Patricia Brady

Good morning,

Here is a copy of a civil rights and disability discrimination filed on Patricia Brady.  Since our case, please note that she had been removed from the GAL court lists.  Further please have it be noted that she has been sanctioned by Chief Justice Angela Ordonez for similar issues.

Please also note that neither myself, or any of the other mothers listed have ever been charged with a crime.  We are all still fighting for rights to see our children.  

This action seeks Plaintiffs relief for civil rights violations of gender and disability discrimination and deceptive business practices, outside the scope of appointment, committed by Patricia Brady located in Medford, Massachusetts. The Defendant is engaged in providing Guardian ad Litem Services through Family & Probate Courts and Juvenile Courts on behalf of children throughout the Commonwealth.

  1. Defendants’ actions, inactions, and omissions here violate Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law ( M.G.L. c. 272, s. 92A, 98, and 92A), and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act ( M.G.L. c. 93, s.103 ).

  2. Defendants’ actions, inactions, and omissions here violate M.G.L. c. 93A § 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  3. Jurisdiction of this court arises under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law ( M.G.L. c. 272, s. 92A, 98), and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act ( M.G.L. c. 93, s.103 ).

  4. Jurisdiction of this court arises under M.G.L. c. 93A § 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

    PARTIES

  5. Plaintiff, Nicole St. Hilaire, resides in Lynnfield, MA.

  6. Plaintiff, D.Y., is a minor individual who is the child of Nicole St. Hilaire.

  7. Plaintiff, Cailin James, resides in Pelham, New Hampshire.

page2image1642128page2image1640672page2image1646496page2image1646704page2image1646912page2image1647120page2image1647328

!2

  1. Plaintiffs, L.K., N.K., and J.K., are three minors who are the children of Cailin James.

  2. Plaintiff, Dominique Pattin, resides in Medford, MA.

  3. Plaintiff, M.P., an adult who is the child of Dominique Pattin.

  4. Patricia Brady & Associates is a firm located at 84 High Street, Suite 8, Medford, MA 02155.

  5. Patricia Brady, LMFT is the owner and operator of court services for Patricia Brady and

    Associates located at 84 High Street, Suite 8, Medford, MA 02155.

  6. Defendant uses the mail and telephone system in conducting their business.

    FACTS

  1. Most custody cases are settled more or less amicably. 3.8% require trial or much more. Court professionals have historically been taught to view the cases as high conflict by which they mean the parents are angry at each other and act out in ways that hurt the children.

  2. Established research demonstrates that 80-90% of these cases are really domestic violence cases in which the most dangerous abusers, men who believe she has no right to leave, seek custody to pressure their victims to return or punish them for leaving.

  3. Inadequately trained court professionals often fail to recognize the danger because most of the abusers have not committed the most severe physical assaults which is why inadequately trained professionals fail to recognize the abuse.

  4. Unscrupulous professionals have developed a cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals who make large incomes by supporting approaches that support abusive fathers.

page3image1647536

!3

  1. Domestic violence and abuse is about coercive control including financial control so that in most contested cases the abuser controls most of the financial resources. This is why professionals looking to create large incomes become part of the cottage industry.

  2. Very often they recommend each other in order to get recommendations that support the wealthy abuser. The Defendant obtained court orders in two of these cases to force Plaintiff’s to use her former work associate, David Medoff, who has no requisite expertise to conduct psychological evaluations on either battered women or batterers and has authored papers reflecting his opinion that battery evaluation tools have no place in forensic evaluations. David Medoff charged approximately $3300 to Ms. James and Ms. Pattin under the guise of being a qualified evaluator. Every other evaluation done by Plaintiffs contradict Medoff’s evaluations and cost 1/10 of the price Medoff charged. Ms. St. Hilair was evaluated by Catherine Ayoub, another former work associate of the Defendant, who also has no requisite expertise in domestic violence.

  3. Courts are getting a large majority of abuse cases wrong because they have not integrated scientific research and are relying on untrained professionals who pathologize battered women rather than hold perpetrators accountable leaving the children to suffer the consequences.

  4. Respected judicial organizations now agree that courts need to integrate research like ACE and Saunders and that present practices tilt decisions in favor of abusers and towards risking children. In 2014, Massachusetts passed the emergency act titled “An Act Relative to Domestic Violence” mandating bi-annual training for courts that included GAL’s.

!4

  1. When a family court judge appoints a GAL to represent the best interest of the children, it anticipates a report that is unique, impartial, and conducted by a qualified professional. The court could not have anticipated that the GAL would cut and paste pages of the reports that disregard Plaintiff’s disabilities, discriminate based on gender, and pathologize Plaintiff’s existing disabilities but, rather add ‘disorders’ that do not exist, based on the Defendant’s unqualified and bias perceptions rather than medical fact.

  2. There are very serious implications of harm by what the court appointed GAL, Patricia Brady, has done by cutting and pasting pages of materials across multiple cases; even the most favorable interpretation is that she is hopelessly biased and should not be handling cases involving domestic violence and abuse where children’s well being is at stake.

  3. Plaintiff’s cases are what Dr. Saunders’ called a “harmful outcome case” that is always wrong and is caused by the use of flawed practices by professionals who lack training of domestic violence and abuse cases.

  4. In Ms. James case, the GAL, Ms. Brady, spoke with a leading national expert, Barry Goldstein, who explained this to her but she ignored highly credible scientific research claiming she knows better. Defendants discrimination dominates her interactions.

  5. One of the problems with the present system is experts are allowed to give discriminatory and bias subjective opinions unsupported by good research and often, as in these cases, contradicted by research the ‘expert’ chooses to ignores.

  6. In these cases, the fathers have confirmed that they are abusers by doing everything possible to limit and destroy the children’s relationships with their mothers. Alienation abuse is a common tactic of abusers and direclty indicative of their poor parenting ability.

!5

  1. The recent Meier Study confirms gender bias continues to be widespread and Defendants discrimination and deception is a blatant example of the harm to protective mothers.

  2. It is extremely unlikely for all mothers and all fathers to have acted, stated, and represented

    the exact same things to the Defendant.

  3. The fact that all Plaintiff’s have PTSD disability as a result of domsetic violece and abuse

    indicates the level of harm their former spouse’s/partners are capable of inflicting.

  4. In fairness, the court had no idea of the discriminatory or deceptive practices of the GAL, or

    it would not have appointed her to any cases. Notably, it would be inconcievable to any reasonable person to consider that any GAL would cut and pasted pages of her reports that were so extremely discriminatory toward Plaintiffs and deceptively entered into the court as thorough, impartial, reliable reports done by a qualified professional.

  5. From 2012 to 2014, Defendant accepted court appointments to act as a Guardian ad Litem for all Plaintiffs’ children in contested custody cases.

  6. All Plaintiff’s are the primary attachment figures and primary full time caregivers to the children. All Plaintiff’s enjoyed close and loving relationships with each of their children prior to the custodial proceedings. None of the Plaintiff’s former spouse’s/partner had any issues with the Plaintiff’s providing full time care to the children during the marriage.

  7. All Plaintiff’s former spouse’s/partner claimed sudden onsets of maternal “unfitness” only when they were required to pay child support. A major marker for domestic violence and abuse cases is financial abuse.

page6image3733248page6image3733456

!6

  1. All Plaintiff’s had and communicated their disabilties that were the result of domestic violence and abuse to the Defendant.

  2. Plaintiff mother’s had a diagnosed disability of PTSD due to domestic violence and abuse to themselves and their minor children by their former spouse’s/partner.

  3. Ms. St. Hilair is a nurse and military veteran who suffered a brain injury in the course of her duty. Police reports documenting her former partners gun violence

  4. Ms. James survived an assault and battery by her ex husband which left her with permanent spinal damage. The restraining order issued by the court was provided to the Defendant along with counseling journals and reports of the minor children diagnosing them with PTSD and depression as a result of her ex husbands violence and abuse.

