On May 24, 2016, my 9-year-old daughter had written me a love note telling me how I was the best dad in the whole world. But little did I know, when I dropped her off with her mother that evening, I would never see her or my other four children again.
Striking Down the Home: The Propaganda of Family Court and Child Support Mechanisms is the real-life account of an American family and the 6 innocent lives that were shattered on the altar of tyranny. The State continues to prey on its citizens – will your family become the next casualty in our war-torn land?
Striking Down the Home
The Propaganda of Family Court and Child Support Mechanisms
Chapter 3: Battle For Control
On April 11, 2016, Amy gave birth to our fifth child, Lincoln. (My fourth child was born in 2015.) I didn’t know she had gone into labor, so I wasn’t there. Naturally, my absence left others with the impression that I wasn’t present because I didn’t care about my wife or family. Numerous people assumed that I had been notified but refused to show.
The morning following Lincoln’s birth (thirty-three days after our separation), Amy filed for divorce. How could she file for divorce while lying in the hospital still recovering from childbirth? Did someone else file for the divorce on her behalf? Were insiders working behind the scenes to undermine our family?
For the next six weeks, the fellowship I enjoyed with my children started to deteriorate. And Amy was always in the center. When she filed for divorce, the terms of visitation and child support obligations were attached. This is where things turned ugly.
While the terms granted me the “right” to see my children on certain days and times, it specifically denied me access to them at the same time. I could visit my children two days per week, three hours per day. (I could choose any two weekdays, but the three-hour block was set to after-school hours.) Then, with harsh language, the document specified that my children were never allowed weekend or overnight visitation.
The visitation terms imposed on me was not standard practice. Amy persuaded the State-appointed attorney to word the document in that manner. Visitation orders commonly specify the days and times that visitation is authorized—an approval for access, not the denial of it. Outside of that agreement, Amy has the power to deny me access to the kids. Why then should the order deny me access?
This is an example of Amy’s modus operandi. She rules without exercising any visible power. She imposes her will but shifts the decision to the courts. In other words, the State is denying me access, she’s not. The tactic of ruling in darkness. I refused to sign this agreement, so Amy threatened to turn me over to the government.
A few days later, I phoned her to speak with my children. She promptly asked if I signed the child support agreement. I said that I’d sign and agree to her child support terms only if visitation were modified. She argued that the terms of visitation contained exactly what I wanted and gave me no more than I needed. “You’ll be sorry!” After threatening me, she hung up the phone. I didn’t even get to speak with my children—the initial reason for the call.
In the meantime, Amy’s attorney, Elena Hansen from the La Morena Law Firm, sent me a letter where she ensured I was denied access to my children unless I followed certain procedures; yet the rules were crafted in such a way as to prohibit me from complying. For example: I was only allowed to visit my children if I texted Amy first. Amy knew full well that I didn’t own a cell phone because she previously asked why I didn’t have one. Therefore, calling with my home phone denied me physical access to my kids. But she might give me permission to speak with them.
However, that same letter portrayed an element of disappointment. Amy and her attorney were allegedly concerned about my lack of participation in the lives of my children. They were encouraging me to be a father and to get involved with my children.
To cleverly deny me access to my children while encouraging me to participate in their lives revealed my wife’s motive. The self-contradiction is intended to impose her will but hold me accountable. I responded to Miss Hansen correcting the falsehoods, but my letter fell on deaf ears.
Amy falsified visitation appointments on more than one occasion. She deceived my children into believing I had arranged to pick them up, but when the fabricated appointment slipped by without my appearance, the children’s spirits were crushed. This cruelty led to more deception, and Amy conveniently blamed me. But when I showed up at her house, she refused to open the door. On one occasion, Amy wasn’t there and so her father opened the door. Later that day, I received a phone call from Miss Hansen threatening me with police action. I was to never go over to her house again, or she would file a police report against me for stalking, harassing, and threatening my wife.
By painting me as an unloving and uncaring dad, my children reacted with animosity and hatred towards me. They no longer wanted to see me, and since Amy had effectively silenced my voice in the lives of my children, they were forced to believe their most verbal source. Thus, they easily believed and repeated their mother’s bombardment of lies.
Amy was setting the stage. She anticipated her need to declare war against me and prepared my children to rebel against my authority. In addition, government force lurked right around the corner.
Amy eventually severed all phone contact. In May, I called and left several messages wishing my daughter a “Happy Birthday” and requesting a call back. But the call never came.
