy (Tim) Shockome – the parties of this case. If anyone reading this summary and wanting to see the actual documents, they can ask Genia Shockome or Tim Shockome – whichever “side” the interested person is coming from. There is a big doubt that Timothy Shockome would produce any, since they are all NOT in his favor and only show the corruption of Judge Amodeo, Frank Marocco, Philip Kenny, Meg Sussman, Gail Brick, numerous violations of due process, children’s sufferings due to Timothy Shockome’s actions, extortion of Genia Shockome, numerous fraudulent billings, total ignorance, and money greed of above named people – spread all over in every direction on this case.
This is the place which has it all – if you have any questions on Shockome case.
Yes, there are several orders that Judge Amodeo had issued on Shockome case, which are beneficial to Timothy Shockome (father), but who said Judge Amodeo is honest? Yes, Judge Amodeo issued his “findings” in these orders, but who said he based those on court record or facts in Shockome case? The following collection has actual places of court records, which any non-ignorant person could check and make their own conclusions.
The question is – WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
Is TRUTH – what actually what happened (see accurate citings in the record below), or
is TRUTH - what one person – Judge Amodeo had said? But he was not there when Timothy Shockome abused Genia Shockome or their children, but his job was to listen to witnesses, look through evidence, be fair and neutral, and apply the law – none of which he obviously had done).
“T:04/15/2002” – means transcript from 04/15/2002
“OSC:11/29/2005” – means Order to Show Cause dated 11/29/2005
“REC:04/29/2005” – means reconstruction, which was written as “ Collection of facts” by Judge Amodeo to replace “lost transcripts”, which were “accidentally deleted by the court”. It would sound like innocent deletion, if not for the following facts: 1)case was highly contested; 2)case was publicly criticized in media already by then; 3) deletion was selective; 4)deletion happened in June 2003, yet nobody told the parties in on June 19, 2003, when the “deletion” was already “discovered by the court”; 5)there is no mentioning of “deletion” in custody order of May 10, 2004, which was based on contest of these deleted transcripts, although the “discovery of deletion” came before this order;5)there was no mentioning of deletion at all to parties at any time - at least nothing was said to Genia or her attorney; 6) it was only discovered by Genia Shockome - mother (who got the most rotten deal imaginable in her divorce) when she ordered these transcripts to be available for her appeal- in June 2004.
Statement of facts (combined case for Shockome vs Shockome).
Yevgenia Shockome (mother or “Genia”) was born and raised in Russia. She married Timothy Shockome (father) in August of 1994. Father was born and raised in Texas, had two prior failed marriages and a son named Anders (T: 02/01/2005, p.44, T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,p. 5)
The parties’ son, Alexander (Alex) was born March 2, 1995 while the couple still lived in Russia. Their daughter Victoria (Vika) was born on November 13, 1996 after they moved to Texas. During the time in Texas father was often out of work and failed to provide adequately for the family (T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,pp. 27-30).. The mother was repeatedly forced to seek charity in order to have food, clothing, diapers and other necessities (T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,pp. 27-30). Prior to separation father did not show any interest in children (REC: 04/29/2005, p.6).
Throughout the marriage, the mother was the primary parent (T: 10/21/2003, p. 226, REC:04/29/2005, p.6) and cared for the children with little help from the father (REC:04/29/2005, p.6). The trial court recognized her outstanding parenting skills (T:08/24/2005, pp. 27-28, Also, Order of 05/10/2004, pp. 51-52, Also T: 01/17/2003, p. 13) for which she received the Mother of the Year Award (REC:04/29/2005, p.12). The father’s more lackadaisical approach to parenting included failing to watch them when they were very young (REC: 04/29/2005, p. 6); leaving them alone in a car when he went to see his lawyer (T: 09/02/2003, p. 31); feeding them a lot of junk food (T:11/03/2003, p. 66); failing to make sure they were adequately dressed (T:11/03/2003, p.67) and excessive use of spanking (REC: 04/29/2005, p.8). The evidence of these parenting habits was uncontroverted.
The father physically abused mother and engaged in verbal abuse throughout the marriage (REC: 04/29/2005, pp.6-10, T:04/15/2002, pp. 68-82, Sussman’s Testimony T:10/21/2003, p. 128, T:11/24/2003, p. 30) including regularly calling her names like “fucking bitch.” It is likely the children were present for such incidents (T:11/03/2003, pp. 165-66, REC: 04/29/2005, p. 9, Sussman’s Testimony T: 11/24/2003, p. 65). The father also sexually abused the mother (T:08/21/2003, pp.141-142, REC: 04/29/2005, p.7), and verbally abused her ( REC:04/29/2005, p.6, 7-9, Sussman’s Testimony T: 11/24/2003, p. 65). Significantly, the trial court issued more than three protective orders during the divorce proceedings(Order of 01/10/2001, Order of 02/07/2001, Order of 04/19/2001, Order of 05/21/2001, etc.) and the father was detained and jailed for stalking and harassing Mother in violation of one of those orders (Mother’s 11/28/2005 Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, verified, para. 19, Criminal Order of Protection 07/24/2001). Although two witnesses testified about the father’s repeated violations of Judge Amodeo’s protective orders (T: 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, pp. 5-13, also T:10/02/2003, pp 28-33) Judge Amodeo did nothing to punish the father or protect the mother from further harassment and abuse. The trial court stated minimized father’s aggressive behavior toward the mother (T:06/10/2003, pp. 187- 188).
The father hit Victoria on her thigh (T:06/25/2002 , Rene Reynolds, pp. 10 and 12), forced Victoria to stand for a long period under a pouring rain, while himself being inside the car ( T: 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, pp. 5-13), failed to adequately dress both children for the weather and school (T:06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp. 7-18, also T:07/09/2002, Linda Meeker, p. 37) , left children alone in the car for extended period of time (T:09/02/2003, pp. 31-32), hit Victoria on her face with his jacket (T:10/02/2003, p. 219, T:02/01/2005, REC: 04/29/2005, p.9) – all these actions characterize the father as being unfit for custody, yet receiving full custody with same Judge Amodeo later during the same court case.
The father does not remember his daughter’s birthday (T:02/01/2005, p.38).
While living in Texas, the mother finished her degree in Mathematics and obtained a job with IBM in Poughkeepsie, NY. The parties moved to Poughkeepsie in August 1999. Shortly thereafter the father twice abandoned the family to return to Texas (T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome,p.48 and p.50). Such incident happened twice. The mother had to wait 1 year before filing for divorce in order to establish residency requirement for divorce in New York. The Mother filed for divorce in August of 2000, citing Domestic Violence (cruel and inhuman treatment of her by Timothy Shockome) as grounds for divorce (Original Divorce Claim, filed 08/25/2000). Father became angry at the mother’s decision to leave him and threatened to punish her (T:09/02/2003,pp.196 and 198) by taking the children away from her (T:08/21/2003, p.115). The father harassed and threatened the mother on a regular basis(REC: 04/29/2005, p. 1, 10-11), but she was reluctant to file for an order of protection and pursue jail time for the father due to her cultural limitations and beliefs, specifically that Russian women don’t call police on their husbands (T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome, p.72), and because she believed the father’s saying that American police won’t do anything to protect her (T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome, p.74).
The court entered several temporary orders (Order of 11/08/2000, Order of 01/10/2001, and others), granting the mother full custody and giving the father regular visitation and phone contact. Over the next two and a half years, the father sought to obtain custody of the children.
During this time the father continued to harass and abuse the mother through threatening and repugnant phone calls and repeated threats that he would “take the children away” from her (REC: 04/29/2005, pp. 1, 10-11). His calls were so threatening and repugnant as to cause the mother to suffer panic attacks (REC: 04/29/2005, pp. 1, 10-11).
There was also evidence that father behaved inappropriately with the children. For example, in the spring of 2002 the mother received a call from Alex’s school informing her that Alex, then seven years old, was acting out sexually at school (T:10/21/2003,p.137).
The father admitted that he often scratched the children lightly over their entire bodies (but not their genitals) (REC: 04/29/2005, p.8) and a therapist who had interviewed the father testified that he admitted to her about such practice and she considered that type of contact to be inappropriate and sexualized (T:08/22/2003,pp. 16, 23-24).
On July 11, 2002 the mother was pressured by her then attorney Michael Kranis into accepting joint custody whereby she would have the children 60% of the time (Stipulation T:07/11/2002, p. 27). The court ignored the extensive evidence of Domestic Violence, disregarded evidence of the father’s questionable parenting practices, including sexualized behavior with the children and approved joint custody despite the fact that the mother had a Permanent Order of Protection against father from criminal court and allegations of domestic violence in her divorce complaint (Criminal Order 07/24/2001, Original Divorce Complaint 08/25/2000, T:04/15/2002, Yevgenia Shockome, pp. 68-82, REC: 04/29/2005, pp. 6-10).
In late July of 2002, after he obtained joint custody and the Order of Protection had expired, father increased the frequency and abusiveness of his phone calls (Family Court Protective Order of 08/23/2002, REC: 04/29/2005, p.10). On August 15, 2002 before the joint custody stipulation was reduced to writing, father petitioned for sole custody (father’s petition 08/15/2002).
On August 23, 2002 the mother obtained TOP for herself and children based upon father’s increased abuse and harassment (Family Court Protective Order of 08/23/2002, REC: 04/29/2005, p.10). On September 5, 2002 she filed for sole custody (mother’s petition 09/05/2002). The initial appearance of above three petitions was set for September 27, 2002.
The court moved up the date from September 27 to September 12, 2002 forcing mother to appear unrepresented, since she was given only three days notice. During the hearing the court gave father’s attorney an opportunity to make whatever arguments or representations she wanted (many of which were never even attempted to be proven at trial) (T:09/12/2002, pp. 3-7). But when the father’s attorney finished, judge refused to give mother any opportunity to respond. Instead the Judge abruptly stated he was inclined to take children from the mother (T:09/12/2002, p. 7). Every time mother tried to respond she was cut off, talked over, yelled at and threatened with jail (T:09/12/2002, pp. 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29). The court removed all protection for children and every meaningful protection for the mother (Order of 09/12/2002). Court also placed restrictions on mother although father had no family offense petition pending (T:9/12/02, pp. 24-27).
On January 17, 2003, without an evidentiary hearing or written decision explaining the extreme actions taken against the mother and children, court took children from mother and limited her to supervised visitation (Custody Order of 01/17/2003, and Supervised Visitation Order of 01/17/2003). The court also barred the mother from speaking with the children’s teachers, doctors or other providers (Custody Order of 01/17/2003). The court stated on these two orders that they were temporary but did nothing to expedite a final ruling. Instead of running to pick up his children from school, the father ran to the court's clerk and filed petition for child support to be received from Genia Shockome (Father's Petition for child support 1/17/2003)
On June 10, 2003 the court began a trial that, despite Appellant’s requests for expedited proceedings, was dragged out over the next 11 months. The court heard “parts” of the evidence for 5 days in June (06/10, 06/12, 06/13, 06/16, 06/19), for 2 days in August(08/21, 08/22), for 1 day in September (09/02), for 2 days in October (10/02, 10/21), for 3 days in November (11/03, 11/06/, 11/24) , and 1 day in December (12/22) of 2003. The court would not render a final decision until May 10, 2004 (Order of 05/10/2004).
In the middle of this 11 month trial, and over Appellant’s objection, the court appointed an evaluator with limited experience and knowledge over the objection of Appellant (Orders of 06/25/2003, 01/22/2004).
The evaluator’s review of the evidence was limited by the court, so that the mother was unable to present a full picture of her relationship with the children (Order of 06/25/2003). For example, the order appointing the evaluator referred to the father’s domestic violence as “alleged,” but did not use “alleged” to refer to the negative remarks that father had alleged (Order of 06/25/2003). The only documents she was denied were ones offered by Appellant (T:10/21/2003,pp.70-71). The evaluator also saw the father and children at a time when he had complete control over them (Custody Order of 01/17/2003, Supervised Visitation Order of 01/17/2003). She could only see the children and mother when a supervisor was present which interfered with the ability of the children to be open and honest and spontaneous (Sussman’s evaluation). She had limited time to complete her report and failed to speak with several people having important knowledge about the family and children (Sussman’s evaluation). Linda Meeker, the school nurse, was the only person from children’s school that the evaluator interviewed (Sussman’s evaluation). Mr. Meeker requested to speak with the evaluator again after she was able to review her notes about the children, but the evaluator refused (T:10/21/2003, pp.12 and 25).
The evaluation was not ordered and finished until the middle of the trial (Order of 06/25/2003, Sussman’s evaluation).
The evaluator’s testimony did not occur until most of the witnesses including expert witnesses had already testified (T: 10/21/2003). In addition, the court cut short Appellant’s cross-examination of the evaluator (T: 11/03/2003,p.102), which would have exposed her faulty reasoning and conclusions and severely limited redirect (T:11/24/2003,pp.195-200). In addition, the court refused to permit Appellant to call any witnesses to rebut the evaluator’s report and testimony (Amodeo letter) even after repeatedly promising that Appellant could at least call Dr. Hannah for rebuttal (T:10/21/2003,p.12, 11/24/2003,p.174).
Even with all these facts surrounding Sussman’s evaluation stacked against the mother , in her evaluation and testimony Dr. Meg Sussman had stated that she believed there was no alienation to either parent in Shockome case (T: 11/24/2003, p. 81), yet Judge Amodeo used “alienation” as his reason for custody switch, blaming that mother had engaged in alienation against the father. In her evaluation and testimony Dr. Meg Sussman had stated that father had made much more harmful statements to the children about their mother, than any statement that he claimed that mother said to them (T: 11/24/2003, pp.82, 86). Here is exact exchange on Page 86, on November 24, 2003:
Question – Did father make any accusations that mother had made negative statements about him to the children?
Answer by Sussman- Yes.
Question – Now, in your opinion, is the father’s statement to the children that their mother had moved away to another city, was that more harmful to the children than anything the father claims the mother said?
Answer by Sussman – Any single thing?
Answer by Sussman- Yes.
And here is another exact exchange between Sussman and mother’s attorney on November 24, 2003:
Question – Has he called mother degrading names or humiliated mother in front of the children? Is that an important question?
Answer by Sussman- Yes.
Question – Do we know the answer to this question?
Answer by Sussman – I think we do.
Question – And what’s the answer?
Answer by Sussman – I think he did.
And here is more from evaluation by Dr. Meg Sussman (T: 10/21/2003)
Question- Which parent do you believe is more likely to make sure children eat healthier?
Answer by Sussman – Ms. Shockome.
Question – Which parent is more likely to dress children appropriately?
Answer by Sussman – Ms. Shockome.
Question – Which parent is more likely to make sure the children do their homework?
Answer by Sussman – Probably M. Shockome.