  5. Ms. Pattin provided the Defendant with multiple reports with concerns for the sexual abuse of her daughter by her former husband.

  6. Defendants accepted appointments Defendant lacked ‘requisite expertise’ to evaluate. This is akin to having a family doctor general practitioner attempt to remove a cancerous tumor.

  7. Defendant is subject to American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics. Defendant violated the following licensing board standards:

    1. A.4.a. Avoiding Harm: Counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm.

page7image3734496

!7

  1. C.2.a. Boundaries of Competence: Counselors practice only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, state and national professional credentials, and appropriate professional experience.

  2. C.6.b. Reports to Third Parties: Counselors are accurate, honest, and objective in reporting their professional activities and judgments to appropriate third parties, including courts, health insurance companies, those who are the recipients of evaluation reports, and others.

  3. C.6.d. Exploitation of Others: Counselors do not exploit others in their professional relationships.

  4. E.2.a. Limits of Competence: Counselors use only those testing and assessment services for which they have been trained and are competent.

  5. E.5.a. Proper Diagnosis: Counselors take special care to provide proper diagnosis of mental disorders.

  6. E.5.c. Historical and Social Prejudices in the Diagnosis of Pathology:

  7. Counselors recognize historical and social prejudices in the misdiagnosis and

  8. pathologizing of certain individuals and groups and strive to become aware of and address such biases in themselves or others.

10. G.4.a. Accurate Results: Counselors plan, conduct, and report research accurately.

!8

  1. Defendants produced Guardian ad Litem reports to courts refusing to make any disability accomodations or modify practices. Defendants forced evaluations by third parties who had no ‘requisite expertise’ in domestic violence to conduct evaluations of battered women. Domestic violence is a grevious harm that cannot be adequately assessed by a lay person. The professional standards, therefore, have required ‘requisite expertise’.

  2. Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs disabilities request refused to offer any reasonable accomodations or modifications to practices to provide any qualified individual with training in domestic violence. All Plaintiffs had PTSD anxiety and two had physical disabilities. Ms. St. Hiliaire suffered a brain injury during her military career and Ms. James suffered permanent spinal damage as a result of an assault and battery by former husband.

  3. Defendants collected thousands of dollars in fees to conduct evaluations/investigations and Plaintiffs entered into agreement with Defendants under the false pretense that Defendants had ‘requisite expertise’ to accept the appointment and that they would recieve fair, unbiased, case-based, fact-based, original evaluations/investigations from Defendants.

  4. Defendants did not produce individual evaluations/investigations but, duplicated pages of mental health demonizing Plaintiff/Mothers and omitted years of abuse history by fathers.

  5. Defendants did not author or disseminate to the courts individual, impartial evaluations/ investigations for which the Defendants had ‘prerequisite expertise’ to accept but, duplicated pages of reports and false allegations based on gender and disabilities discrimination to Plaintiff/Mothers; who are the primary attachment figures and primary caregivers to the parties children failing to inform the Plaintiffs or appointing court of business practice fraud.

!9

  1. All Plaintiff/Mothers children have suffered extreme harm as a result of discriminatory, unfair, and deceptive evaluations/investigations authored, copied and disseminated by the Defendants for judicial reference in court proceedings.

  2. Defendants unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful and Defendant has failed to mitigate the ongoing harm complained of herein.

    CAUSE OF ACTION

    COUNT I

    Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law ( M.G.L. c. 272, s. 92A, 98), and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act ( M.G.L. c. 93, s.103 )

  3. Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law ( M.G.L. c. 272, s. 92A, 98), and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 93, s.103 ) prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender/sex or disability.

