(Writers Note: We reached out to Dr. Vivian Chern Shnaidman for any opposing commentary, but we were not able to get a reply from her office at the time of this publication. If we receive one we will publish it)
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
We received a Response from Dr. Shnaidman to our inquiries, via her direct response to Derek Syphrett via Facebook.
It appears that she does not deny any of the facts reported to us.
Dr. Shnaidman’s Full Response is included below:
FULL STORY, EXCLUDING BREAKING NEWS PUBLISHED ABOVE:
THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH A DIVORCE LIKELY REALIZE THAT COURT APPOINTED EXPERTS, ARE SHAMS.
CASE AND POINT:
1) Experts often participate in ex-parte communications with the “court” and the Judge at local Bench Bar Associations (conflict of interests)
2) Experts often rely upon hearsay information without interviewing the real-parties of interests (police, children, DYFS, etc), yet make clinical decisions without clinical observations of facts (this is not scientific and is forbidden by N.J.R.E. 703 and / or F.R.E. 703 – rules of evidence NJ/ Federal
3) Expert witnesses are granted immunity from civil suits or criminal charges related to any fraud they may commit as an expert witness, so they have no reason to tell the truth other than preference, and moral character.
4) Experts often have no actual expertise in parenting-time evaluations (like Dr. Vivian Shnaidman featured below):
DON’T TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT
SEE THE FACTS HERE:
Please see the IMPORTANT REVELATIONS IN OTHER CASES INVOLVING DR. SHNAIDMAN AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING YOUR EXPOSURE TO THIS “DOCTOR”: SEE THE FOLLOWING STATE RECORDS AND MEDIA STORIES:
Shnaidman v. State of New Jersey : Dr. Shnaidman was referred to as “Bi-Polar”, “Borderline”, and a “Bitch” by her colleagues at Ann Klein before her employment was terminated, yet she is retained by New Jersey Courts as an expert in parenting time matters, when she actually has no expertise in this area. CITATION: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court…/1629298.html
Note: Dr. Vivian Shnaidman’s opinion was also thrown out by the appellate court as being RIDICULOUS – SEE CITATIONS HERE:
DR. SHNAIDMAN RECOMMENDS TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE WOMAN WANTED A C-SECTION BIRTH:
*** OH IT GETS WORSE ****
CHECK THIS OUT:
SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE PUBLIC TRUST PLEASE SEE THE DISCOVERIES LISTED BELOW REGARDING Derek Syphrett’s EXPERIENCE WITH A COURT APPOINTED EXPERT WHO, SUBMITTED A ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT EXPERT REPORT:
ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT …. SHE IS AN EXPERT IN MALPRACTICE IT TURNS OUT: SHE WITH-HELD THIS INFORMATION AT TRIAL:
- Recordings of Vivian Shnaidman during 14 minute interview, where she did no fact finding about parenting time, but later ruled me to be legally incompetent (without any expertise to do so), and ruled me to be unfit to parent (without discussing my parenting time). HER OPINION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE, AND WAS IN PART SUPPORTED BY HEARSAY FROM PEOPLE SHE NEVER INTERVIEWED (MY LYING WIFE).
EXPERT REPORT STATING THAT DEREK SYPHRETT HALUCINATED DURING A SESSION:
HERE IS WHAT IS ODD ABOUT THIS REPORT:
1) Dr. Shnaidman signed / certified that the subject of the Evaluaton was “Robin Bloom” (We can assume the diagnoses was Robin Blooms, and “Derek Syphrett’s name was added to the narrative of an old evaluation post-hoc)
2) Dr. Shnaidman: states that Mr. Syphrett Hallucinated during the session BUT SHE DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HALLUCINATION, OR HOW LONG IT LASTED, OR WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, LIKE ANY OTHER REAL DOCTOR WOULD HAVE DONE… SHE THEN LET’S MR. SYPHRETT DRIVE HOME, PURPORTEDLY AFTER OBSERVING THE FACT THAT HE WAS HALLUCINATING… IF THIS IS TRUE THEN IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT AND A VIOLATION OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
3) Dr. Shnaidman: Determines that Mr. Syphrett is not fit to represent himself in his legal case, despite not being an expert in the law, AND REMARKABLY: she makes this assertion without reviewing the case files and the recent motions that Mr. Syphrett won the last time he was in court for docket: FM-11-97-11k
Wallace v. Syphrett”!
