Report: #1359509

Complaint Review: Michael Kerner, PhD/Counseling & Mental Health

  • Submitted: Fri, March 03, 2017
  • Updated: Mon, March 06, 2017
  • Reported By: April — California USA
  • Michael Kerner, PhD/Counseling & Mental Health
    1120 McKendrie St
    San Jose, California
    USA

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

My divorce attorney highly recommended Dr. Kerner as a custody evaluator. I mainly agreed to use Kerner because I was falsely accused of domestic violence by my ex, and the case was so obvious that the charges were dropped within in a month without even an arraignment. I was also recently awarded $ 150,000 by the County of Santa Clara for this false arrest through mediation of a civil lawsuit that I had filed agianst the County for this unfortuante incident. Basically my ex got angry after the judge ordered him to pay temporary support and my attorney fees (a total sum of $ 80,000). The next day my ex scratched his arm  and claimed that I did it. Kerner got assigned to the case after the charges were dropped and after every body including the police knew that this was a set up. To my astonishment and to my attorney's astonishment Kerner stated in his report that I attacked my ex-husband when he was filming his interactions with our 3-year-old daughter at 7:30 in the morning when she was still sleeping!! I honestly believe that Kerner knew the truth and was either intimidated or impressed by my ex's position in the society to hold him accountable for what he did.

I have no respect for this man. If you are a woman do NOT agree to have Kerner as your custody evaluator as he is highly biased toward women. I am now attending a women's support group and there are 7 other women who used Kerner, like I did, with similar false (and intentional) findings stated in their reports to favor their husbands over them for custody recommendation. 

Other unethical acts that Kerner committed in my report:

1) He did not report what my children told him accurately.
2) He changed my quotes in the report.
3) He changed my therapist's quotes in the report. I shared the report with her afterwards, and she was shocked beyond belief. 
4) He attributred false quotes to a marriage therapist that my ex and I had seen.
5) He overlooked disturbing recordings that my ex took of the children which clearly illustrated that he was and is mentally disturbed. 

In my opinion Kerner changes facts and quotes in his reports to tell the story that he wants to tell, even after he is shown facts that strongly contradict his statements. He is not an honest man and is certainly not motivated by the best interest of the children

Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/03/2017 06:56 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/michael-kerner-phdcounseling-mental-health/san-jose-california-95126/michael-kerner-phdcounseling-mental-health-intentinally-producing-a-flawed-custody-r-1359509. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
10Author
2Consumer
9Employee/Owner

#1 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Faking requirements

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

“April” lies once again. The On June 7, 2013, the car seat inspector wrote, “Based on my conversation with Tesla, first-hand knowledge of NHTSA’s policy and my experience as a Child Passenger Safety Technician Instructor (CPST-I), I would say it is OK for you to transport your daughter in the Tesla Roadster using a properly fitted Child Restraint and with the passenger side airbag deactivated.” I subsequently installed an airbag on/off switch. The court then approved the use of the car seat subject to the requirement for an inspector to determine if the airbag on/off switch functioned. An inspection to that end was obtained. April never objected to it. The court order thus permitted the legal driving of a child in the car seat. There were no other requirements for this car or “April’s car.” Dr. Kerner had zero responsibility to investigate this car or April’s car and in fact has no expertise in that subject. This whole episode is merely evidence, along with April’s deadbolting of our daughter’s bedroom to keep me out, her sequestering our daughter with her mother away from me, the convenient disappearance of the car seat, her hiring people to follow me, her poisoning of the other children against me, and her faking that I suffered from a mental illness, that she actively damaged the children and acted in bad faith in her failed effort to try to obtain 100% custody of our daughter. The fact that she is still trolling Dr. Kerner and publishing hate on the internet two years after the divorce is final suggests only that she needs serious help.

Respond to this report!

#2 Author of original report

If In Doubt Call (888) 51-TESLA

AUTHOR: - ()

 

As a matter of fact neither Tesla Motors safety officer nor the car seat safety expert, recommended by the court, approved the Tesla Roadster (two-seater sports car) to be a safe vehicle for transportation of a 3-year-old child. Any reasonable, rational and responsible parent would listen to such advice from experts. Unfortunately, Dr. Kerner simply failed to contact the noted experts and include his findings on this important matter in the custody report. If there is any doubt regarding my truthfulness on the car seat safety issues call (888) 51-TESLA.

Respond to this report!

#3 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Living in a world of continuous lies

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

April lies again. The only requirement from the court was that I provide a letter stating that the airbag on/off switch turned on and off. The court stated, on July 10, 2014, “Either it turns on/off or it doesn’t.” I obtained such a letter from the installer of the device who inspected the device after the child safety officer declined to do the check because the safety officer didn’t want to be involved anymore after “April” harassed him over and over. “April” never objected to the letter from the installer, who confirmed the switch turned on and off correctly.

There was never a requirement or request for the safety officer to “provide a letter to be safe for the transport of a 3-year old child,” only to determine if the device “turns on/off.” Further, the custody order was entered as a court order on July 10, 2014, the same day that the judge asked for the on/off switch letter, so there was never an option for “April” to sign the custody stipulation itself after the judge's requirement for a on/off switch letter, despite her lie to the contrary. Further, she signed the final divorce agreement that incorporated the stipulation.

Basically, “April” has libeled Dr. Kerner multiple times in this thread and elsewhere by falsely and fraudulently claiming he has done improper things. Instead, it is “April” who committed domestic violence and mental child abuse, yet is badgering Dr. Kerner to extort money out of him as she has done with others involved in the divorce, to try to make his report look better for her. I seriously hope Dr. Kerner takes legal action against “April” to clear his name of her smears. He certainly has grounds to.

Respond to this report!

#4 Author of original report

No Refund Issued for Defective Work

AUTHOR: - ()

 

I accepted the custody order in court provided that the opposing party will produce, as promised during the custody hearing, the car safety documenation that the court had requested. The car safety officer/expert, named during the custody hearing and on the custody stipulation, was contacted and declined to provide a letter declaring the Tesla Roadster to be safe for the transport of a 3-year-old child. As such, I refused to sign the custody stipulation. Again, this important child safety matter was assigned to Dr. Kerner to investigate, but he failed to do so. There is no excuse for charging cost ($300 per hour) to look into an important matter regarding my child's safety, and then forgetting to do so and refusing to issue a refund for a defective service that was prepaid.

Respond to this report!

#5 REBUTTAL Individual responds

More revisionist history

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

“April” again misleads by claiming she never “SIGNED” the custody order. In fact, she stipulated to the custody order under penalty of perjury including the disposition of the car seat issue. In the July 10, 2014 transcript, the court asks her, “And you understand that if you agree here today that it will become a court order effective today?” Response by “April”: “That’s fine.” Court: “All right, then the court at this time will accept; the stipulation; enter the order as requested.” She also signed the divorce agreement, which incorporated the custody order and had no further objection about the car seat.

Dr. Kerner did nothing inappropriate, particularly as my driving of the car was perfectly legal and “April” provided falsified information to Dr. Kerner about the risk of the car by omitting pertinent facts as she does on this site and failed to disclose her own driving record and dangers of her own car relative to my car. 

Respond to this report!

#6 Author of original report

Return to the Breach of Contract

AUTHOR: - ()

 


For the record, I never SIGNED the custody stipulation, as falsely stated in the rebuttal, because the opposing party failed to provide the car safety documentation on the red Tesla Roadster (a two-seater sports car) that the court had requested. Also, let's not lose track of what this report is about! It is about the breach of contract by Dr. Kerner, not about his fans and satisfied customers. In the case of the Tesla and the unsafe transport of a 3-year-old in this vehicle, Dr. Kerner provided "zero" text in the custody report and "zero" advice on this matter despite the fact that he was paid over $ 10,000 by me to look into this specific matter and provide his findings to the court as a "neutral" party.

Respond to this report!

#7 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Deleting data

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

 “April” deleted information. Section 3.7 of the manual link she provides clearly repeats the quote she is referring to but additionally states that the reason is because of the airbag, and the airbag issue was resolved. “April” intentionally omits that quote because it causes her whole argument to fall apart.

Regardless, a court order allows me to drive that car with my daughter, and “April” agreed with the court order with her own signature.

The only risk to our daughter is “April’s” poor driving record and dangerous car as well as her admitted and proven poisoning of the poor girl.

Respond to this report!