  4. Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 272, §92A clarifies any place of public accomodation and publishing, issueing, circulating, distributing, directly any written or printed material of any kind intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any sex or or because of any physical or mental disability, in the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered to the general public by such places of public accommodation.

page10image3734912page10image3735120page10image3735328page10image3735536page10image3735744page10image3735952

!10

  1. Massachusetts “Standards for Category F and E Guardian Ad Litem” specifically mandate 8.2 The Report Should be Accurate, Objective and Unbiased. and “Standards for Category E Guardian Ad Litem” specifically mandates 1.3 The GAL Serves as an Impartial Investigator, Evaluator and Reporter and 1.3 (B) The GAL Engages in Nondiscriminatory Practices.

  2. Defendant accepted court appointments, wrote, published, and distributed court reports, that omitted documented histories of domestic violence and abuse to Plaintiffs and their children, disregarded documented disabilities, and pathologized Plaintiffs based on Defendants’ lack of “requisite expertise” in domestic violence and abuse cases.

  3. Defendant was mandated to decline to accept Plaintiff’s cases under Massachusetts Professional Standards which demand that the GAL should decline where GAL lacks “requisite expertise” necessary to conduct any evaluation/investigation.

  4. No reasonable person could have possibly suspected or discovered the level of fraud in copying pages of reports or that all reports discriminated heavily against only mothers and absolved fathers of documented histories of violence and/or abuse.

  5. From 2013 to 2016, Defendant cut and pasted highly defamatory and negative descriptions of statements and behaviors she allegedly observed in her depiction of Plaintiff’s.

  6. From 2013 to 2016, Defendant cut and pasted highly positive descriptions and statements allegedly made by the fathers regarding her perception of the men.

  7. Plaintiff’s became aware of this through comparing notes and then comparing the actual reports submitted by the Defendant to the courts.

!11

  1. Probate and family court judges, in reliance upon the truth and accuracy of the GAL’s reports, limited the Plaintiff’s and children’s relationships.

  2. Due to the fact that it would be impossible for all disabled Plaintiff’s to state and do the same things and, equally as impossible for the men to state or do the same things, it is clear that the GAL’s fraud was discriminatory based on gender.

  3. Due to the fact that all Plaintiff communicated actual disabilities to the GAL and all Plaintiff’s actual disabilities were omitted from the GAL report, it is clear that the GAL’s fraud further discriminated based on disability.

  4. Defendant conducted phone interviews and wrote, published, then distributed via mail court reports to the courthouses in Essex and Middlesex counties.

  5. The harm and trauma to the Plaintiff/Mothers has been extreme due to watching the deterioration of their children: hospitalizations, psychiatric medications, academic drop-outs, anxiety, depression, and primary attachment deprivation trauma.

  6. Defendants omitted and minimized years of coercive control, physical abuse, psychological abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect by the fathers against the children and Plaintiffs.

  7. Defendant omitted Plaintiff’s actual disabilities and added in disabilities that have repeatedly been refuted by competent, qualified professionals. In two cases, Defendants labeled Ms. James and Ms. St. Hiliare with Munchausen by Proxy, refuted by further testing, based entirely on discriminatory practice by Defendant.

!12

  1. Munchausen by Proxy is a discredited theory created by a pediatrician named Roy Meadow based entirely on two child fatality cases he had. Dr. Meadow’s theory has been prohibited in court in Australia and the United Kingdom and removed from the DSM in the United States.

  2. The harm to the Plaintiff’s and their children was both foreseeable and preventable had the Defendant refused to accept the appointment, knowing she lacked ‘requisite expertise’.

  3. Research further confirms that “mothers in contested custody cases involving domestic violence make deliberately false allegations 1 to 2 percent of the time and that fathers are 16 times more likely to lie” (Bala, et. al., “Allegations of Child Abuse in the Context of Parental Separation”, 2001).

  4. Gender bias studies in 40 states confirm that women are disavantaged in the judical system. “When mothers are held liable by courts for being afraid of their abusers or are punished for trying to protect their children, the judicial system makes itself a willing participant in the litigation tactic of victim-blaming” (Goldstein, Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody, page 6-13, 2016).

  5. Plaintiffs are all the primary attachment figure to the children and were the primary caregiver to the children. Plaintiffs are fit, protective, loving mothers who did not suddenly become unfit due to allegations and accusations raised by their abusers. Plaintiffs all had close, loving relationships with their children prior to abusers using the courts to obtain sole custody.

!13

  1. Defendant believes in the myths that women frequently make false allegations of abuse and disregard conflicting and well established research to the contrary.

  2. The lifelong harm to the Plaintiffs children is reflected in The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (ACE Study) is the largest research study ever conducted and endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  3. The U.S. Department of Justice Saunder’s Study is particularly important in cases involving domestic violence because it highlights the systemic failures of courts relying on mental health evaluations/investigations conducted by untrained professionals like the Defendants.

  4. Defendants actions are willful, deliberate, and clearly discriminatory based on sex where Plaintiff/mothers were lumped into pathological categories in cut and pasted reports disseminated to the courts vs. father who were lumped into favorable categories in cut and pasted reports disseminated to the courts.

    COUNT II

    M.G.L. c. 93A § 2

  5. Plaintiff’s were led to believe they would be getting a fair and impartial evaluation/ investigation by a qualified and ethical court officer.

  6. The Defendant inflicted undue emtional harm, intimidated, and interfered with parental relationships while engaging in unqualified, discriminatory, deceptive practices.

page14image3736160page14image3737616

!14

  1. Under lawful compulsion, the Defendant knew the Plaintiff’s were forced to engage both with the Defendant and third parties who had no requisite expertise via court orders obtained by the Defendant.

  2. The Defendant willfully copied, disseminated, and testified in support of deceptive court reports that were in contempt of court orders, rules of professional standards, ethical licensing guidelines, disability and gender anti-discrimination laws.

  3. When a Family & Probate or Juvenile Court appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the best interest of the children standard, the appointment assumes the guardian ad litem will conduct a factual, thorough, independent, individual evaluation/investigation.

  4. Defendant conduct is tortious in that a duplicated report was reproduced in violation of every term of appointment and far outside the scope.

  5. Defendant was mandated to refuse appointments where they lacked “requisite expertise” and, clearly, the Defendants should never have accepted any appointments involving cases that had a history of domestic violence and abuse.

  6. Defendant failed to abide by the time frame of the court appointments habitually claiming the delay was caused by requiring psychological evaluations and constituted fraud upon the court as the report was duplicitous and based on discriminatory opinion, not fact. In reality, there was no actual reason for any delay let alone a year or more after the deadlines.

  7. Defendants’ cutting and pasting pages was deceptive business practice in violation of court orders and professional standards the Plaintiffs were led to believe by Defendant would be adhered to at the time they agreed to Defendant’s contract.

!15

  1. Defendant participated in multiple ex-parte discussions with fathers and their counsel while insisting that Plaintiff’s disclose all communications. In two cases, it appears the Defendant conspired with the fathers to orchestrate parental abductions from Plaintiff’s care and custody.

  2. Plaintiffs and children were extremely vulnerable entities who anticipated conformity to standards of civil rights and disabilities law, ethical and honest business practices, compliance to orders of the court.

  3. All of the Defendant’s unfair and decptive practices were willful and knowing within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 93A. Defendant went far outside the scope of her appointment by usurping judicial authority knowing she lacked ‘requisite expertise’ to accept these appointments and failing to inform the courts.

  4. As a result of Defendants discrimination and deception, Plaintiffs’ and their children’s are persons aggrieved who have been injured and suffered pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of familial relations.

  5. Plaintiffs can think of no greater harm than being rendered helpless and forced to watch their children suffer.

!16

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgement in favor of Plaintiffs and the class and against Defendants for:

page17image3738864

Date: May 20, 2018

Respectfully submitted by Plaintiffs,

__________________________________ Nicole St. Hilaire
47 Beaver Avenue, Lynnfield, MA 01940 (978) 435-1936 niki_st.hilaire@yahoo.com

 

 

Leave a Reply