Gottschalk Federal Complaint - Amended June 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff vs. KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK, BARBARA LASSITER, Esq., MICHAEL MANELY, Esq., THE MANELY FIRM, PC HON. S. LARK INGRAM, HON. C. LATAIN KELL, DIANNE WOODS, HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY, SONNY PURDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, THURBERT E. BAKER, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Georgia, CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, in their official capacities as members of the GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, COBB COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, in their official capacity as members of the GEORGIA COMPOSITE BOARD OF

1

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) No.: 1:09-CV-1013-BBM ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS, SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON, and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SHERI M. SIEGEL, EMMETT FULLER, SUSAN VOLENTINE, PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC, ANN BOST, LARRY O. BOST, JANE DOE JOHN DOE Defendants

) )

MORE DEFINITE AMENDED and RESTATED COMPLAINT Introduction Dean Mark Gottschalk (“Plaintiff” or “I” or “Me”), of Georgia, hereby asserts the following claims against Defendants in the above-referenced action:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) (5)

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - denial of procedural due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial of substantive due process of law under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3), conspiracy; Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

2

Jurisdiction 1.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to: a. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983(civil action for deprivation of rights, 1985(conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), 1986 and 1988(proceedings in vindication of civil rights); and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(1), (2), (3), and (4)(civil rights and elective franchise), and 1367(a)(supplemental jurisdiction); b. Pendant Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).

Venue based on Location of Parties and Events 2.

Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 & 1391(a) because all the parties reside, work or operate in this District and because the location of the civil rights injury/ deprivation/ denial is in this District.

3.

This complaint is not frivolous.

4.

This is a proceeding for declaratory relief, and permanent

injunction, enjoining all defendants, and each of them, their agents, employees and successors from continuing their policy, practice, and actions depriving me of the privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United Sates, as further set forth herein.

3

Parties 5.

DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith Trail,

Marietta, GA 30068, is an individual residing in Cobb County, Georgia. 6.

I am a white, heterosexual male.

KAREN ANN GOTTSCHALK (“Defendant Gottschalk”), 3580 Oak

Knoll Dr., Marietta, GA, 30068, is an individual residing in Cobb County, Georgia, and my former wife. 7.

BARBARA LASSITER (“Defendant Lassiter”), 1700 Water Place

NW, Suite 306, Atlanta, GA, 30339, is an attorney licensed in the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and represents my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the underlying state litigation in the trial court presided over by Defendant Kell.

On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter is a

homosexual female. 8.

HON. C. LATAIN KELL (“Defendant Kell”), 30 Waddell Street,

Marietta, GA 30090 is a judge of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Cobb Judicial Circuit. 9.

HON. S. LARK INGRAM (“Defendant Ingram”) is the Chief Judge

of the Superior Court of the State of Georgia, Cobb Judicial Circuit.

At all times herein, Defendant Ingram supervises,

commands, and controls Defendant Kell. 10.

DIANNE WOODS, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5, Marietta,

GA 30064 (“Defendant Woods”)is a licensed attorney in the State of Georgia and was appointed and did act as Guardian Ad Litem in the Underlying Action. 11.

HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5,

Marietta, GA 30064 (“Defendant Huff, Woods & Hamby”) is a

4

partnership one of whose partners is Defendant Woods, and who employs Defendant Woods. 12.

MICHAEL MANELEY (“Defendant Maneley”), 7 Atlanta St., Suite

C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is an attorney licensed in the state of Georgia and practicing in Cobb County Georgia, and represented my ex-wife, Karen Ann Gottschalk in the Underlying Action at the time it was presided over by The Hon. Adele Grubbs. 13.

THE MANELEY FIRM, PC (“Defendant The Maneley Firm”), 7

Atlanta St., Suite C, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a professional

corporation formed in the state of Georgia attorney, employing and supervising the efforts of Defendant Michael Maneley. 14.

COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA,

30090, is a political subdivision of the State of Georgia. 15.

SAMUEL S. OLENS, TIM LEE, HELEN GOREHAM, WOODY THOMPSON,

and BOB OTT, in their official capacity as members of the COBB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (“Defendant Board of Commissioners”), 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, GA 30090, is the governing body of Defendant Cobb County.

Defendant Board of

Commissioners oversees and operates the administrative aspects of the Cobb County court system.

Defendant Board of

Commissioners is the policy-maker for Cobb County, Georgia, and funds, in part, the operation of the Cobb County Superior Court. Defendant Board of Commissioners exerts control and influence over the conduct of the courts through their funding of the courts, as well as other means. 16.

SONNY PURDUE, State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334(“Defendant

Purdue”) is the governor of the State of Georgia.

5

17.

THURBERT BAKER, 40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334

(“Defendant Baker”) is the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, who is responsible to protect the public as well as to uphold the laws and the Constitution of Georgia. 18.

CAROL L. WEBB, LINDA F. CAMPBELL, F. KARL DOUGLASS, BILL

DOVERSPIKE, JR., DONALD S. MECK, MARSHA B. SAULS, 237 Coliseum Drive, Macon, GA 31217 (“Defendant Board of Psychologists”), are all members of the Georgia State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, formed to provide consumer protection and public health and welfare through the regulation of the profession, and to investigate and adjudicate complaints issued against licensed psychologists.

Defendant Board of Psychologists regulates and

controls the practice of psychology in the state of Georgia, including, in particular, practice by Defendants Siegel and Volentine. 19.

DEFENDANTS GEORGE WILLIAM “BILL” QUARTERMAN, GENE THOMAS

SCHRADER, HELEN W. COALE, ERIC GROH, PATRICIA RICE HARWELL, JAVEL JACKSON, JANET H. LENARD, JAN LIGON, 237 Coliseum Drive, Macon, GA 31217-3858, are all members of the Georgia Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists (“Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists”), a political subdivision, charged by law with regulating the practice of professional counseling, social work, and marriage and family therapy in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Georgia, by enforcing the

6

education and training requirements established by law for licensure in each profession, by adopting and enforcing a code of ethics governing licensees, by establishing and enforcing continuing education requirements, and by addressing unlicensed practice in these professions.

Defendant Composite Board of

Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists regulates and controls the practice of counseling, social work, and marriage and family therapy in the state of Georgia, including, in particular, practice by Defendant Fuller. 20.

SHERI M. SIEGEL (“Defendant Siegel”), 125 Church Street,

Ste. 210, Marietta, GA, 30060, is a clinical psychologist who evaluated the minor children, and who testified against me in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell. 21.

EMMETT FULLER (“Defendant Fuller”), 899 Burns St. SE,

Marietta, GA, 30067, is a licensed professional counselor, practicing in Marietta, Georgia, and who provided therapeutic counseling to me, but then testified against me in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell.

Defendant Fuller

disclosed my confidential patient-therapist communications to Defendant Woods and Defendant Volentine. 22.

SUSAN Z. VOLENTINE (“Defendant Volentine”), 2688 Tritt

Springs Drive, Marietta, GA, 30062, is a licensed psychologist practicing in the state of Georgia and who testified against me in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell. 23.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC (“Defendant Psychological

Affiliates”), 122 Cherry Street NE, Marietta, GA, 30060, employs

7

and directs the conduct of Defendants Volentine and Fuller and is responsible for their actions. 24.

ANN BOST, 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30068

(“Defendant Ann Bost”) is the mother of Defendant Gottschalk. 25.

LARRY BOST 231 Greencrest Ct., Marietta, GA, 30068

(“Defendant Larry Bost”) is the father of Defendant Gottschalk.

Plain Statement of Facts as Required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26.

On May 2, 1998, I married Karen Ann Gottschalk.

Two

children were born of our marriage, Lexi Gottschalk, born on July 20, 1999 and Tanner Gottschalk born on July 24, 2002.

Lexi Gottschalk and Tanner Gottschalk are minor

children (the “Minor Children”). 27.

As life would have it, the marriage did not last. On February 19, 2004, Defendant Gottschalk filed for divorce.

28.

On March 31, 2005, Judge Grubbs granted a final judgment and decree of divorce.

29.

Defendants Maneley and The Maneley Firm, P.C., drafted an order that did not follow Judge Grubbs’ verbal findings, and limited my time and decision making beyond what was intended by the Court.

30.

Judge Grubbs adopted the Defendant Maneley’s draft order verbatim.

31.

I was not made aware at the time that I had a right to contest the inaccuracies in the order.

8

32.

Unhappy with the result, Defendant Gottschalk sought and found new counsel, Defendant Lassiter.

33.

On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter harbors bias and resentment against me because I am a heterosexual man.

34.

Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk conspired with each other and acted to deny me my civil rights.

35.

On April 24, 2006, by and through Defendant Lassiter, Defendant Gottschalk filed a Petition for Modification of Visitation under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3.

36.

In the petition, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that my contact with my children be supervised, and my parental rights curtailed.1

37.

Defendants embellish facts, alleging in the complaint that I had been “arrested for aggravated assault” by threatening someone with a shotgun in a “road rage incident”.

I never

admitted any guilt, but entered a plea under the authority of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to a simple act of pointing a weapon.

I never engaged in any

alleged “road rage” behaviors nor was I ever convicted of aggravated assault. 38.

Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk alleged that I was violent, and was a threat to my children. This is and was untrue.

1

In reality, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk likely wanted a change of custody, but feared meeting the “material change in circumstances” standard applicable. See O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. Instead they brought the action as one seeking a change of visitation because such changes are not subject to any showing of fitness or any change in circumstances.

9

39.

Defendant Gottschalk enlisted the help of Defendants Ann and Larry Bost, who placed me under unauthorized surveillance on numerous occasions, and reported my activity to local law enforcement and other government authorities including the county zoning board.

The Shadow Justice System 40.

Cobb County is somewhat unique among the Georgia counties in the manner that it handles domestic cases involving contested custody.

There is a de facto “shadow justice”

system that functions by designating a Guardian Ad Litem under U.S.C.R. 24.9, usually an old, established one that has been doing it for 20 or 30 years, to “evaluate” the case. 41.

The Guardian Ad Litem then typically appoints a custodial evaluator.

42.

The attorneys for the parties go along with this process, and refrain from a zealous advocacy for their clients.

43.

The report and recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem, made first to the parties and then to the Court, is more than merely advisory, becomes the de facto ruling of the Court, and are in practice extremely difficult to challenge.

44.

This system operates to protect the state actor participants and quickly dispose of family law cases without the need for a protracted trial on the merits.

10

45.

The Cobb County Courts give great deference to the appointed Guardians Ad Litem, and protects them.

46.

Attorneys and litigants that challenge or fail to “go along” with this shadow justice system are chastised by the court officials through unofficial and official means, such as the power of contempt, refusal to seriously consider evidence, and declining to hear significant issues.

47.

As a result, the Guardians frequently are allowed to ignore the rules of court and Georgia law in the conduct of their duties, including, for example, the filing of proper motions, and rules regarding ex-parté communications with the Court.

Pre-Trial Actions 48.

Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk used their embellished allegations to inflame the attention of the court.

49.

Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then conspired to have a Guardian Ad Litem appointed in my case.

Without a formal

request from either side, or motion therefore, Judge Grubbs, sua sponte, appointed a Guardian Ad Litem, Defendant Woods. Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Woods was given full authority to access all of my medical records, including my mental health records despite the existence of Georgia law making such records absolutely privileged. 50.

Defendant Woods has been acting as a Guardian Ad Litem for over 20 years, is viewed as a “fixture” in Cobb County, and Cobb County Superior Court judges routinely defer in

11

substantial part to her judgment when she is appointed as a Guardian Ad Litem. 51.

Despite this being only a visitation case, Defendant Woods furthered the conspiracy with Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter by filing a motion seeking a full custodial evaluation by Defendant Siegel to be administered not only on myself and Defendant Gottschalk, but upon The Minor Children also. Custodial evaluations are done in cases where custody is at issue, which was not the case here.

52.

In that motion Defendant Woods represented that she had the agreement of my counsel, however, I was never made aware of the consequences of this action or that a full custodial evaluation was being requested.

53.

As a result of the mandatory custodial evaluation, I was forced to undergo examination and evaluation by a custodial evaluator.

54.

Following the custodial evaluation, I was ordered to undergo therapy with Defendant Fuller. I understood this to be a confidential, therapeutic relationship intended to enhance communication with Defendant Gottschalk.

Defendant

Fuller furthered the conspiracy by failing to advise me that he could or would disclose my statements or his impressions of me to Defendant Woods or Defendant Volentine. 55.

Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Fuller and Defendant Volentine were both associates with Defendant Psychological Affiliates, and discussed my alleged condition in secret.

12

56.

As a result of the mandatory treatment, I was forced to undergo weeks of examination and evaluation by Defendant Fuller.

57.

Defendant Fuller never administered any recognized tests to me, nor was he retained to evaluate me.

Despite this,

after a mere two weeks of “treatment”, Defendant Fuller suddenly announced that he had made a psychological diagnosis of me. 58.

Defendant Fuller shared his findings with Defendant Woods, who in turn shared those findings with others.

Attempts to Hide Secret Custodial Report 59.

Defendants conspired to conduct a secret custodial evaluation of me, and shield it from professional review.

60.

Defendant Woods requested special court order language intended to severely restrict circulation and punish unauthorized distribution of the report.

61.

On information and belief Defendant Woods took this action primarily in response to having been previously sued over her recommendations in another custodial case, and not out of any interest of the parties or the minor children.

62.

Judge Grubbs thereafter issued an order that unauthorized distribution of the custody evaluation report would be punishable by contempt.

63.

The same order directed that a copy was to be provided to counsel and Defendant Woods.

13

Conspiracy to Issue Biased Report 64.

Defendant Woods’ pattern of practice is to send business to her close associates.

65.

On information and belief, Defendant Woods and Siegel have a long professional relationship.

66.

Based on Defendant Woods’ recommendation, Defendants secured the appointment of Defendant Siegel as the custody evaluator in my case, and I was court ordered to see her.

67.

Prior to my initial meeting with Defendant Siegel, Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter in secret submitted to Defendant Siegel a mountain of alleged documentation critical of me that Defendant Siegel admitted weighed at least 25 pounds.

68.

On information and belief, this documentation was intended to heavily bias Defendant Siegel before she met me, and skew the results of what was intended as an objective analysis.

69.

Defendant Siegel failed to disclose this to me.

Defendant Siegel thereafter conducted an examination and evaluation of the parties, and issued a report.

70.

Her report concluded that I had no level of clinical pathology to support a diagnosis.

However, she

nevertheless inserted prejudicial statements in her report critical of my parenting and my psychological well-being. The report insinuated and implied that I may have tendencies toward certain ill-defined conditions, the net effect of which denied me a valid or scientific evaluation.

14

Secret Evaluations of the Children 71.

Disregarding my rights as joint legal custodian, Defendant Gottschalk arranged without my knowledge and in secret to take the Minor Children to Defendant Volentine for a series of evaluations.

72.

On information and belief, the purpose of the evaluations was to establish a false record that I was a threat to my children.

73.

I was denied knowledge of these sessions, which had occurred both in-person and over the phone, and which I discovered only afterwards.

I was refused attendance and

participation in these sessions.

I was refused access to

the health records created as a result of these secret evaluations. 74.

Following the secret evaluations, Defendant Volentine issued secret communications to Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk, insinuating that I might be a threat to my children.

75.

Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk then filed an “emergency” motion on March 10, 2008, containing gross exaggerations and embellishments of actions they claimed to occur that were dangers to my children. That motion was denied by the Court.

Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant 76.

Despite my rights as joint legal and physical custodian, Defendant Gottschalk unilaterally retained Defendant

15

Volentine to treat the Minor Children on a continuing basis. 77.

Defendant Volentine did, from time to time, counsel the Minor Children.

78.

On information and belief, Defendant Gottschalk gave significant false and misleading information about me to Defendant Volentine.

79.

Even though I was not her patient, had never seen her as a patient, had never spoken with her as a patient, and gave her no authority, Defendant Volentine took it upon herself to diagnose me “in absentia”.

She then contacted Defendant

Woods, informing her in a letter that Defendant Volentine believed I may have a “high-functioning form of Asberger’s Disorder”, and inappropriately suggested that I be evaluated for such a condition. 80.

Defendant Woods received this information, and on March 17, 2008, composed and published a letter to Defendant Lassiter in which she made false, scandalous and defamatory statements concerning me, including that I was possibly “laboring under some disability” and “the possibility that Dean might actually have a high-functioning form of Asberger’s Disorder, which has gone undiagnosed until now.” On information and belief, Defendant Lassiter then shared this with Defendant Gottschalk.

81.

Not satisfied with her actions, Defendant Volentine, despite having no therapeutic or other professional relationship with me and no experience with Asberger’s

16

Disorder, then took it upon herself to research for Defendant Woods professionals who “possess the requisite skills to conduct such an evaluation”.

Illegal Attempts to Seize Counseling Records 82.

Any attorney is presumed to know the law.

Georgia law

provides therapist/patient privilege to confidentiality. Defendant Lassiter is presumed to know this. 83.

Despite this knowledge, prior to trial Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk attempted to secure my confidential counseling records by sending a court-signed subpoena.

84.

As a result, I was forced to pay my attorney to file a formal objection and quash the subpoena.

85.

Defendant Lassiter stated on several occasions that “she would get them” despite the absolute legal privilege.

Ongoing Efforts to Harass and Intimidate 86.

From the time the action was filed, until and through the trial, Defendants Gottschalk, Ann Bost and Larry Bost engaged in a continuous pattern of actions intended to thwart my parenting time with my children.

87.

Without limitation to specific acts, Defendants Gottschalk and Bost continually attempted to usurp and limit my role as parent, prevent me from communicating with my children during extracurricular events and at other times, and to encourage my children to believe that Defendants Bost and

17

Gottschalk are my children’s “true” family, and encouraging my children to believe I am no longer part of their family. 88.

In early 2008, Judge Kell was assigned to this case, and this matter came on for hearing on September 29, 2009.

89.

At trial I was repeatedly denied my civil rights.

Surprise In-Chambers Announcement by Defendant Woods 90.

On the morning of the second day of trial Defendant Woods met the attorneys first thing and asked them to step back into chambers to see the Judge.

91.

Thereupon she proceeded to inform Defendant Kell, out of the presence of the parties and the Court Reporter, that she had just received information that “triggered” her obligation to do a mandatory report to the Department of Family and Childrens Services (“DFCS”) under the child abuse statute, and had done so.

92.

My counsel immediately objected to this disclosure, and the unfair prejudice to the Defendant’s case, but Defendant Kell declined to declare a mistrial.

93.

Because Defendant Woods chose to make her announcement to Defendant Kell in chambers, rather than in court on the record, I was denied the opportunity to be present during this testimony.

94.

I sought, but was denied, the opportunity to cross examine Defendant Woods on facts that supported her in-chambers claim.

18

95.

I repeatedly contacted DFCS, but was unable to confirm that any investigation or report was made to DFCS or any police unit regarding myself.

96.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Woods intended to prejudice the Judge against me off the record where she could escape censure, and to avoid having to introduce any actual facts.

97.

As a result of Defendant Woods’ clandestine disclosure, Defendant Kell’s perception of me was fatally poisoned, and I was denied a fair trial.

98.

As a result of Defendant Kell’s refusal to allow me to cross examine Defendant Woods, I was denied the opportunity to challenge the evidence alleged against me, and denied a fair hearing.

Denial of Expert Cross Examination, and Threats Against Counsel 99.

During the trial I qualified my expert, Dr. Monty Weinstein, PSY.D., M.P.A., D.A.P.A., N.C.P. Dr. Weinstein is a Clinical Fellow of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. He is also a Fellow of the American Orthopsychiatric Association. He has qualified as an expert in custodial issues over 2,500 times in 45 states and 4 countries. Recipient of the Distinguished Public Service Award in Kings County, Adjunct Professor, Nassau Community College, New York. Holds two masters and a doctorate. Mentor at the New York University Graduate

19

School of Public Affairs. Supervised interns at Connecticut State University in Family Therapy. Has an earned doctorate. On the editorial advisory board for the American Psychotherapy Association. Published numerous book reviews for the American Orthopsychiatric Association. Chaired the ethics committee in a psychiatric facility. Published fifty peer-reviewed journal articles in the area of mental health. Clinical administrator for years at a large children's psychiatric facility. Developed expertise on the deliverance of mental health services by editing the psychiatric journal reviewing book reviews, studying clinical administration at New York University, and being a clinical administrator at psychiatric facilities for numerous years. 100. Dr. Weinstein testified in the Underlying Action about my qualifications as a parent, and my relationship with my children. 101. I then attempted to have him testify about issues with the Siegel Report. 102. When I attempted to have Dr. Weinstein critique the facts underlying the Siegel psychological report and its testing methodology, Defendant Kell became enraged, and accused me and my counsel of having illegally distributed the report to Dr. Weinstein. 103. Defendant Kell threatened to hold my counsel in contempt for letting my expert review the report.

20

104. Defendant Kell refused to let Dr. Weinstein testify regarding problems identified with the fact-gathering and procedures outlined in the Siegel report. 105. As a result of Defendant Kell’s actions, I was denied the opportunity to challenge facts and conclusions in the Siegel report.

Seizure of Expert Report 106. Upon cross-examination, Defendant Lassiter demanded to see the contents of Dr. Weinstein’s bag, and then demanded that the court do an in-camera inspection of the bag, over the objection of my counsel. 107. Defendant Kell personally searched Dr. Weinstein’s bag from the bench, and seized certain reports therein, including Dr. Weinstein’s own report of an MMPI-2 that he had administered to me. 108. Defendant Kell had no right to seize Dr. Weinstein’s personal reports. 109. Defendant Kell’s and Defendant Lassiter’s conduct was excessive, and cast a pall over the courtroom and my conduct of the case. 110. The intent of these actions were to protect the courtappointed experts from criticism, and to prevent me from fairly litigating the competency of the Siegel Report. 111. As a result of Defendants’ actions, I was denied a fair hearing, denied the opportunity to present significant and material evidence, and denied due process of law.

21

Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial 112. Prior to the conclusion of the trial in this case, Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that the Court impose supervision upon me during my parenting time and while the parties drafted and submitted written closing arguments. 113. Following this demand, Defendant Woods also then and there asked for supervision. 114. Over the objection of my counsel, and without allowing cross-examination of Defendant Woods, Defendant Kell granted supervision, for one visit during one week. 115. This “one week” grew to three months of supervised visits, without any response, advice, or relief from Defendant Kell. 116. The intent of this supervision requirement was to drive a wedge between me and my children, to alienate them from their father, and to deny me an active and meaningful role in their lives. 117. As a result of this requirement, I was denied substantial time with my children, and forced to pay a heavy burden in supervision fees for the time I did have.

Refusal to Approve Supervisor 118. Once the supervision requirement was implemented, Defendant Woods then refused to approve reasonable supervisors other than her favorites.

22

119. I attempted to get approval for the use of Phyllis McNeal, a supervisor who has had hundreds of hours of prior supervising experience, and had never been refused as a qualified supervisor. 120. Despite this, Defendant Woods refused Ms. McNeal initially on the basis that she did not have proof of passing a GCIC (criminal background) screen, and she could not confirm her malpractice insurance. 121. On November 5, 2008, I again submitted Ms. McNeal, after receiving confirmation from Wagner Consulting that Ms. McNeal had a clean GCIC report and confirmed her malpractice insurance.

A letter from Wagner was included

with the submission to Defendant Woods. 122. Despite receiving all of this information, Defendant Woods still denied Ms. McNeal, this time adding a new requirement that the supervisor have “clinical skills.”

Defendant

Woods recommended two other supervising services, with which she has “been familiar for at least fifteen years.” Defendant Woods presented a “take it or leave it” proposition, that if this is “not acceptable” that I must “schedule a hearing before Judge Kell” so that he can make the determination as to who will supervise. 123. The new “clinical skill” requirement was arbitrary and capricious. 124. It not only ruled out Ms. McNeal, but the current supervisor as well, who had been writing reports reflecting positively on my parenting skills.

23

125. As a result of being denied approval for Ms. McNeal, I was forced to use one of Defendant Woods’ hand picked favorites, or miss time with my children. 126. As a result of Defendants’ behavior I was denied substantial parenting time with my children, and forced to incur burdensome supervision expenses.

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Volentine 127. Following Defendant Volentine’s unethical attempts to diagnose me, her discussions of her impressions of my condition with Defendant Woods and Defendant Fuller, and her refusal to grant me access to my children’s health records in her possession, I filed a complaint with Defendant Board of Psychologists outlining Defendant Volentine’s unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. 128. Defendant Board of Psychologists failed to take any action to discipline Defendant Volentine.

Refusal To Sanction Defendant Fuller 129. Following Defendant Fuller’s failure to advise me of the lack of privilege, his ineffective and incomplete attempts to diagnose me, and his discussions of impressions of my condition with Defendant Volentine, I filed a complaint with Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists, outlining Defendant Fuller’s unprofessional and inappropriate behavior.

24

130. Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists failed to take any action to discipline Defendant Fuller.

Refusal to Recuse Guardian 131. As the result of Defendant Woods’s attempts to prejudice the court with factually unproven claims before and during trial, I filed a motion to recuse her. 132. The filing of this motion upset both Defendant Woods and Defendant Kell. 133. Defendant Kell denied my motion for recusal in an order that made no mention whatsoever of Defendant Woods’ attempts to influence the Court by her in-chambers announcement during the start of trial.

Denial Of Emergency Access To The Court 134. Following Defendant Woods’ refusal to allow me another supervisor acceptable to me, I then applied to the Cobb County Superior Court for Emergency relief in order to be able to see my children over Thanksgiving holiday 2008. 135. Initially, my attorney was told that an emergency hearing would be granted before a Senior Judge. 136. However, when it came on for hearing, Judge Brantley advised that he had made no decision to hear the matter. 137. He then, without entertaining my motion, asked for Defendant Woods’ input into the case.

25

138. Defendant Woods was allowed to state on the record her view of the case before I was allowed to present my motion. 139. Defendant Woods was further permitted to state that she had not yet been paid her fees granted in the case. 140. I was not permitted to testify as to whether I was willfully failing to pay the fees. 141. Instead, Judge Brantley simply ruled that I was guilty of “unclean hands” and he would not hear my motion. 142. As a result, I was not permitted to see my children over the Thanksgiving holiday. 143. Months later in late January, 2009, the Minor Children’s paternal grandmother fell terminally ill and became bedridden due to late stage 4 cancer. She requested to see all of her grandchildren for one last time. 144. I appealed to Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter and Woods for permission for the children to see her, to no avail. 145. I was forced to seek emergency relief on behalf of the Minor Children through the court, enclosing documentation from the physician attesting to the seriousness of the condition. 146. Defendant Kell declined to hear the motion and sent it to senior Superior Court Judge Watson White, who arbitrarily determined on January 28, 2009 that the grandmother’s condition was not of a nature to warrant an emergency hearing. 147. Mere days later, the grandmother passed away without seeing her grandchildren.

26

148. I then sought permission for my children to attend the funeral and memorial service, but again, Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter refused.

Ruling 149. The hearing in the Underlying Action was conducted over several days in early October.

In mid-December the Court

issued a ruling, which forced me to attend therapeutic counseling with a psychologist hand-picked by Defendant Woods. 150. The Court’s order further allowed Defendant Woods to talk freely about me to the psychologist, totally invading and denying me patient/therapist privilege. 151. The Court’s order further imposed supervision upon me at my own expense until such time as Defendant Woods was satisfied with my progress, and imposed other restrictions on my association with my children. 152. The Court’s order abdicates and delegates its authority to the Guardian Ad Litem, Defendant Woods.

Bad Faith and Harassment 153. Defendants’ actions outlined above are part of an intentional and ongoing pattern of harassment of myself and my children. 154. Defendants brought and maintain the Underlying Action against me in bad faith.

27

155. Defendants brought and maintain the Underlying Action in a spiteful attempt to “get me” unrelated to any legitimate state interest. 156. Defendants continue to deny me time with my children in retaliation for my legitimate exercise of my first amendment rights to freedom of expression. 157. Defendants continue to deny me time with my children in retaliation for my lawful exercise of my right to contest the findings of the GAL, and to challenge the findings of the court-appointed custody evaluator. 158. The actions of Defendants described herein are unlawful and malicious.

28

THE FOLLOWING COUNTS SHALL APPLY TO THE NAMED DEFENDANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS ATTACHED HERETO.

REFERENCES TO DEFENDANTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL COUNTS BELOW

SHALL MEAN IN EACH COUNT THE NAMED DEFENDANTS IDENTIFIED IN THE TABLE OF CLAIMS.

COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS) 159. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 160. At all relevant times herein, I had a right under the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions not to be deprived of my life, liberty, or property. U.S.C. Const. Amend. 14. 161. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988.2 162. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of his children.

See Troxel v.

Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952).

2

"Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting `under color' of law for purposes of Section 1983 actions." Dennis v. Sparks. 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).

29

163. Defendants acted to deprive me of my fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of my children without due process of law. 164. Defendants have conspired to injure me, have injured me, and continue to injure, me by acting, aiding, and abetting in the conduct of an unfair proceeding in Superior Court, Cobb County, Georgia, and attempting to modify the visitation granted to me in my divorce decree under a “best interest of the child” standard adopted by the Georgia Legislature in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. 165. Defendants have injured and continue to injure me by the filing of a complaint, and numerous subsequent motions, in Cobb County Superior Court, seeking to limit my time with my children, and to interfere with my established parenting time with my Minor Children. 166. Defendants have continued their campaign for over four years. 167. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have denied me due process of law and a fair trial by making false, unlawful, inflammatory, embellished, and ex-parté allegations of fact to the court, and by using the court subpoena process illegally to obtain my mental health records. 168. Defendants Maneley and The Maneley Firm denied me the right to a fair trial and due process of law by intentionally submitting and obtaining a written order from the Cobb Superior Court that failed to follow the oral order of the Court.

30

169. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, and Kell denied me a fair trial, and continue to deny me a fair trial, are denying me the chance to have my trial expert present material testimony regarding the basis underlying the report of the custody evaluator. 170. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby acted to deprive me of a fair trial by intentionally making inflammatory statements to the judge in chambers, off the record, and outside of the presence of the parties. 171. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby denied me, and are denying me, due process of law by requiring that I consent to the disclosure of my private mental health records to her in violation of my right to privacy. 172. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby denied me, and is denying me, a fair trial by reporting in chambers to Defendant Kell that she had to make a “mandatory” report to DFCS, which reporting has not been verified with the state agency to date, and which statements poisoned the mind of the court going into the trial. 173. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby acted to deny me a fair trial by denying me a reasonable supervisor of my choice who could have written a fair and unbiased report for the Court, instead requiring that I use a friend of Defendant Woods. 174. Defendants Woods, Lassiter, Gottschalk, and Kell acted to deny me due process of law by requiring that a full

31

custodial evaluation be conducted even though the Underlying Action sought modification of visitation only. 175. Defendants Fuller and Psychological Associates denied me due process of law and a fair trial by disclosing my private mental health records to Defendant Woods without my consent in violation of my right to privacy and patienttherapist privilege. 176. Defendants Fuller and Psychological Associates denied me due process of law and a fair trial by conducting a sham evaluation in which he failed to administer any recognized testing procedures, which results were disclosed to Defendant Woods and used in trial in the Underlying Action. 177. Defendant Siegel denied me due process of law and a fair trial by falsely diagnosing me with a condition despite having found no clinical pathology, and testifying to that finding into the Underlying Action. 178. Defendants Woods and Huff, Woods and Hamby, and Defendants Volentine and Psychological Associates denied me due process of law and a fair trial by conducting secret evaluations of the children, manipulating the results of the evaluations, and then offering the results of such secret evaluations as evidence. 179. Defendant Volentine and Psychological Associates denied me due process and a fair trial by unlawfully suggesting to Defendant Woods that I suffered from a mental condition, thereby poisoning the mind of the Guardian, a material witness in the case.

32

180. Defendants acted to deprive me of a fair trial by conducting a “sham” trial whose outcome was predetermined by the recommendation of Defendant Woods. 181. Defendants acted willfully and maliciously intending to prejudice and bias the trial court against me. 182. Defendants Lassiter and Kell acted to willfully and unlawfully seize and retain my expert’s private materials without authority. 183. Defendants Kell and Lassiter acted to deny me a fair trial by overtly intimidating my counsel, by charging and holding him in contempt for attempting to discredit the custodial evaluator’s report. 184. Defendants Kell and Lassiter acted to deny me a fair trial by harassing my expert at trial in the Underlying Action. 185. Defendants Kell and Lassiter denied me, and continue to deny me, a fair trial by issuing an order restricting my access to, and use of, the report of the custody evaluator assigned to my case. 186. Defendants Kell and Lassiter denied me, and continue to deny me, a fair trial by holding my counsel in contempt of an order that unreasonably restricted my right to prepare my case and challenge the witnesses against me. 187. Defendants Woods, Huff, Woods and Hamby and Kell denied me, and continue to deny me, my civil rights and due process of law by imposing interim custodial supervision despite a lack of evidentiary hearing taken on the basis for Woods’ sudden supervision recommendation.

33

188. Defendants Cobb County, Cobb County Board of Commissioners, and Sonny Purdue denied me due process of law by implementing a policy and operating a system of family law jurisprudence in Cobb County in a manner that denied me meaningful consideration of my evidence and expert testimony, and merely “rubber stamped” the flawed recommendations of Defendant Woods. 189. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure to receive a fair trial. 190. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure to receive due process of law. 191. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure to enjoy my fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of my children. 192. Defendants’ actions denied me a fair trial, my right to due process of the law. 193. Acting under color of law, all Defendants worked a denial of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to wit, they sought and got court orders based on their actions. 194. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious conduct, I was deprived of my rights to due process of law, of my right to the care, custody and control of my children, and the due course of justice was impeded, in

34

violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. 195. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages. 196. Defendants’ actions are ongoing, and they continue to resort to the court process to deny me due process of law.

COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION 197. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth, except paragraphs 127-130. 198. Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter have applied to and used the legal judicial process to deprive me of my constitutional right to equal protection of the law, and enlisted the cooperation and assistance of the other Defendants herein. 199. Defendants Kell and Sonny Purdue have implemented and enforced laws of the state of Georgia in a fashion that deprives me of my constitutional right to equal protection of the law. 200. Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter, in cooperation with Defendants Kell and Woods, have singled me out for harsh

35

treatment and restriction of my rights to parenting time because of my status as a heterosexual male, to wit, by seeking orders in a court of record in the state of Georgia seeking to limit my parenting time. 201. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, Woods, Kell and Sonny Purdue have engaged in activity that denies me equal protection of the law due to my status as a heterosexual male, to wit, by implementing and enforcing the law of Georgia in a manner that denies me time with my children, but allows Defendant Gottschalk time with the children, based upon hearsay, ex-parté testimony, and other unfair trial tactics. 202. Singling me out for harsh treatment and denial of my parenting rights on the basis my sex and sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 203. As a result of this harsh and discriminatory treatment, I have been harmed by being denied my fundamental right to the care of, and association with, my Minor Children. 204. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, limit and restrict my right to the care of and association with my Minor Children. 205. Acting under color of law, Defendants worked a denial of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

36

States, to wit, they sought and got court orders based on their actions. 206. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my injuries. 207. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to equal protection of all the laws, of my right to the care, custody and control of my children, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. 208. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT THREE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 209. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth, except paragraphs 127-130.

37

210. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988.3 211. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of his children.

See Troxel v.

Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952). 212. Defendants acted to deprive me of my fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of my children. 213. Defendant Sonny Purdue acted to violate and limit my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my children by signing and implementing O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3, permitting judges to modify and restrict visitation without the necessity of showing any material change in conditions, or any lack of fitness of the parents. 214. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists, acted to violate and limit my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my children by operating individually and collectively the Cobb County “Shadow Justice System”.

3

"Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting `under color' of law for purposes of Section 1983 actions." Dennis v. Sparks. 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980).

38

215. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists, acted in concert to deprive me of my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my Minor Children by initiating, maintaining, and participating in an action in the Superior Court of Cobb County under the afore-mentioned statute. 216. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists, acted to limit my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my children by seeking and/or participating in the effort to obtain and issue an order, under a mere “best interest of the children” standard (O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3), that my visitation should be supervised and substantially curtailed, and further imposing mandatory counseling requiring that I surrender my right to patient/therapist privilege. 217. The actions of Defendants are ongoing and they are continuing to actively seek to, and do currently, limit and restrict my right to the care of and association with my Minor Children. 218. Acting under color of law, all Defendants worked a denial of my rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal Law and guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution

39

of the United States, to wit, they sought and got court orders based on their actions. 219. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my injuries. 220. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious conduct, I was deprived of my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my children, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. 221. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT FOUR VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (conspiracy) 222. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 223. All Defendants have conspired and acted in concert to deny my civil rights. 224. The conspiratorial purpose was to deny me (i) my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my

40

children, (ii) my right to due process and a fair trial, (iii) my right to equal protection of the law, and (iv) my right to freedom of expression. 225. The conspiracy, as it developed, also emerged to protect the participants in the unofficial “Shadow Justice System” that operates in Cobb County family courts. 226. The first step in the conspiracy was taken by Defendant Gottschalk when she retained Defendant Maneley to represent her, and they together then filed a complaint in Cobb County Superior Court making outlandish and derogatory claims against me. 227. All individual Defendants, other than those acting in their official capacity for the State of Georgia, insinuated themselves into the conspiracy and transformed the private actors into State actors. 228. This action took the form of involvement in some or all of the litigation seeking to limit and deny my visitation with my children, as well as the evaluations and reports that were material evidence in the case. 229. The Defendants intentionally interfered with my exercise and enjoyment of my clear and established rights secured by the state and federal constitutions or laws of the United States and/or the State of Georgia, and thereby deprived me of those rights and caused me injuries. 230. As a result of the concerted unlawful and malicious conspiracy of all the Defendants, I was deprived of my rights to both due process and the equal protection of the

41

laws, the due course of justice was impeded, and my fundamental rights to the care, custody and control of my children was taken, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. 231. The conspiratorial acts of Defendants were the legal and proximate cause of my injuries. 232. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT FIVE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 233. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth, with the exception of paragraphs 127 through 130. 234. Defendants Lassiter, Gottschalk, Woods and Kell imposed cruel and unusual punishment upon me for exercising my legal rights to challenge the recommendation of Defendant Woods, and the Cobb County family law “shadow justice” system.

42

235. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that supervision be imposed upon my visitation with my children, without any finding of fitness or danger to my children. 236. Defendant Woods recommended supervised visitation be imposed upon me. 237. Defendant Kell imposed supervised visits upon me in his final order as punishment for my actions named above and an effort to prevent further exercise of my legitimate right to petition the court for redress of grievances. 238. That all Defendants were aware of and approved of Defendant Kell’s imposition of supervised visitation. 239. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT SIX 42 U.S.C. § 1983: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING4 240. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 158 above regarding actions and inactions by Defendant Kell, Defendant Volentine, Defendant Siegel, and Defendant Fuller, and also includes all

4

See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).

43

allegations in paragraphs 127 through 130, with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 241. Defendant Ingram is responsible for Defendant Kell’s performance on the bench. 242. Defendant Ingram is responsible for Defendant Kell’s continuing education and training in the application of constitutional law. 243. Defendant Ingram failed to adequately supervise and train Defendant Kell. 244. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Ingram’s failure, I was damaged by Defendant Kell’s imposition of supervision on my visits with my children. 245. Defendant Board of Psychologists is responsible for the requirements of practice, continuing education, control and discipline of Defendants Siegel and Volentine.

Defendant

Board of Psychologists failed to adequately supervise, control, train and discipline Defendants Volentine and Siegel, allowing Defendant Volentine to conduct secret evaluations of the Minor Children, to engage in unlawful and unsolicited recommendations for therapy of Plaintiff, a non-patient.

Defendant Board of Psychologists allowed

Defendant Siegel to prepare a flawed custodial report in a visitation case, and failed to provide adequate guidance and control over the preparation of custodial reports. 246. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Board of Psychologists’ failure, I was damaged by Defendant Siegel’s flawed and unscientific report being presented to Defendant

44

Kell in trial, resulting in imposition of supervision on my visits with my children. 247. Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists is responsible for the requirements of practice, continuing education, control and discipline of Defendant Fuller. Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists failed to adequately supervise, control, train and discipline Defendant Fuller, allowing Defendant Fuller to make unscientific diagnoses not supported by any recognized tests, and to disclose my confidential and privileged patient-therapist communications to Defendant Woods. 248. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists’ failure, I was damaged by Defendant Fuller’s flawed and unscientific report and diagnoses being presented to Defendant Woods, resulting in imposition of supervision on my visits with my children. 249. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

45

COUNT SEVEN 18 U.S.C. § 1513: RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 250. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 1-158, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth, with the exception of paragraphs 127-130. 251. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeking to have my expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defendant Siegel by charging my attorney with contempt, by searching my expert’s bag and unlawfully seizing his proprietary report, and by casting a chill over the courtroom with his extreme and excessive behavior. 252. Defendant Kell further retaliated against me for filing my motion to recuse Defendant Woods, by issuing a final order that imposed supervised visits, compelled me to undergo psychological treatment, denied me my right to patient/therapist privilege, and denied me my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my Minor Children. 253. Defendant Kell and Defendant Cobb County and Defendant Cobb County Board retaliated against me for contesting and failing to “go along with” the operation of the Cobb County Shadow Justice System by issuing a final order that imposed supervised visits, compelled me to undergo psychological treatment, denied me my right to patient/therapist privilege, and denied me my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my Minor Children.

46

254. As a direct result of these retaliations, I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and have suffered the loss of the association and love and respect of my Minor Children; confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the justice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages.

COUNT EIGHT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 255. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 158 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth, with the exception of paragraphs 127-130. 256. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Board of Psychologists and Defendant Composite Board of Professional Counselors, Social Workers and Marriage and Family Therapists and Defendant Ingram, intentionally and recklessly inflicted emotional distress on me by denying me my constitutional rights to due process, equal protection of the law, and the care, custody and control of my children, by forcing me to defend costly litigation for over four years, by conspiring with other Defendants to deny my civil rights, and by retaliating against me for the lawful exercise of my right to cross examination and presentation of witnesses, and knew or should have known

47

that emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct. 257. Defendants’ conduct was directed at me. 258. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 259. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of my distress. 260. The emotional distress I sustained was severe. 261. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, I was, am, and, with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed. 262. Defendant Board of Commissioners, Defendant Sonny Purdue, Defendant The Maneley Firm, and Defendant Huff, Woods and Hamby are liable for their agents and employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 263. As a result of the Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, I have suffered and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment, and humiliation.

COUNT NINE NEGLIGENT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL INFORMATION 264. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

48

265. Defendants Volentine and Fuller, as licensed professionals in the state of Georgia, have a statutory and professional duty to handle Plaintiff’s medical information in confidence. 266. Defendant Volentine breached that duty by disclosing her diagnosis that I had “Asberger’s Disorder”, a mental health condition, to Defendant Woods and Defendant Fuller. 267. Defendant Fuller breached that duty by disclosing information regarding me to Defendant Volentine. 268. Defendant Woods, as an attorney and officer of the Court, has a duty to comply with Georgia law concerning the confidentiality of medical records. 269. Defendant Woods breached that duty by disclosing to Defendant Lassiter the unauthorized diagnosis made by Defendant Volentine that I had “Asberger’s Disorder”, a mental health condition, and information about my mental health provided by Defendant Fuller. 270. Defendant Volentine had no authorization or waiver allowing her to release such confidential medical information about me. 271. Defendant Woods had no authorization or waiver allowing her to release confidential medical information about Plaintiff that she received from Defendant Volentine. 272. Defendant Fuller had no authorization or waiver allowing him to disclose my confidential mental health information to Defendant Volentine.

49

273. As a result of Defendants’ release of this information, I suffered harm including humiliation, degradation, public embarrassment, and the loss of time with my children. 274. Defendants’ unauthorized disclosure was the legal and proximate cause of my harm, for which I am entitled to damages.

COUNT TEN SLANDER 275. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 276. Defendants Volentine, Fuller, and Woods spoke false words to others that I was suffering from a medical condition known as Asberger’s Disorder. 277. I have been damaged as a result of the false words spoken by Defendants Volentine, Fuller, and Woods, including public humiliation, embarrassment, the persecution of a lawsuit filed by Defendant Gottschalk and prosecuted by Defendant Lassiter, seeking to remove me from my children, and the loss of substantial parenting time and association with my children, for which I have suffered intense mental anguish and despair.

COUNT ELEVEN LIBEL

50

278. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 279. Plaintiff was and is a person of good name, credit and reputation and enjoyed the esteem and good opinion of his neighbors and others who know him. 280. Defendants Volentine, Fuller, and Woods knew of the good name, credit and reputation of Plaintiff. 281. On March 17, 2008, Defendant Woods composed and published a letter to Defendant Lassiter in which she made false, scandalous and defamatory statements concerning me, including “the possibility that Dean might actually have a high-functioning form of Asberger’s Disorder, which has gone undiagnosed until now.” 282. As a result of this disclosure to Defendant Lassiter, Plaintiff has been injured in his good name, credit and reputation, and brought into public scandal and disgrace, has been shunned by persons with whom he previously had social or business relations, has suffered mental anguish and has been injured in his income by having lost customers. 283. Plaintiff has served a notice on Defendant Woods specifying the false and defamatory statements and asking her to retract the statements.

51

COUNT TWELVE INVASION OF PRIVACY 284. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 10-11, 21 through 23, 53-58, 76 through 85, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 285. That the publication of Defendant Volentine’s opinion that I suffered from a particular syndrome is a trespass upon my right to privacy. 286. That I have suffered damages from such trespass, including public humiliation, embarrassment, the persecution of a lawsuit filed by Defendant Gottschalk and prosecuted by Defendant Lassiter, seeking to remove me from my children, and the loss of substantial parenting time and association with my children, for which I have suffered intense mental anguish and despair.

COUNT THIRTEEN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 287. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations in paragraphs 1 through 196, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 288. Since the right was first established in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), federal courts have had the power to declare unconstitutional laws repugnant to the rights conferred under the United States Constitution and subsequent Amendments.

52

289. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a parent enjoys a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of his children.

See Troxel v.

Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999); Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952).

290. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) provides that “[i]n any case in which a judgment awarding the custody of a child has been entered, on the motion of any party or on the motion of the judge, that portion of the judgment effecting visitation rights between the parties and their child or parenting time may be subject to review and modification or alteration without the necessity of any showing of a change in any material conditions and circumstances of either party or the child.” 291. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) allows a judge unfettered power in that it contains no limitation on the change in visitation that may be accorded, and in this case, allows the court to impose limited supervised visitation on me requiring that I abandon my rights to medical privacy, delegates decisionmaking over my parental rights to a mere Guardian Ad Litem instead of the Court, and deprives me of all meaningful relationship with my children. 292. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b), as written and implemented in the Underlying Action impermissibly burdens my right as parent to the care, custody, and control of my children, because

53

it allows the judge to deprive me of any or all parenting time under the guise of a change of visitation, while requiring no showing of a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children. 293. The interest of the state of Georgia is insufficient to sustain the heavy burden imposed on my fundamental rights by O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b). 294. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) unconstitutional.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: 295. A declaratory judgment that each and every §1983 cause of action numbered 1 through and including 7 lies as a violation of my civil rights. 296. A declaratory judgment that each and every common law claim lies. 297. A declaratory judgment that O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3(b) permitting reduction of visitation and imposition of supervision “without the necessity of any showing of a change in any material conditions and circumstances of either party or the child” violates my fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of my children under the Constitution of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional as written. 298. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, jointly and severally, from continuing to

54

violate my civil rights under the United States Constitution; and 299. Judgment, where available, and against all Defendants not protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severally for all actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 and 300. Judgment, where available, and against all Defendants not protected by sovereign immunity, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, 301. Costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just, fair, and appropriate.

This 19th day of June, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Mark Gottschalk

55

TABLE OF CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS DEFENDANT

COUNTS

Karen Ann Gottschalk

I,II,III,IV,V,VIII

Barbara Lassiter

I, II, III, IV, V, VIII

Hon. C. LaTain Kell

I, II, III, IV, V, VII

Hon. S. Lark Ingram

IV, VI

DIANNE WOODS

I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII

HUFF, WOODS & HAMBY

I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII

MICHAEL MANELEY

I, II, III, IV, V, VIII

The Maneley Firm

I, II, III, IV, V, VIII

Cobb County, GA

I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII

Cobb County Board of Commissioners Sonny Purdue

I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII

Thurbert Baker

I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII

GA Board of Psychologists

IV, VI

GA Composite Board of Professional Counselors Sheri M. Siegel

IV, VI I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, X,

Emmett Fuller

XII I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX, X,

Susan Z. Volentine

XII Psychological Affiliates, Inc. Ann Bost

I, II, III, IV, V, VIII I, II, III, IV, V, VIII

Larry Bost

I, II, III, IV, V, VIII

56