#8 Author of original report

Tesla Motor's Position on the On/Off Airbag Switch

AUTHOR: - ()

 

No information was cut from the manual by me, the Author, as falesly stated in the rebuttal. In fact in my previous post I provided a link to the entire Teslat Motors' manual for the two-seater sports car model. Since Tesla is an electric car the manual further states that no one other than a certified Tesla Motors mechanic is authorized to work on the car, as such Tesla Motors refused to install the airbag on/off switch for this vechicle (referred to in the rebuttal) or accept any liability for its malfunction in case it was installed by another shop. Further, the garage that installed the airbag switch also accepted no liability for its malfunction. More importantly, however, the mehanics of the seabelt sytsem only works properly if the weight of the passnger exceeds 80 pounds (see my previous post and/or the car's manual). As I stated before I provided the name and contact information of the Tesla Motors' safety officer that I spoke with to Dr. Kerner, but he did not contact this person to gather facts related to my daughter's safety while being transported in this car. The first and foremost responsibility of a custody evaluator is to carefully investigate all allegations related to physical safety of a child, and Dr. Kerner simply failed to do that. No further comments.

Respond to this report!

#9 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Master faker

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

“April’s” response is a prime example of how she fakes data, lies nonstop, and harasses. It shows how she deletes information to justify in her own mind a rationale to poison her children against me.

Instead of being truthful and providing a full quotation, she cut out a key sentence of the owner’s manual because it disproves her entire case. Specifically, she quotes only, “Currently, child seats and restraints are not approved for use in your vehicle. Tesla Motors strongly recommends that children are not carried as passengers in your vehicle” This quote appears in two places, Section 3-5 and 3-7 of the manual. However, in Section 3-7 of the manual, the reason for this warning is given in the sentence after the quote, but she cut it out although she was well aware of the quote:

“Death or serious injury may occur if the child is too close to the dashboard when the airbag inflates.”

And “Your vehicle is fitted with an airbag system that has no provision for switching off or deactivating the passenger airbag.”

In other words, she intentionally cut out the only reason provided for the warning. To address this, I installed an airbag on/off switch. Following this, a car seat safety office approved the seat. Following this, both “April” and the sitting court judge agreed through court order that this solution was valid once I obtained verification that the on-off switch was functional. I obtained a signed confirmation from the installer. “April” never objected further. The issue is over and done with.

“April” now falsely pretends as if all this never happened and as if the warning had nothing to do with the airbag.

The next three warnings she listed were inapplicable since they refer only to people sitting without a child car seat or in someone’s lap. Our child was always in a car seat.

In sum, it is a joke that this woman continues to harass and smear Dr. Kerner and myself. She is the problem, not Dr. Kerner. Hardly a single thing she has said on this website is true.

Respond to this report!

#10 Author of original report

Tesla Roadster and Child Seats

AUTHOR: - ()

 

Neither the court nor a safety officer has approved this mode of transport for a 3-year-old child, as faslely stated in the rebuttal to my report. Dr. Kerner should have invetsigated this matter with Tesla Motors directly, as I provided the name and contarct inforrmation of the Tesla owner and the company's safety officer to Dr. Kerner. Dr. Kerner simply failed my daughter and disregarded her safety because he was biased toward me, not only on this matter but other matters as well as discussed in my original complaint.

 

Below is the section of Tesla Roadster's Maunal regrading the use of child seats in this model vehicle, which clearly states Tesla Motor's position on this matter.

 

Child seats and restraints

Currently, child seats and restraints are not
approved for use in your vehicle. Until these
are available, Tesla Motors strongly
recommends that children are not carried as
passengers in your vehicle.
 
WARNING: The seat belts fitted to your
vehicle are designed to secure adult
sized passengers only.
 
WARNING: Children under age 12 and
those weighing less than 80 lb (36 kg)
are not of sufficient size to be carried safely
wearing a standard seat belt of the type
fitted to your vehicle.
 
WARNING: It is dangerous for children
to travel in any type of vehicle without
being restrained by a harness, child seat, or
restraint system suitable for both their age
and size.
 
WARNING: Never let a passenger hold a
child on his or her lap while your vehicle
is moving. The passenger cannot protect the
child from injury in a collision.
Respond to this report!

#11 REBUTTAL Individual responds

More fake news

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

“April” fakes more information to distract people from her admitted poisoning of the children in her effort “to do whatever I can to gain custody of them” as she wrote to our eldest child. Despite her own dangerous driving record with multiple recent tickets, she tries to claim that one of the safest cars in the world was a risk, even after it was fitted with an airbag on-off switch to address the concern the car manufacturer had and the car was then approved by a car-seat expert and eventually by the court and herself.  Her harassment, her poisoning of all the children about this, the convenient disappearance of the car seat, and the expense that she caused got her nowhere. Our daughter has driven in that car for 7 years without a single problem or near-problem. Now April is trying to claim Dr. Kerner was negligent despite the fact that she was a more dangerous driver driving a more dangerous car. This was all a strategy by her to make multiple claims and hope something would stick. This was a part of her effort to gain custody for herself regardless of the impact on the children. 

Respond to this report!

#12 Author of original report

The Car In Question-Tesla Roadster

AUTHOR: - ()

 

The car in quetsion is a red Tesla two-seater sports car.

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/809111/Tesla-Roadster-2.html

It is explicitly stated in the car manual that this car is not suited for transport of young children, and that no one should attempt to fit a carseat into the passenger compartment of this vehicle.

I provided all the above information to Dr. Kerner, as I was very concerned for the safety of our 3-year-old daughter. After I filed for divorce, my ex began to transport our young daughter in his sports car despite the fact that her life was being compromised. Dr. Kerner "somehow" FORGOT to address this IMPORTANT safety issue in his custody report. When Dr. Kerner was confronted, he wrote an email to all parties stating that he should have investigated this matter, and that he himself would never transport his own child in this vehicle. However, he refused to amend his report to include this important safety issue and his own opinion about it. I don't appreciate paying Dr. Kerner over $ 10,000 and having him "intentionally" FORGET to address one of the top concerns that I had regarding my daughter's safety. This is gross negligence, period.

Respond to this report!

#13 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Yet more lies and violations

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

In response to “Julia,” “April” violates a court order by reporting what a child evaluation report states, violates a settlement agreement again by calling me mentally ill, and absolutely falsely claims that I “asked my daughter to say unflattering things” about her on video. What our daughter said on video about boys being scary and about how “daddy’s car is dangerous” and that her mommy told her these things was taught directly by “April,” her mother. I was a witness to the fact that April told our daughter several times in front of me that “daddy’s car is dangerous” in order to make our daughter scared of driving in my car in her effort to distance my daughter from me. Coincidentally, the car seat disappeared around the same time. “April” also stated in front of me to our daughter that she should watch out for boys and be careful of boys. As mentioned, “April” similarly poisoned our eldest by writing to her, “I would not worry about them (younger kids) if I believed your dad could provide a stable, loving environment for them. I have reason to believe that he cannot do that and therefore I will do whatever I can to gain custody of them, particularly XXX.” The “whatever I can to gain custody” meant to poison and sequester my youngest daughter from me and poison our older children against me, among other things. To this day, the poisoning continues.

Another regular lie by April is that my wages have been “garnished.” No, they have never been garnished; they are assigned by mandatory wage assignment as stated in the original court order: “Support is to be payable by wage assignment.” Further the title of the wage assignment document is “Income withholding for support” and is simply for child support. No court order ever produced has used the term garnishment. This is a fabricated word used in an effort to smear and redirect her own abuse of the children. 

Respond to this report!

#14 Author of original report

Two Cents is Making No Sense!!

AUTHOR: - ()

 

My review clearly states that if you are a therapist then your accusations are against the code-of-conduct of your profession. If you are only a former client (which you may or may not be!), however, then your two cents are still terribly wrong because you are making blind comments about a case that you know absolutely nothing about. If you are indeed a former client of Dr. Kerner, as you claim, then I am glad he was helpful to you, but he has not been fair and helpful to me and many women whom I now know personally. It gives you more credibility to comment on your own experiences (if you are indeed a former client!) ONLY and refrain from making judgments about my experiences, period. 
 
You state in your reply: First of all, your children are grown and you are still whining about an evaluation that must have been ages ago from reading your post!!  Where did you come up with this false statement? Go back and read the postings, and you will see that not all children in question are grown, and the concern is regarding the youngest one. Also, for someone who claims that she is not a therapist, you certainly offer a lot of “unsolicited” therapy advice and intuition. You may be a therapist or you may be not, but your therapeutic recommendations addressed to me are not really sought on a web site that is aimed at exposing misconduct by business owners nationwide. Also, where did you come up with the notion of a bunch of women using “group therapy” to trash Dr. Kerner??? In fact, all the women in the group that I referred to are HIGHLY educated professionals with solid, legitimate complaints against Dr. Kerner.  I am surprised that a former executive of a high tech company, whom you claim to be, refers to a group of highly educated women as a Dr. Kerner-trashing-group. As a matter of fact you know nothing about this group and their individual complaints against Dr. Kerner, yet you pass a judgment on them to be collectively wrong. Further, you state: From reading your ex-husband’s posting, it sounds like you are going to owe him thousands of dollars so you better quit while you’re behind. Where did you come up with this nonsensical statement?? The facts are that I do not owe my ex-husband ANY money, and in fact his wages are being garnished because he owes me money. I assume that you know what garnishment means or you would not make the erroneous statement that you did. Please consult the dictionary on this matter as I stated his garnished wages in my posting, and my ex-husband confirmed in his posting that his wages are being garnished (if the poster is him!), so I cannot possibly be owing him any money if we both agree that his wages are being garnished!!!  However, despite all the false claims and accusations that you have made in your postings toward me, unlike you, I am not going to pass a judgment on you and your experiences and interactions with Dr. Kerner, so I will refrain from making any such comments that you have made regarding the facts of my case. 
 
In closing, I find it highly suspect for a woman who claims to be a former executive of a high tech company to refer to another woman as “whining” (simply because she files a consumer report that disagrees with her point-of-view) or a group of educated women as “Kerner-trashing” (simply because their collective views differs from hers), as such derogatory terms are not often used in a public forum by someone with a respectful persona.  
 
 
Respond to this report!

#15 Consumer Comment

Author Got Everything Wrong About Two Cents

AUTHOR: Julie - (USA)

You know, I am glad I checked back on the site to see if my first response posted as it seems you decided to speculate and were wrong all across the board. You should get your facts straight!

 

First of all, I am NOT a therapist, nor is Dr. Kerner my mentor. I am a former executive at a high tech company who gave up my career to raise my two children. I am a former client of Dr. Kerner. He did a custody evaluation for me and my ex-husband.

 

Dr. Kerner did not send me your posting or ask me to write anything. I recommended a former work colleague to him for an evaluation and she told me there were a couple of negative reviews online about him. Since I had such a positive experience, I decided to check them out and I am glad I did so people can have another opinion.  

 

I have never had Dr. Kerner refer anyone to me and I am not “loyal” to him, but I do believe he is an honest and sweet man who is trying to help people in high conflict custody cases. He was gentle with my children, quoted me accurately and actually said some things that, even though they were hard to hear, I took them to heart and learned something about myself and I have moved forward without hatred.

 

Even though I am not a therapist, nor am I a detective, I can still glean a lot of things from your initial posting and the other postings here. First of all, your children are grown and you are still whining about an evaluation that must have been ages ago!!  It does not sound healthy – and if you and these other women are using group therapy to trash Dr. Kerner, it doesn’t sound healthy for them either.  Therapy should be used for self growth not harboring ill will.

 

Dr. Kerner recommended a 50/50 timeshare in my case and, even though I have my problems with my ex, he is a good father and can give them things that I cannot. He is athletic and supports them in these activities. He has a wonderful humor and my children, thank god, have taken after him (I must admit I am a bit dry myself).  I used my time away from the children to take classes, do charity work, and go out with friends and I have found that I am a better mother now that I have not “given up” everything for my children because, once they go away, I will be left on my own and I need to find my own happiness.

 

Something else that called out to me was your number one complaint was that “he did not report what my children told him accurately” but in your rebuttal to my posting, you stated, “I just put two and two together that since the adults (including myself) were misquoted, then my children were also misquoted.”  That is a lot of speculation to be slamming Dr. Kerner when you are not 100% sure.  Also, you state that he is “highly biased against women”.  Well, I am a woman and I liked his evaluation. Stop putting all women in the same category as yourself – it is not accurate, which appears to be your “modus operandi” according to your ex and from what I have read in your own statements.

 

You also state your children are all doing well, so Dr. Kerner must have gotten something right.  Try to breathe and concentrate on moving on with your life. I did and I feel great!  Life is too short to concentrate on negatives. From reading your ex-husband’s posting, it sounds like you are going to owe him thousands of dollars so you better quit while you’re behind. Just trying to help….

Respond to this report!

#16 Author of original report

The Author of More Lies is Not a Business Owner

AUTHOR: - ()

 

 

I know for a fact that the author of the two rebuttal's titled, Repeating Lies Don't Make Them True and More Lies, is not an Owner of a Company as he claims on his Ripoff Report Profile. So right there is a lie told by this author, although he has accused me of telling 17 separate lies in his rebuttals. If you are a woman and your ex sounds like anything posted in the rebuttals (particularly in his court pleadings) AVOID Dr. Kerner at any cost. He is incapable of or unwilling to identify the false claims stated in the above stated rebuttals as an abuser who is projecting his own lying and manipulative behavior onto you. As such, you will find yourself trying to defend yourself time after time against outrageous accusations made by your ex throughout the custody evaluation process instead of focusing on your children's needs and their best interests. Keep in mind that you will also be paying $ 300 per hour to Dr. Kerner for investgating these outrageous accusations.

Respond to this report!

#17 REBUTTAL Owner of company

More lies

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

“April” continues to harass and smear multiple people involved in a divorce almost two years after the divorce has been settled and over four years after it started. It should not be necessary to go online and defend oneself against continuous revisionist history and smearing.

What is worse, though,  as “Julia” points, “April” has continued her pattern of harming the children. For example, during the divorce, she sent an email to my oldest daughter, stating, “I would not worry about them (younger kids) if I believed your dad could provide a stable, loving environment for them. I have reason to believe that he cannot do that and therefore I will do whatever I can to gain custody of them, particularly XXX.” She also tried to manipulate both my older kids to testify against me, but they refused and continuously talked negatively to my children about me. This type of poisoning is disgusting, and she should be thankful that Dr. Kerner didn’t recommend no custody for her. Instead, she arrogantly thinks she should have received more out of the custody evaluation despite what she did to the children and her admission that she would do anything to get custody.

Here, I am merely going to respond to each of her new lies.

Lie #1. “The County of Santa Clara awarded my mother and I $150,000 in damages for false arrest and infliction of physical and emotional pain.”

False. The settlement agreement signed by “April,” her mother, and the county specifically states that the County "den(ies) any liability or wrongdoing" and that "Neither this Agreement nor any of its terms shall be offered or received as evidence in any proceeding in any forum.” The county had zero risk of losing a case for false arrest, as even the criminal court denied “April’s” petition for factual innocence and the District Attorney requested this relief by stating, “…there is reasonable cause to believe that she (“April”) committed a violation of Penal Code 242-243(e)(1).”

 

Lie #2. “The magnitude of the settlement is a clear indication that the County has accepted substantial liability for falsely arresting me and citing my 80-year old mother for battery.”

False. The county settled only to avoid a higher cost of going to trial. “April” herself spent more than three times this amount in her failed effort to obtain 100% custody without even going to trial. As stated, the District Attorney’s believed April had committed the crime of domestic violence, as it opposed “April’s” petition for factual innocence, stating, "Petitioner should not receive this relief because the evidence shows that there is reasonable cause to believe that she committed a violation of Penal Code 242-243(e)(1). As such, the petition should be denied." The criminal court also agreed she was not innocent by denying “April’s” petition for factual innocence.

 

Lie #3. “It is also a fact that the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department sustained a complaint that I filed on the deputy who arrested me for the incident that was falsely reported to her by my ex-husband.”

False. On August 15, 2014, the Santa Clara County Counsel for the Sheriff Deputy wrote in a letter, “I can confirm that the Internal Affairs complaint (by “April” against the Sheriff Deputy) had nothing to do with the validity of the arrest of ‘April’.” In fact, the complaint was about a shared custody arrangement that the Sheriff Deputy had set up.

 

Lie #4. “It is also a fact that the Sheriff Deputy who arrested me was forced to resign from her post, and is no longer employed by the Santa Clara County due to her multiple acts of misconduct.”

False. This is another smear of the Sheriff Deputy. Even though the domestic violence act by “April” occurred in mid 2013, the Sheriff Deputy was fully employed by Santa Clara County through the end of 2015 (2.5 years later) and left to a different state for family reasons.

 

Lie #5. “Further, it is also a fact that the “alleged” attack upon my ex occurred a day after he was ordered by family court to pay me support, back-support, and my attorney fees…My ex, on the other hand, got extremely angry and agitated after the court order, angry enough to stage a domestic violence incident to retaliate against me.”

False. It was “April” and her mother who became angry after the court hearing because “April” lost 6 rulings in court: 1) The court ordered 50-50 temporary custody when she requested 100%; 2) The court ordered her to seek work; 3) The court ordered her to pay 50% of the children’s and household expenses from the support she received; 4) The court allowed her only half the temporary support she requested; 5) The court allowed her only half the advance legal fees she requested, and all legal fees were subject to reallocation; 6) The court excluded her from obtaining alimony from an entity she requested it from. Since all attorney’s fees were subject to a legal fee hearing at the end of the proceedings, there was no permanent award of fees. Because I was previously paying all household expenses, the support order merely transferred both income and expenses to April, so there was zero net back-support or support going forward for the next few months. 

After the rulings, April and her mother became more hostile and aggressive with sequestering our youngest daughter. At the dinner table, they sat on either side of her, preventing me from accessing her. They hovered around her, making it difficult for me to get close. The following morning, when I was trying to see my daughter before leaving work, April’s mother began sequestering my daughter into her bedroom. When I started taking photographs of this act, my ex-wife became angry and attacked me. The mother then joined the attack. The facts that they both attacked me are corroborated by a polygraph test that I passed and the deep scratches on my wrist that were photographed within minutes of the attack.

 

Lie #6. “…as he completely blocked all my access to community funds shortly after I filed for divorce.”

False. “April” remained on the joint checking account and had physical access to the account all the way through the divorce, and I paid all joint expenses for the household up to the court hearing, where the court then ordered us each to pay half the household expenses. As such, “April” was not out of pocket for any community expenses.

 

Lie #7. “Also, I never asked for 100% custody. I asked for more than 50%.”

False. Throughout the divorce and child evaluation process, “April” was unequivocally and unapologetically seeking 100% physical custody. In no document does she state “joint” for physical custody. Even in her letter to my daughter, quoted above, she admits to doing “whatever I can to gain custody of them.” Her claim “I never asked for 100% custody” is a fabrication.

 

Lie  #8. “As for mental illness, I believe someone who calls 911 because he cannot find a child’s carseat in the garage is mentally unbalanced.”

False. This statement about mental illness is yet another violation of a civil court agreement whereby “April” and her mother agreed that they will pay $1000 for every statement made of this nature. In addition, I never called 911 about the car seat. I called the Sheriff’s office, and this occurred when a car seat I used to transport my daughter mysteriously disappeared from our closed garage. The three people with primary access to the garage aside from my children were myself, “April,” and her mother. Given that April and her mother denied taking the car seat, it was logical to call the Sheriff to report a break in. April calls this act of a mentally ill person. A large car seat is not “lost” in a garage, as she implies. The sheriff convinced April and her mother to buy a new one, which tells the whole story.

 

Lie #9. “A mentally balanced person will do his best to obey the law and pay the court-order money instead of having his wages garnished, which is what happened in my case – a fact that was not disclosed but ignored by Dr. Kerner in his determination of financial abuse.”

False. First, April again violates her legal agreement not to claim I have a mental illness. Further, I paid every penny of support I was required to, broke no orders or laws, and all orders relating to support were provided to Dr. Kerner. Specifically, the order from the very first court hearing stated that “Support is to be payable by wage assignment” and that “the parties are to share the household expenses” and that “the parties will do a computation of what’s been paid since XXX to determine if any backpayment is due.” “April” and her attorney agreed that they owed backpayment on the community expenses I had paid above and beyond the support due since the date of filing, so they did not seek wage assignment for a few months. Only when they no longer owed money did they seek wage assignment as allowed in the original court order. Dr. Kerner was provided with the original order so new exactly that wage assignment was in the order and not something that was suddenly imposed by the court because I wasn’t paying my share. “April” and her attorney had the opportunity to “garnish” wages from the first court hearing but chose on their own to delay it. 

Respond to this report!

#18 Author of original report

Your Two Cents Is Highly Inaccurate

AUTHOR: - ()

 

Thank you for your concerns for my children. They are all doing very well, and are no longer children. In fact, one is graduating from a very prestigious university this coming June. You are correct that it is wrong to discuss what is written in the custody report with children, especially one that was as flawed and as inaccurate as the one produced by your mentor, Dr. Kerner. However, I am not sure where you get your information about my discussing this report with my children!! Please get your facts straight before commenting on a case that you know absolutely nothing about. I just put two-and-two together that since the adults (including myself) were misquoted, then my children were also misquoted. My daughter was quoted as saying: My mother always plays the role of a victim. This is very odd for her to say because in her college applications that I helped her with, she always stated: My mother is a very strong, determined and resilient woman. I hope you agree that those adjectives that she used in her college essays are not an image of a mother who always plays the role of a victim. I believe it is very likely that Dr. Kerner may have planted the idea in her head by asking the question: Do you believe your mother plays the role of the victim? Similar uncharacteristic statements were attributed to my son as well.