This psychological assault against my children was devastating. I attempted to petition the court to have my children removed from their mother to protect them from the lethal effects of Parental Alienation—the most dangerous form of child abuse. The court denied my petition, citing an unlawful attempt to bypass judicial protocol. It turns out that in my effort to bring charges against Amy, I must serve her with a set of interrogatories (written questions). This is, I am told, to prevent an ambush in court. She would then have 30 days to respond to the interrogatories and mount her defense. On May 19, I served Amy with a set of interrogatories. On May 28, I received her response.
Someone advised Amy1 to contact the Las Cruces Police Department and file a police report against me for allegedly molesting, kidnapping, and threatening my eldest daughter, Addison, who was now 9 years old. On May 28, 2016, the police responded to Amy’s residence, took down her statements, and opened a criminal case.
Within two weeks, there was a court hearing that I was denied access to. Judge Douglas Driggers presided over that secret hearing. And Amy perjured her testimony by pretending to be victimized. There was no evidence! There were no witnesses! The other side of the story was not presented! I, the defendant, could not hear the charges brought against me! All that existed was a one-sided story and a dark conspiracy. In the shadows of the courtroom, Judge Driggers found me guilty and issued a protection order (also known as a restraining order) against me.
If you remember, I had been under 24-hour house surveillance for more than a year. I worked a full-time job while Amy stayed home. Following our separation, I was denied access to Addison and my other four children. So when did I even have an opportunity to commit this horrific act, and where was Amy’s 24-hour surveillance team when it happened? What we see is a conspiracy building a case upon a false foundation, all based on Amy’s emotional accusations, not on fact.
The first week of June, the police interviewed Amy and recorded her official statements at the police station. She informed the questioning officer that I had called several times and threatened her. (The last few phone calls, I left messages wishing my daughter a “Happy Birthday.”) Unfortunately, the Las Cruces police weren’t interested in the truth. They accepted her statement without asking one question. “Ma’am, what did he say? Did anyone else happen to hear it? Did he leave any messages? What time did he call? Who answered the phone? May we see your phone’s call log?” Why didn’t they question her? The more information they have, the better the case against the person who’s harassing her with threatening phone calls. Wouldn’t you think?
Then later, they transported Addison to the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) where she echoed her mother’s false accusations of molestation. Because Amy’s accusations always contradicted the facts, sometimes Addison couldn’t remember what to say or how to answer certain questions. In addition, Amy’s continual dose of deception grayed Addison’s distinction between truth and error. As a result, her recorded interview showed inconsistencies with the police report. Regardless, the police used this interview to obtain a search warrant and arrest warrant. I was criminally charged, jailed, and subsequently indicted by the Grand Jury. Two days later, the court released me on bond.
Around the first half of July, Addison returned to the CAC to make further accusations against me. This time, she claimed to have engaged in illicit sexual behavior with three neighbor boys (ages 6, 8, and 9 at the time of the alleged crime). That incident supposedly took place a year earlier. All three boys denied any sexual impropriety. Regardless, the police filed new felony charges. They rearrested me, and once again I was indicted—based exclusively on Addison’s slanderous testimony. In addition, to make it appear as if those three young boys corroborated her testimony, Las Cruces Police Detective Guerra offered perjured testimony before the Grand Jury. In a nutshell, he lied—plain and simple. This is a clear case of malicious prosecution.
When the Las Cruces Sun News obtained a copy of the police report, they doctored up their findings (exaggeration), flavored their content (fabrication), removed their nutrients (omission), and polished their publication to paint me as a child predator, who was stalking children in Las Cruces. That fictional news story caused me to get fired from my job and evicted from my apartment.
My incarceration, coupled with the eviction, resulted in a loss of many of my material possessions. Although my parents drove down from Ohio, they were unable to haul everything home. I sat in jail for 5 weeks until the judge lowered bail and approved my request to live with my parents. They released me in September, but I no longer had a job, a place to live, or any money. My parents paid for my airfare to Ohio, so within a day, I was thankfully boarding a plane and leaving New Mexico.
November rolled around and Amy transported Addison back to the CAC. Amy was so determined to have me convicted that she constructed more accusations against me. It was imperative that her voice was heard through Addison, so this time she accused me of rape. At the conclusion of her two previous interviews, Addison said, “That’s all he did. There’s nothing else.” The inconsistencies of the second and third interviews demonstrate that the State, collectively was working hard to prove me guilty of a crime that never happened by manufacturing evidence where none existed.
Thankfully, the prosecutor, Rebecca Duffin refused to charge me with rape. Why? Was it because of the progressive nature of the accusations and a strong indication of brainwashing and coercion? This indicates that Miss Duffin knew I was being falsely accused and wrongly charged, so why was she still pursuing the two other cases?
The prosecution was certain they could obtain a conviction, especially when Amy started turning over evidence she had gathered from her government-issued house. Interestingly, a house I never lived in was somehow full of evidence of sexual abuse. One piece of evidence (a post-it note with the date, time, and name of the boy Addison allegedly had sex with) didn’t even corroborate with my work schedule. I was on the clock at work during the alleged behavior. This crime, if true, would have been committed under Amy’s care. However, no medical examination was ever brought to light.
When my attorney interviewed Addison on May 5, 2017, their cases began to crumble. This evaluation brought to light more inconsistencies in her testimonies, and then Addison admitted fabricating evidence for the police. Also, my attorney exposed the Las Cruces Police Department for committing perjury before the Grand Jury. I passed two polygraph examinations. All three boys continued to deny any sexual impropriety. In addition, searching my apartment and seizing my property left the police without one scrap of evidence. The prosecution failed to produce a shred of paperwork on a medical examination for my daughter. They couldn’t find a single witness nor the slightest bit of evidence to lend credence to the accusations and charges filed against me.
There was nothing left to investigate.
Yet, the kindling of their hatred darkened my days for another 9 months.
Ironically, only four days after Addison’s interview with my attorney, Amy petitioned family court to finalize her divorce and receive financial support. This hearing was scheduled for July 24. (I requested the hearing be continued after the criminal case was resolved, but my request was denied.) During the July hearing, I was prohibited from mounting a defense or proving my innocence because I was still pending criminal charges. I was only permitted to answer questions, but Amy had no restrictions. Judge Manuel Arrieta finalized the divorce at Amy’s request, awarded her permanent custody of my children, and ordered me to pay her spousal support of $200 per month for two years.
My criminal trial was scheduled for mid-February. However, just three days before I was to appear in court, the prosecution dismissed the criminal charges against me for lack of evidence.
At that time, another court hearing to address the temporary restraining order was on the calendar for February 27. I showed up for court but couldn’t foresee what was about to unfold. During my testimony before the court, Amy ambushed me with a bombardment of more false allegations. These included building a tent for Addison and the neighbor boys’ sexual activity, choking my wife, looking at child porn, lusting after my children in my sleep, suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the military conditioning my mind to outwit and beat the justice system, etc. (Wait a minute, wasn’t Amy unlawfully bypassing judicial protocol? Where were my interrogatories? Why wasn’t I allowed 30 days to respond to these questions and mount a defense?)
How can anyone defend themselves against an onslaught of accusations? It was simply my word against hers. How can you prove that you’re not lusting after your children in your sleep? Everything she accused me of, she couldn’t prove; nor could I disprove. Yet, those things have a way of leaving trace evidence around the perpetrator. No one lusts after children without a visual stimulation (child pornography). And if a person looks at porn, it’s either physically or digitally stored somewhere. Where’s the evidence?
You can’t prove a negative. That’s why the burden of proof rests with the prosecution (or accuser). Amy even had the assistance of the prosecutor and the entire Las Cruces Police Department, who dismantled every piece of my electronics looking for proof—any proof—that I’d been into illegal activity, especially child pornography. And after all that, the prosecutor dismissed the charges for lack of evidence.
Anyway, he still required Amy and Addison to take the stand to testify. My attorney caught Amy lying under oath when he questioned her about her mental illnesses. He also pointed out inconsistencies during Addison’s testimony where she admitted that she couldn’t remember.
Then the judge allowed Amy to question Addison. Amy asked Addison several questions and then concluded with, “What will happen if your dad gets custody of you?”
Addison’s startling response was, “I will be killed.”
Prior to this point, there wasn’t a single recorded interview with a murder threat. But her response didn’t include who made the threat; just that the threat was made. Yet, due to the restraining order, I hadn’t seen or talked to her in nearly two years. With some critical thinking, it’s not too hard to figure out that Amy (or someone under Amy’s influence) threatened to murder my daughter.
My attorney discredited both, Amy and Addison. My daughter received a murder threat under her mother’s care. And my ex-wife didn’t prove a single accusation. Nevertheless, Judge Jerabek Isabel favored Amy by extending the restraining order against me for another two years. This is what prejudice looks like.
1 This advisory was recorded in the police report, but no name or entity was mentioned.
View the Table of Contents from Striking Down the Home and listen to an interview of the author, Toby Strebe.
Striking Down the Home is available in paperback or eBook. Purchase your copy today.
Striking Down the Home 