Question – Which parent is more likely to spend more time taking care of the children?
Answer by Sussman – You mean like actively engaged with them. Is that what you mean?
Question – Yes.
Answer by Sussman – Yeah. Ms. Shockome seem to be more active in her time with them.
Question – Which parent are the children is more likely to view as safer?
Answer by Sussman – Their mother.
Question – Which parent is more likely to involve the children in physical, educational and cultural activities?
Answer by Sussman – Ms. Shockome.
Question – Which parent is more likely to help the children maintain their Russian heritage?
Answer by Sussman – Ms. Shockome.
The evaluation of Dr. Meg Sussman, despite the above, at the end - recommended custody to the father. She was paid $7155.00 by Judge Amodeo’s orders (Order 06/25/2003, Order 01/22/2004). Her evaluation was the only thing that Judge Amodeo had used to support his decision and his order dated May 10, 2004. The rest of testimony and evidence was all supporting mother and mother’s position on this case.
The court started out by acknowledging that Yevgenia was a very good mother (Stipulation T: 08/24/2005, pp. 27-28, Also, Order of 05/10/2004, pp. 51-52, and T:1/17/2003,p. 13) and that the children were very close to her and wanted to stay with her (Order of 05/10/2004, pp.36-38, Affidavit of Yevgenia, 12/08/2006). In fact, the trial court’s findings throughout the case acknowledged that the Mother is a good mother and that the children “need both parents.” (Stipulation T:08/24/2005, pp. 27-28). The teachers from children’s school, and other witnesses testified about superior mother’s abilities and the bond that children have with her ( T:06/25/2002, Joan Seifts, pp. 10 and 20, 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, p.13, 06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp. 9-12, 08/22/2003, Carol Barden, pp. 95-97).
Despite all of this, and citing the acrimonious relationship between the
parents, and claiming that father would more likely promote mother-children relationship, the court transferred full custody from the Mother to the Father and limited the Mother to one day of supervised visitation a week (no overnight visits). (Order of 05/10/2004, pp.51 and 52). The court continued it’s order of supervised visitation for the mother. The supposed reason for supervision was the mother’s alleged alienation of the children by denigration of the father. But there was no evidence of such conduct. In fact, there was no evidence that children resisted any visitation that had been ordered (Sussman’s testimony, T: 11/24/2003, p. 81). The father had never been denied any visits by the mother, that were court ordered (T:06/12/2003- missing, but not in reconstruction hearing).
If the children did have negative feelings about the father, it was all due to his conduct with them (Hitting - T:04/15/2002 , Rene Reynolds, pp. 10, 12, Threatening of hitting and leaving child under pouring rain, while himself inside the car :06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, pp. 5-6, 12. Dressing child in inappropriate clothes and outgrown shoes -06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp.17-18, Sending child to school in T-Shirt in freezing weather - 07/09/2002, Linda Meeker, pp. 36-37, Hitting child on her face with his jacket - 10/02/2003, Linda Meeker, p.219, Leaving children alone in the car for long period of time - 09/02/2003, Rosemarie Struk, p.31, Sexual abuse of children and neglect - 08/22/2003, Hanna Talmadge, pp 23-25, 43, Hitting children, lying to the children and being caught lying - REC: 04/29/2005, p.8-9).
The children were nice to each other, and behaved better in school, when they were in mother’s care, and were aggressive to each other and behaved bad in school while in father’s care (T:06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp.15-16, 18, 06/25/2002, Rebecca Watson, p.13-14, 06/25/2002, Joan Seifts, p.8-9, 14). The children showed signs of distress, suffering and troubling behavior after spending time with their father and after he gained full custody of them (T:06/25/2002, Linda Secor, pp.8 -12, 15, 17-18, 08/22/2003, Carol Barden, pp.85-88, 90-91, 10/02/2003, Linda Meeker, p. 208-210, T: 02/01/2005, pp. 63, 68-70). The children became physically sick more often, depressed, sad, withdrawn, Victoria lost her eyelashes – after their father gained custody of them (T:06/25/2002, Joan Seifts, pp. 5-6, 08/22/2003, Carol Barden, pp.85-88, 90-91, 10/02/2003, Linda Meeker, p. 208-210, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, para 13, T: 02/01/2005, pp. 63, 68-70, 84-86, Letters from Yevgenia Shockome to the Court: 07/23/2004, 08/16/2004, 12/15/2004, 12/23/2004).
Several days of the testimony was suspiciously erased by the trial court, including the critical testimony of the mother, the cross examination of the father and several diatribes of the Judge Amodeo (T: 06/12/2003, 06/13/2003, 08/22/2003, p. 78, 79, called “break in the proceeding”, REC: 04/29/2005). The missing parts weren’t reported missing at the time of final custody order (Order of 05/10/2004), and were discovered only afterwards by the mother, when she was ordering the transcripts for the Appeal of stated order.
On November 30, 2004, father had filed a “family offense petition”, claiming that he is “afraid” of mother’s cousin Dmitri Mesheryakov, and asked the court to relocate to Texas with the children (OSC: 11/30/2004). The mother never had spoken or seen her cousin for at least 10 years (Affidavit of Yevgenia 11/30/2004). The father had stated that he will lose his job and wants to relocate (OSC: 11/30/2004). There was a “relocation trial” on February 1, 2005, at which the father did not present a scintilla of evidence to support his relocation, neither he did present any reasons for his move as required by New York State relocation standards ( T: 02/01/2005, pp. 26-31, Summation 02/15/2005).
Since father had gained custody of the couple’s children he engaged in intense interference with the mother’s visitation (T: 02/01/2005, pp. 73, 80-82, 87, REC: 04/29/2005, pp.9, 16, Letters of Yevgenia Shockome 09/03/2004, 07/23/2004, 07/24/2004, 08/16/2004, 02/14/2005, 03/17/2005), although the mother had tried very hard to secure visitation with her children( T:02/01/2005, p. 98, Letters of Yevgenia Shockome 07/23/2004, 07/24/2004, 11/08/2004, 12/15/2004, 12/20/2004, 12/23/2004, 01/18/2005).
In May 2005, claiming to have lost his job, Father – over Mother’s objections – abruptly relocated with the children to Texas, while Mother continued to reside in Poughkeepsie, New York (T:05/05/2005). Mother filed various motions attempting to secure visitation with her children, and/or their return to New York, without success (OSC: 11/29/2005, Cross Motion: 07/05/2006, OSC: 11/10/2006).
Later through the series of subsequent rulings – including an order based on a “stipulation” that was coerced through threats of jail (Stipulation T:08/24/2005, p.22, Affidavit of Jennifer Shagan)– the court further eroded the Mother’s contact with her children to the point that her parental rights effectively have been terminated. (T:08/24/2005 (stipulation); Order of 11/10/2005; Order of 06/29/2006; Order of 05/22/2006; Order of 05/10/2004; Order of 12/29/2006).
In May 5, 2005, appearing pro se and trying to exercise her right to obtain court-appointed counsel to oppose Father’s relocation with the children to Texas, Mother – who was then seven months pregnant and on leave from her job due to medical complications resulting from her pregnancy – was summarily found in contempt of court by the trial judge and sentenced to thirty days in jail (Order of 05/05/2005). The experience of being jailed, particularly in the advanced stages of pregnancy, was very traumatic and left her with an extreme fear of being jailed again. (Mother’s Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, 11/28/2005, para. 42.) Mother spent Mother’s Day in jail, and the term imposed still unable to contact or visit the children.
After mother got out of jail and only 1 month after she gave birth to her baby, and was still breastfeeding and bleeding from the birth, she was called into the court again – by the father’s attorney. As described in detail in an affidavit submitted to the trial court by an eyewitness (Affidavit of Jennifer Shagan), Mother’s attorney negotiated for hours with Father’s counsel at the August 24, 2005 session, outside Mother’s presence and without informing Mother of the terms she was negotiating. (Affidavit of Jennifer Shagan, 01/05/2006,p. 1.) Afterward, Mother’s attorney suddenly confronted Mother in a corridor to announce that a “settlement” had been reached, but refused to answer Mother’s questions about it, saying there was no point in discussing it because “she [Mother] would go to jail if she does not agree to this deal!” (Id.) According to Ms. Shagan’s affidavit, Mother’s attorney would not even allow Mother time to consider whether to agree or not, because “the Judge would change his mind” and “Yevgenia [Mother] would be in jail.” (Id., p. 2.) Unable to understand what had been agreed to without her knowledge or approval, and greatly agitated by the threat of being jailed again (she had only recently given birth and was breastfeeding her baby) (Mother’s Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, 11/28/2005, paras. 43-44), Mother began to cry. Her attorney spent only minutes with her and did not explain the terms of the purported stipulation, insisting that Mother had to agree immediately or go to jail. (Id., paras. 40-41.)
Proceedings then commenced on the record. The purported “stipulation” was read into the record by Father’s attorney. Only afterward was Mother asked whether she agreed voluntarily to the terms of the “stipulation.” She clearly told the trial judge, “I was told I would go to jail.” (Stipulation T:08/24/2005, p. 22.) The trial judge made no attempt to determine how this threat had been conveyed to Mother, how she understood it, or whether she felt free to make a free choice in the face of such a threat (particularly given her great fear of incarceration as a nursing mother, and the traumatic aftereffect of her recent jailing in May). Instead, the trial judge simply belittled the mother’s fear, saying “Oh, please. Please. . . . If anyone has suggested that to you, that is not correct. Now, you know, I don’t know where that notion came from, it’s a notion that – I’m not even going to go into it, either.” (Id.p.22) The judge’s evident meaning was that Mother had simply invented the threat – which, as shown above, she did not.
Ms. Shagan specifically described, under penalty of perjury, what happened next:
Ms. Coughtry [Mother’s attorney] turned to Yevgenia [Mother] and said: “Why did you say that? You need to say that you voluntarily signed it.”… Ms. Coughtry . . . never stated on the record that she did threaten Yevgenia with jail. She squeezed Yevgenia’s hand tight, looked at her, like she had to finish the deal as it was planned. She dictated the words to Yevgenia, that she was “voluntarily entering into this,” and squeezed Yevgenia’s hand. Yevgenia said to Ms. Coughtry that she was making her lie. Ms. Coughtry gave her a look and said that she needs to finish this up.
(Shagan Affidavit, p. 2.)
Clearly, Mother’s free choice was compromised, and in full sight of the trial court.
The trial judge, however, accepted the purported “stipulation” as the voluntary agreement of the parties. The judge – who presided simultaneously over this matter in both Family Court and Supreme Court, Dutchess County – issued separate orders from each of the trial courts, purportedly to reduce to written order the terms contained in the “stipulation.”
Mother duly raised objections to the trial court’s orders, pointing out her lack of voluntary consent to the purported “stipulation” and the impropriety of the orders themselves, because 1) the purported stipulation was invalid as a matter of law, 2) even assuming the validity of the stipulation, the orders deviated from the terms thereof, and 3) the orders violated the stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362.
Mother also pointed out to the trial court that – relying on the terms the trial court had added sua sponte to the November 10, 2005 order ( The order had a asterisk addition, which was never part of the stipulation) – Father had unilaterally blocked all of Mother’s attempted visitation with the children, claiming he could not afford to pay for her airline tickets, as he had agreed to do in consideration for the stipulation that he could move to Texas with the children and insisting on illegally collecting the $10,000 “equitable distribution” from Mother before he would even consider allowing her to see the children. (Mother’s Verified Petition in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus, 11/28/2005.).
The court’s orders that mother pays full child support, which turned into over $2,400.00 a month plus $7,000.00 money Judgment, and $10,000.00 to the father in “equitable distribution” had forced mother into the bankruptcy (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, para 39). Federal Bankruptcy Judge Morris had stated on the record that Timothy Shockome (father) and his lawyer Philip Kenny had extorted Genia Shockome (mother) and that Judge Amodeo had violated Federal Bankruptcy Law, she also placed a stay on Judge Amodeo (T: 01/31/2006, p.7, 02/14/2006, pp.6,7, 8, 16).
Thus, Mother was still denied all direct contact with her children since Father relocated with them to Texas 4 months earlier. The mother was impoverished and drained off all the money by numerous court orders and litigation, thus not able to afford any paid for supervised visitation (Summation of Yevgenia Shockome, 02/14/2005, T:02/01/2005, pp. 93-94, Letters of Yevgenia Shockome 07/23/2004, 08/16/2004, 12/15/2004, 12/23/2004). The father prevented visits even when mother offered to pay for them (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Para 15, 12/20/2004, Para 4, 01/18/2006, Para 11, 12, 13, 14, Letter of Yevgenia Shockome 07/23/2004, 07/24/2004, 08/16/2004, 09/03/2004,02/14/2005, 03/17/2005).
Before August 2005 hearing, the father did not allow for a single visit or a phone call, and prevented the single visit to occur for at least 6 weeks (which eventually happened March 20, 2005) (Summation of Yevgenia Shockome, 02/14/2005, Memorandum 03/16/2005, Letter of Yevgenia Shockome 02/14/2005, 03/17/2005). The mother had not seen her children at all since that day – March 20, 2005. The mother had tried to arrange for the visits with the father, only to get denied by the father, until she “pays $10,000.00” to him (Bankruptcy T:01/31/2006, p. 7), and only to be denied by the court – by imposing harsher conditions on the visitation, taking the financial burden off the father and placing it on the mother (T:01/18/2006, pp 40-41, Letters of Yevgenia Shockome 07/23/2004, 08/16/2004, 12/15/2004, 12/23/2004). The mother still had not had a single visit since then.
The supervised visits were dangerous for the children because they were in the full control of the person who abused them – their father, who punished them for every word they had said to their mother that tarnished his reputation since the indicted supervisor Viola Stroud reported back to the father, and since some of the children’s statements were in the written reports of other supervisors (T:02/01/2005,pp.76-82, 119-122).
The trial court’s response to mother’s objections against the coerced stipulation was to threaten Mother again, this time to “have the matter turned over to the D.A.’s office” for criminal prosecution for “perjury” – because of her alleged agreement to the purported stipulation of August 24, 2005, the coerced nature of this she was now trying to point out (T:01/18/2006, pp. 2-4).
Although the final order modifying custody and visitation was signed December 29, 2006, the Mother has had no contact with her children since March 20, 2005. (Although the Mother ostensibly has e-mail contact, the evidence showed that the Father was deleting her e-mails and the children, therefore, were not receiving them. See OSC of 06/30/2006, - Mr. Shockome’s email dated 06/05/2006, T: 12/08/2006, pp. 20-21, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Paras 34, 35.).
The father had intercepted the letters that mother had sent to the children when she was allowed by a court order (Order of 05/10/2004, p. 53, Letter from Yevgenia Shockome 02/14/2005).
Mother still has not had a single visit with her children. Father has continued to refuse to pay her airfare and to block contact between Mother and the children, though Mother has made all child support payments and other payments imposed by the trial court’s orders (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Para 39). Mother had strictly complied with the terms of the purported stipulation, even though she believes it was coerced and unjust. (Petitioner’s Affidavit in Reply, January 18, 2006, para. 36.)
In fact, Father has gone farther and blocked Mother’s telephone contact with the children as well. (Id., paras. 33-35, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Paras 18, 19, Cross Motion, 07/05/2006, Para 37). The court backed the father with it’s orders (Order of 06/30/2006, and 07/27/2006, and 12/29/2006), instead of punishing him for self help interference with the calls. The court terminated the phone contact and the father has rendered the email contact null by deleting her emails (T:12/08/2006,pp.14-16, 20, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, Paras 34, 35).
The Law Guardian Frank Marocco only participated in 1 phone call(s) with the children. (T:12/08/2006, p. 12). Nevertheless and despite the fact that he has never observed their living conditions in Texas, the law guardian continued to report to the trial court that the children were doing well in their new environment (T:01/18/2006, pp 6-8, 11/13/2006, pp 11-14). The mother’s repeated requests that the court appoint a new law guardian who can observe and report on the children first-hand have been ignored (T:12/08/2006, pp. 14-16, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome 12/08/2006, Para 5).
The evidence shows that once the Father obtained complete custody and control over the children by virtue of their relocation to Texas, he effectively deprived the Mother of all meaningful access by refusing to pay for her airfare to facilitate visitation, as required by the Stipulation and Amended Custody Order, and by interfering with her court-ordered right to telephone and e-mail contact (T: 01/18/2006, pp. 8, 10-12, 20-22, 26-27, 12/08/2006, pp 20-25). Although the Mother complained to the trial court about the Father’s non-compliance, the court declined to enforce the stipulation against the Father and, instead, excused his obligation to pay ( T:01/18/2006, pp. 40-41).
The court also ordered the Father not to interfere with the Mother’s e-mail contact, but when presented with evidence of such interference, the court took no action (T: 12/08/2006,pp. 14-16, 20).
The mother had not seen her children since March 20, 2005, and before then it was sporadic – once in several months, due to father’s interference and mother’s prebankruptcy state due to the court orders (Summation, 02/14/2005, Letters of Yevgenia Shockome 07/23/2004, 08/16/2004, 12/15/2004, 12/23/2004, 02/14/2005, 03/17/2005). Since August 2005, the mother had only sporadic phone contact with the children, and not a single call since May 2006 (Order of 06/30/2006). Her email contact renders pointless, since the father deletes emails and mother never received any responses (Petitioner’s Affidavit in Reply, 01/18/2006, para. 33-34, T: 12/08/2006,pp. 14-16, 20).
Southern District of New York, ruled that Father’s attempts to collect amounts purportedly due him under the Judgment of Divorce in exchange for visitation between the children and their mother violated the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362, imposing sanctions on Father and his attorney for their willful attempts to violate the stay (Bankruptcy Order of 05/11/2006, Bankruptcy T: 01/31/2006, p.7, Bankruptcy T: 02/14/2006, pp. 6-8).
The father had stated to the mother that until she pays him 10,000.00 US dollars, she can’t bring visitation issue up (T: 01/18/2006, p. 9). The father engaged in active interference in visitation between the children and their mother – Yevgenia by denying her air tickets, self -declaring new “rules” that she has to follow to be allowed the visits, such as to “address her issues before visitation can begin” (T:01/18/2006, pp. 21-22, 26-28), and demanding money in exchange for allowing the visits (T:01/18/2006,pp 9-11). As a result, the mother had not had a single visit (T:01/18/2006, pp. 10-12).
With the children thus isolated from any maternal contact, the Father embarked upon a plan to alienate them from their Mother, even going so far as to deliberately show them articles on the Internet dealing with this case that he falsely claimed were put there by the Mother. (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome dated 12/08/2006, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, paras 28, 29, 33). Left with virtually no contact, the Mother has been rendered helpless in her attempts to counteract this alienation.
After Family Court’s custody/visitation order dated May 10, 2004, awarding Father sole custody of the children, Father repeatedly prevented Mother’s normal visitation with the children, despite Mother’s payment of child support. (Id., paras. 9-13 – “I have had no physical in person contact or visitation time with my children for the last 8 months. . . . [I]n the last 14 months or so to the present, I have seen my children twice and spoke to them by phone a total of 45 (forty-five) minutes each . . .”) A memorandum of the trial judge’s secretary, dated 03/16/2005, describes how Father had blocked visits between Mother and the children by refusing to pay an intake fee to a visitation supervisor (even though he was only required to pay $20.00 per week – eventually Mother herself offered to pay the fee for him!)
Mother has also complained of Father’s interference with her telephone and email contact with the children, though this was specifically provided for by court order. (Petitioner’s Affidavit in Reply, 01/18/2006, para. 33-34.)