4) Dr. Shnaidman: Admitted at trial in 2014 – almost a year after the evaluation in 2013, (and after the case was transferred from Judge Catherine Fitzpatrick, for good cause shown, to Burlington and redocketed as FM-03-0790-14) THAT:
- SHE NEVER DISCUSSED MR. SYPHRETT’S PARENTING TIME DURING THE EVALUATION AT ALL, BUT:
- SHE DETERMINED HE WAS AN UNFIT PARENT WITHOUT REVIEWING HIS SUPERVISED PARENTING TIME, RECORDS THAT WERE UNIVERSALLY POSITIVE ABOUT HIS PARENTING SKILLS!
5) She appeared in court with a fraudulent expert report, that had not been given to the attorneys in the matter, she edited the certification to say the evaluation was for “Derek Syphrett”, when the report submitted to the court stated the evaluation was for “Robin Bloom”.
6) At trial she stated she had no expertise in making parenting time decisions other than:
- Talking to parents when she was working in a hospital as a doctor
- A DFYS training she did about 10 years earlier, which she had no recollection of the material information or benefits of said training. She in fact said “it wasn’t that helpful”!
READ IT AND WEEP FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE
IT IS CERTIFIED TO BE FOR A WOMAN “ROBIN BLOOM”, NOT MR. SYPHRETT!
THE COURT ORDER THAT VIOLATED NEW JERSEY LAW BY:
APPOINTING A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE THE COURT & WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR A CROSS EXAMINATION:
THIS IS A CLEAR AND CONVINCING VIOLATION OF MR. SYPHRETT’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
A FEDERAL CASE WHICH WILL BE MADE!
A DEFENSE AGAINST COURT CORRUPTION
WORTHY OF RESEARCH:
WE WOULD STOP CONSENTING TO GO TO THESE EXPERT EVALUATIONS AND PRODUCING DISCOVERY THAT DOESN’T EXIST, BY WAIVING YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS:
SEE: U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS BINDING ON ALL FIFTY STATES
AT A MINIMAL THESE CASES MAY SUGGEST (IN OUR NON-EXPERT, NON LAWYER CAPACITY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESEARCH ONLY): THAT:
1) You Actually Have A Right To Privacy With Regard To Your Family Affairs And Your Thoughts About It, Or Your Relationship With Your Family
2) You Have No Burden Of Proof With Regard To Your Fitness To Parent, The Burden Of Proof Is The Adverse Parties… We Would Tell Them To Present You Evidence That Exists And That We Can Not Produce Adverse Evidence That Does Not Currently Exist (AN Evaluation Of Our Parenting Skills)!
3) If The Court Were To Threaten Our Parental Rights Without Clear And Convincing Evidence, We Would Appeal And Likely Win – See:
- In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979) in toto, inclusive of cited cases, and specifically with regard to its findings that:
The U.S. Supreme Court declared the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in the fit parent – not in the state:
“To deny a parental right requires constitutional due process that proves he’s either unfit or a clear danger to his children – proven with ‘clear and convincing’ evidence.”
- SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 455,745 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court and its findings that:
“emphasized: to restrict a fundamental right of a p“Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is a “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.”
LEGAL DISCLAIMER FOR ALL LEGAL REFERENCES CONTAINED HEREIN:
Do not rely on anything contained on this site as legal advise it is:
expressly not legal advise, nor are we lawyers
FURTHER TAKE NOTE:
We’ve consulted with a man that the state of New Jersey has deemed to be legally incompetent after
1) he prevailed in court on several occasions (Derek Syphrett)…
2) And then the state declared him competent….
So clearly we are just a bunch of confused citizens….We’re not lawyers or judges!
WE ARE JUST: confused journalists: writing for a free internet publication, reciting the facts there-of!
IN NEW JERSEY COURTS
THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION!