Gottschalk Federal Complaint

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, JEANNE DIANE WOODS, HUFF, WOODS AND HAMBY SONNY PURDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, CASEY CAGLE, in his official capacity of Lieutenant 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 PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS, 1

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

AMENDED 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. 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

2

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.

Parties 5.

DEAN MARK GOTTSCHALK, Plaintiff, 2589 Beckwith Trail,

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

I am a white, heterosexual male.

3

6.

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.

JEANNE DIANE WOODS (“Defendant Woods”), 707 Whitlock

Avenue, SW, Suite G-5, Marietta, GA 30064,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 AND HAMBY, 707 Whitlock Avenue, SW, Suite G-5,

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

4

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. 16.

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

Purdue”) is the governor of the State of Georgia. 17.

CASEY CAGLE, 240 State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334

(“Defendant Cagle”) is the lieutenant governor of the state of Georgia. 18.

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. 19.

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,

5

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. 20.

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 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. 21.

SHERI M. SIEGEL (“Defendant Siegel”), 122 Cherry St NE,

Marietta, GA, 30060, is a clinical psychologist who evaluated the Minor Children, and who testified against me in the Underlying Action before Defendant Kell. 22.

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.

6

23.

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. 24.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AFFILIATES, PC (“Defendant Psychological

Affiliates”), 122 Cherry Street NE, Marietta, GA, 30060, employs and directs the conduct of Defendants Volentine and Fuller. 25.

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

(“Defendant Ann Bost”) is the mother of Defendant Gottschalk. 26.

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

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

7

Plain Statement of Facts as Required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 27.

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”). 28.

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

29.

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

30.

Defendant Maneley 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.

31.

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

32.

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

33.

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

34.

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

35.

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

36.

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.

8

37.

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

38.

Defendants embellished the facts alleged in the complaint, that I had been “arrested for aggravated assault” by threatening someone with a shotgun.

I never admitted any

guilt, but had 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 was never convicted of aggravated

assault. 39.

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

The Shadow Justice System 40.

Cobb County is somewhat unique among the Georgia counties in the manner that is 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

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

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.

45.

The Cobb County Courts give great deference to the appointed Guardians Ad Litem, and protect 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 parte communications with the Court.

Pre-Trial Actions 48.

Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk used their embellished facts to attract 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, Defendant 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.

10

50.

Defendant Woods has been acting as a Guardian Ad Litem for over 20 years, is viewed as a “fixture” in Cobb County, and the Cobb County Superior Court judges routinely defer in 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. Custodial evaluations are done in cases where custody is at issue, which was not the case here.

52.

In that motion she 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.

I was not

advised by Defendant Fuller that he could or would disclose my statements or his impressions of me to Defendant Woods or any other party. 55.

Unbeknownst to me, Defendant Fuller and Defendant Volentine were both associates with Defendant Psychological Associates.

56.

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

11

57.

Defendant Fuller never administered any recognized tests to me.

Despite this, after a mere two weeks of “treatment”,

Defendant Fuller announced to me that he had diagnosed 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 keep the Siegel report secret from professional review.

60.

Defendant Woods requested special language intended to 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.

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.

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.

67.

Prior to my meeting with Defendant Siegel, Defendants Gottschalk and Lassiter submitted to Defendant Siegel a

12

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, and skew the results of her analysis.

69.

Defendant Siegel thereafter conducted an examination and evaluation of the parties, and issued a report finding that I had no level of clinical pathology.

70.

Even though there was no clinical pathology to support a diagnosis, Defendant Siegel included statements in her report that were highly critical of my parenting abilities and my psychological well-being in her report, insinuating and implying that I may have tendencies toward certain conditions that may not be in the best interest of the children.

Secret Evaluations of the Children 71.

Defendant Gottschalk arranged without my knowledge and in secret to take the Minor Children to Defendant Volentine for evaluation.

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 not allowed to know about these sessions, which I discovered afterwards.

I was not allowed to attend or

participate in these sessions. 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.

13

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.

Secret Suggestions about Psychological Condition of Defendant 76.

Defendant Volentine was retained by Defendant Gottschalk 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, Defendant Volentine took it upon herself to contact Defendant Woods, and inform her that Defendant Volentine believed that I may have a “highfunctioning form of Asberger’s syndrome”, and suggested that I be evaluated for such a condition.

80.

Defendant Woods received this information and then provided it to Defendant Lassiter.

81.

Defendant Volentine, despite having no therapeutic or other relationship with me, 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.

14

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 occasion that “she would get them” despite the 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 Gottschalk are my children’s “true” family, and encouraging my children to believe I was no longer part of their family.

88.

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

15

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 reveal her information 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 any facts that supported her claim.

95.

I have repeatedly contacted DFCS, and have been unable to confirm that any investigation or report was made regarding myself.

96.

Upon information and belief, the intent of Defendant Woods’ actions was to prejudice the judge on the case against me, to do so 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 disclosures, 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, denied the opportunity to challenge the evidence against me, and denied a fair hearing.

16

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 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 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.

17

102. When I attempted to have Dr. Weinstein critique the Siegel psychological report, 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. 104. Defendant Kell refused to let Dr. Weinstein testify regarding problems 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 conduct was excessive, and cast a pall over the courtroom and my conduct of the case. 110. The intent of these actions was to protect the courtappointed experts from criticism, and to prevent me from fairly litigating the competency of the Siegel Report.

18

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.

Prejudicial Announcement by GAL During Trial 112. Prior to the conclusion of the trial in this case, counsel for Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk demanded that the Court impose supervised visits upon me 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 ten weeks 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 implement, Defendant Woods then refused to approve reasonable supervisors other than her favorites.

19

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.

It not only ruled out Ms. McNeal, but the

current supervisor as well, who had been writing reports reflecting positively on my parenting skills. 124. As a result of Defendant Woods pattern of prejudicial behavior, I filed a motion to have her recused from the case.

The motion was denied by Defendant Kell.

20

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 Defendant Woods’ 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 her continuing exclusion of me from counseling sessions with my children, 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 Woods, 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. 130. Defendant Composite Board Of Professional Counselors, Social Workers And Marriage And Family Therapists failed to take any action to discipline Defendant Fuller.

21

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 at 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 the Thanksgiving holiday. 135. Initially, my attorney was told that an emergency hearing would be granted. 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. 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.

22

142. As a result, I was not permitted to see my children over the Thanksgiving holiday.

Ruling 143. Subsequently, the Court issued a ruling forcing me to attend therapeutic counseling with a psychologist handpicked by Defendant Woods. 144. The Court’s order further allowed Defendant Woods to talk freely about me to the psychologist, totally invading and denying me patient/therapist privilege. 145. The Court’s order further imposed supervision upon me at my own expense until such time as Defendant Woods was satisfied with my progress.

Count One: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Due Process) 146. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 145 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 147. 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. 148. At all times relevant herein, the defendants were state actors and their conduct was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988.2 149. All Defendants acted to deprive me of my fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of my children. 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).

23

150. 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). 151. This right has sought to be, and has been, injured and foreclosed by all Defendants. 152. Defendants have conspired to and have injured and continue to injure me by acting, aiding, and abetting in the conduct of a proceeding in Superior Court, Cobb County, Georgia, attempting to modify the visitation granted to me in my divorce decree under the “best interest of the child” standard adopted by the Georgia Legislature in O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3. 153. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have injured and continue to injure me by the filing of a complaint, and several subsequent motions, in Cobb County Superior Court, seeking to limit and interfere with my established parenting time with my Minor Children. 154. Defendants Lassiter and Gottschalk have continued their campaign for over four years, including the making of ex parte communications with the court. 155. Defendants Gottschalk, Lassiter, Woods and Kell acted to deprive me of my ability to have my trial expert crossexamine the expert witnesses against him. 156. Defendant Woods acted to deprive me of a fair trial by intentionally making out-of-court statements to the judge regarding her alleged mandatory abuse reporting, which

24

reporting has not been verified with the state agency to date. 157. Defendant Woods and Lassiter acted willfully and maliciously intending to prejudice and bias the trial court against me. 158. Defendants Lassiter and Kell acted to willfully and unlawfully seize and retain my expert’s private materials without authority. 159. Defendant Kell acted to intimidate my counsel and harass my expert by attempting to hold them in contempt of an order that unreasonably restricted my right to prepare my case and challenge the witnesses against me. 160. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure to receive a fair trial. 161. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure to receive due process of law. 162. Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of my failure to receive my fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of my children. 163. Defendants’ actions denied me a fair trial, my right to due process of the law. 164. 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. 165. As a result of Defendants' concerted unlawful and malicious conduct, I was both deprived of my rights to due process of law, of my right to the care, custody and control of my

25

children, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. 166. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and has 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 TWO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION 167. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 166 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 168. Defendants single me out for harsh treatment and restriction of my rights to parenting time because of my status as a heterosexual male. 169. Singling me out for harsh treatment and denial of my parenting time rights on the basis my sex and sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 170. As a result of this harsh and discriminatory treatment, I have been harmed by being denied the right to the care of, and association with, my Minor Children. 171. 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.

26

172. 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. 173. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my injuries. 174. 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, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. 175. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and has 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 176. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 175 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 177. 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,

27

permitting judges to modify and restrict visitation without the necessity of showing any material change in conditions, or any lack of fitness. 178. All Defendants acted in concert to deprive me of my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my Minor Children. 179. Defendant Kell acted to limit my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my children by holding 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 Defendant surrender my right to patient/therapist privilege. 180. The action 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. 181. 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. 182. The actions of Defendants are the proximate cause of my injuries. 183. 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,

28

Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. 184. 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. sec. 1985(3) (conspiracy) 185. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 184 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 186. All Defendants have conspire and acted in concert to deny my civil rights. 187. The conspiratorial purpose was to deny me (i) my fundamental right to the care, custody and control of my children, (ii) my right to due process and a fair trial, (iii) my right to equal protection of the law. 188. The conspiracy, as it developed, also emerged to protect the participants in the unofficial “shadow justice” system that operates in Cobb County family courts. 189. The first step in the conspiracy was taken by Defendant Gottschalk when she retained Defendant Lassiter to represent her, and they together the filed a complaint making outlandish and derogatory claims against me. 190. All individual Defendants, other than those acting in their official capacity for the State of Georgia, insinuated 29

themselves into the conspiracy and metamorphosed the private actors into State actors. 191. This action took the form of involvement in some or all of the litigation seeking to limit and deny my visitation with my children. 192. 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. 193. 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 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. 194. The conspiratorial acts of Defendants were the legal and proximate cause of my injuries. 195. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and has 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.

30

COUNT FIVE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 196. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 195 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 197. All Defendants acted individually and in concert to impose cruel and unusual punishment upon me for challenging the recommendation of Defendant Woods, and the Cobb County family law “shadow justice” system. 198. 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. 199. Defendant Woods recommended supervised visitation be imposed upon me. 200. 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. 201. That all Defendants were aware of and approved of Defendant Kell’s imposition of supervised visitation. 202. Defendant Ingram failed to supervise and educate Defendant Kell. 203. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and has 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.

31

COUNT SIX 42 U.S.C. § 1983: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING3 204. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 203 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 205. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s performance on the bench. 206. Defendant Ingram in responsible for Defendant Kell’s continuing education and training in the application of constitutional law. 207. Defendant Ingram failed to adequately supervise and train Defendant Kell. 208. 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. 209. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and has 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 SEVEN 18 U.S.C. 1513: RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS 210. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 209 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

3

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

32

211. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeking to have my expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defendant Siegel. 212. Defendant Kell further retaliated against me for filing my motion to recuse Defendant Woods. 213. Defendant Kell retaliated against me 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. 214. 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. 215. I was harmed, have incurred considerable legal debt which would not otherwise have been incurred, and has 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 216. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 215 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 217. Defendant Kell retaliated against me for seeking to have my expert witness opine upon the report issued by Defendant Siegel.

33

218. All Defendants intentionally and recklessly inflicted emotional distress on me by denying me my constitutional rights, by forcing me to defend costly litigation for over four years, by conspiring with other Defendants to deny my civil rights, by retaliating against me for the lawful exercise of my right to cross examination and presentation of witnesses, and knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct. 219. Defendants’ conduct was directed at me. 220. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 221. The actions of the Defendants were the cause of my distress. 222. The emotional distress I sustained was severe. 223. 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. 224. Defendants Board of Commissioners and Defendant Sonny Purdue are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 225. 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.

34

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands: 226. 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. 227. A declaratory judgment that each and every common law claim lies. 228. 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. 229. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, jointly and severally, from continuing to violate my civil rights under the United States Constitution; and 230. 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 231. 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, 232. Costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just, fair, and appropriate.

35

This ___ day of April, 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean Mark Gottschalk

36