Although the Father demanded that the Mother remove the materials from the Internet (and encouraged his children to make the same demand), the trial court acknowledged that it would be impossible to impose such a requirement on the Mother(T:08/24/2005,pp. 15-16).
Nevertheless, and even though it was he who gave the children access to the internet postings in the first place (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/08/2006, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, paras 28, 29, 30), the Father convinced the trial court to officially terminate the Mother’s telephone contact partly on the grounds that her discussion of the postings during their conversations was harmful to the children (Order of 07/27/2006). The court ignored the fact that, by exposing the children to the Internet materials himself and then directing them to call their Mother and complain, the Father had forced the Mother to talk about subjects involved in the on-going case. (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome 12/08/2006, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 01/18/2006, paras 28, 29, 30).
The father failed to provide Yevgenia with court ordered tapes of the conversations with the children for full 9 (nine) months (T:01/18/2006, p.41). Yevgenia did not have a full set of tapes until September 24, 2006 despite numerous complaints to the court (Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome of 12/08/2006, Cross Motion 07/05/2006, para 47-49, T:11/13/2006, p. 3, OSC of 11/10/2006, Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, Letters of Ms. Arella 06/15/2006, 06/18/2006, 06/25/2006)
The father terminated the telephone contact without any court order, by using self help (Cross Motion, 07/05/2006, also T: 01/18/2006, pp. 8 and 28).
Judge Amodeo did not hold father accountable for terminating phone contact and for interfering with visitation, and proceeding for creating more difficult terms for Genia’s visitation with children by inventing “issues” that the father wanted Genia to “address before any visitation begins”(T:01/18/2006, pp 31-32), therefore making Yevgenia to chase a “moving target”.
Judge Amodeo had denied due process rights to the mother throughout the course of this case, by scheduling the court appearances without a sufficient notice (Scheduled 09/12/2003 appearance instead of planned 09/27/2003, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), without explaining what court appearance was for (T:05/05/2005, p.3, Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Para 11, 01/03/2005, Para 7), without allowing the mother to be represented by an attorney, even when the attorney came to court and offered to represent her pro bono (T: 09/12/2003, Letter of Barry Goldstein 10/04/2004, Letter of Yevgenia Shockome 04/25/2005, Letter of Mr. Kenny 04/25/2005, T: 02/01/2005, pp. 2-4), by prejudging the case before it even started, for example telling the mother that she will lose her children (T:09/12/2003, pp. 23-24), by threatening to put mother in jail as intimidating tactic (T:09/12/2003, pp. 19, 26, 29), by letting the court officers to surround the mother and intimidate her with their handcuffs and guns ( Affidavit of Yevgenia Shockome, 12/10/2004, Paras 8, 9, 10, 11).
On August 17, 2009, Texas Judge had issued an order, stating that Timothy Shockome had impaired visitation between Genia Shockome and her children, therefore, Genia’s motion for temporary custody was granted for 20 days. Genia had full custody during which she had discovered that father had poisoned the children against her to the impossible degree. The therapist assigned to supervise the reunification, came up with the same conclusion stating in her reports that father would never allow for any relationship between children and their mother - Genia.
The children are now back with their father and he effectively prevents all visits and contact again, while actively brainwashing the children. The judge was replaced, and father hired County Attorney. Not sure how that is ethical or proper, but Timothy is back on his horse of abuse again. Children are alienated from their mother by their father (Court Records from Texas Court), after years of brainwashing and being cut away from their mother by Timothy Shockome.
Please read the reason stated by Judge Amodeo for custody switch again (Order 5/10/2004, pp. 51-52) which reads:
“This Court had made every reasonable effort to resolve the conflict between these parties in the manner which would permit the children to have significant quality contact with both of them. The Court is of the further opinion that if the mother were granted custody she would be far more likely to misuse or abuse the authority which such award would provide. On the other hand, the father had demonstrated an ongoing willingness to foster a positive relationship between the children and the mother “.
After being trafficked into USA on fraudulent promise to US government by Timothy Shockome, after years of abuse by Timothy Shockome, years or starvation and humiliation, years of impossible poverty imposed on her by him, years of being raped, and shaken and thrown into the wall, years of taking care of her children without any help from their father Timothy, Genia Shockome now has no relationship with her children, and paid over $120,000 to her abuser, rapist, and torturer Timothy Shockome- all by Orders from Judge Damian Amodeo, sitting in American Court, Dutchess County, New York.
Genia Shockome had gone to District Attorney and New York State Attorney General in 2007-2008 with documents, proof of deleted transcripts, fraudulent bills signed by Judge Amodeo with payments to Philip Kenny and others, improper orders, and here is what happened:
1. Her complaint was taken very seriously and investigated for several weeks – then suddenly dismissed.
2. Judge Amodeo suddenly had retired on December 31, 2008.
3. Philip Kenny (father’s attorney) had suddenly ran off to Great Britain where he remains now.
4. Viola Stroud completed her sentence in Jail for grand larceny.
All citings are accurate.
Some links about Genia Shockome's case are here;