To the Attention of Ms. Valerie Wacks

Ms. Wacks,
This is your client. His name is Garrett. The recent photo is from August, 2011 though you may not recognize this little lad since it has been several months since you have visited him at his father's house. The last recount of you having visited Garrett in my home was ...well, you never have.  Pictured next to this dear boy is me, his mother and the one which you proclaim in a closed-door conference amongst attorneys, that you believe to be "too pretty that (she) thinks she can do whatever she wants".  A most-unprofessional accusation to make, I would have thought you to be of higher moral character than taking cheap and immature shots which can be interpreted (and rightly so) as partisan and subjective.  Though for some time I have thought you to be a impish person with a large, albeit  nonsensical opinion for the disdain of me without due cause - I am again saddened to "need" (use of the word need is being weened from this situation) your loud and obnoxious position within our situation. Why?

Because once again Garrett has climbed into my vehicle at the ending of a ridiculous visitation with Dad, with tears in his eyes. Stifling back his innate reaction to cry, he relays that he has had his things taken from him by Dad and told that they would either be "given to a poor family or burned". Most likely, they have already been destroyed. In addition to this, he holds his chest in the spot where he was punched by Dad after being told not to cry, less he gets "something to cry about". There was little to no warning in that situation from referenced "Dad". Beyond the chest pounding and the illegal seizure of my son's things (Please reference Order on Motion, dated April 9, 2009, page 4, which reads: "ORDERED  that Garrett shall be permitted by both parents to bring his belongings back and forth between households and shall be encouraged to bring items upon his expressing a desire to do so".  This allowance would be found directly above the notice to Dad to "not, under any circumstances, ride a motorcycle on a public highway with Garrett on the motorcycle or permit anyoen else to do so while Garrett is in his care...". The only reason I again refer to the motorcycle incident is due to the in his care clause. Sadly, Dad is unable, incapable, or completely unwilling to provide care for his son. I have witnessed this time and again. You, if you were any kind of decent, capable, and adept law guardian would too. For whatever the reason, you appear to be enamored with Dad and therefore, disregard and blatantly ill-advise (i.e. LIE) to the court of law which you are bound to uphold the mission of. This does not surprise me either because for six years and counting, you have failed your client to such a fault that he can verbalize your alliance to Dad with clarity. 

I have attempted to call you tonight and held my breath while doing so. You live not two miles from my own home and yet, have never stopped. I stopped counting the number of phone calls placed over six years when I got to 77.  I stopped thinking about how sickening your acting position is when you attempted to weasel your way into a situation which you knew/know nothing of outside of Dad's rantings. And yet still, after watching my child relay what could be into the triple digits of a story count for tales befallen him by his Dad, I called you.  Because YOUR JOB is to act as the voice for children that do not contain the vocabulary or comprehension of the unfortunate domestic situation(s) that their parents are in. Because you have taken (supposedly) an oath to Do No Harm to those same children and to speak with ease and comfort, to hear their limited vocabularies describe situations that a decent parent never wishes upon their child - and to then take that sullen story to a Judge who will make a conscious and clear-headed decision for the well-being of the child.

Yet, you fail. You have failed my child many times over and you continue still. You seek the admiration of a crowd you are not fit to stand before. Your lame attempts at vengeance and ill will toward me come as nothing other than a transference of hatred you must hold toward someone else. I can take it. Raised with accountability and responsibility; I can take it. My child; your client should not have to.
Your phone beeped without connection. You must not have power on the other side of the hill - so I stood there thinking of a way that I could get out the information that you absolutely need to heed.  Which brings me to the present: Life does not operate on a nine to five schedule. Most situations which you are charged to recount for the sake of any court of law occur either before or after such luxuries.  I do not expect you to suddenly decide to do the right thing because at half a decade's worth of time, you have neglected to do the right thing. What I do expect is for you to see that you are harming those same persons - children -  because of your obstinate comprehension of your duty and to therefore, remove yourself.  For a child of eight years old to accurately recount the whereabouts of your timely visits with his Dad...for him to be so discouraged at realizing what he told you in confidence, what you swore was between you and he - to watch you march directly to Dad and relay only the pertinent details keeping Dad in your favor - it is grotesque.  You are not there when the reactions hit. You are not there when he is pummeled for crying, hit for speaking, or mocked for knowing. And the most repulsive part? You do not seem to care. So please, do my son as well as any other child entrusted to your position as Law Guardian a huge favor: RESIGN.

You know my number,
Patricia