 

It seems to me that you are an advocate for Dr. Kerner, perhaps because he sends couples and their kids to you for parenting sessions. Unfortunately, it’s all about money, not the wellbeing of children. I am glad we dropped Dr. Kerner and did not follow up his recommendation of a second evaluation by him, and a whole host of other expert therapists (like yourself) for us to see for the "supposed" good of our children. Perhaps our children turned out fine because we did not sign up to see therapists like you who are only loyal to Dr. Kerner, not families and their children. As for mental illness, my ex filmed our 3-year-old daughter by asking her to say unflattering statements about me, like my mommy told me boys are bad or my mommy told me boys are scary.  As disturbing as these tapes were, Dr. Kerner stated in the report that the tapes show that I am "alienating' my daughter against her Father and boys in general!! Later, Dr. Kerner agreed in a written email to all parties that he was WRONG about how he interpreted these tapes, but refused to amend and correct his report, as also noted in the other ripoff reports written on him -= he agree to being wrong but never corrects his report. So please get your facts straight before breaking the codes-of-conduct in your own profession (if you are indeed a therapist that I think you are) of making false accusations about my actions.

 

Also, my older children are both very busy with their lives, and I am certain they will not be searching the ripoff report inventory on Dr. Kerner as you are. It seems to me that someone sent you this report and asked you to comment on it. I hope my response to you clearly shows that your accusations against me are false and unfounded, and I believe your profession explicitly prohibits you from defaming anyone in a public forum.

Respond to this report!

#19 Consumer Comment

My Two Cents

AUTHOR: Julie - (USA)

I would like to state that it sounds like the person who posted this complaint is not following the court order because in all custody evaluations, it is clearly stated that the person should not question their children or speak with them regarding the evaluation. In fact, boilerplate recommendations state it is a violation of the court order to speak with or enmesh the children in the parent’s dispute and court proceedings.  I feel very sorry for the children in this case if their mother is posting online that their father has a mental illness.  Research in this area states that the longer the parents draw out the conflict, the longer the children suffer.  I wish the children a lot of luck moving forward since that seems to be the case in this situation.

Respond to this report!

#20 Author of original report

My Complaint Against Dr. Kerner is 100% Valid

AUTHOR: - ()

 

My complaint filed on Dr. Kerner on this site is very much consistent with the two other complaints filed on him. Unfortunately, Dr. Kerner has a bad habit of taking the side of abusive, aggressive and violent men if he is assigned to produce a "neutral" and unbiased custody evaluation. The tone of the rebuttal written on my complaint on this site is a clear example of the type of character that Dr. Kerner supports in his so-called "neutral" evaluations. 

The facts of my case: It is fact that the County of Santa Clara awarded my mother and me $ 150,000 in damages for false arrest and infliction of physical and emotional pain. If we did not have a legitimate complaint, the County would not have awarded us a six-figure settlement. The magnitude of the settlement is a clear indication that the County has accepted substantial liability for falsely arresting me and citing my 80-year-old mother for battery. It is also a fact that the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department sustained a complaint that I filed on the deputy who arrested me for the incident that was falsely reported to her by my ex-husband. It is also a fact that the Sheriff Deputy who arrested me was forced to resign from her post, and is no longer employed by the Santa Clara County due to her multiple acts of misconduct. Further, it is also a fact that the "alleged" attack upon my ex occurred a day after he was ordered by family court to pay me support, back-support, and my attorney fees. I had no motive to attack my ex after putting up with his financial abuse for 4 months, as he completely blocked all my access to community funds shortly after I filed for divorce. My ex, on the other hand, got extremely angry and agitated after the court order, angry enough to stage a domestic violence incident to retaliate against me. Further, it is hard to imagine a person who is financially very abusive to be also a victim of domestic violence. Often these types of abusive behaviors go hand-in-hand. As a matter of fact once the Sheriff's Department provided the DA's office with a copy of the Court Order that ordered my ex to pay me a substantial amount of money, the "alleged" domestic violence charges were immediately dropped without an arraignment. My mother and I also included my ex as a defendant in the civil lawsuit that we filed against the County and the Sheriff's Department. However, my ex hired himself a top notch attorney and got himself off the case by using a civil code that states communications to the police are protected and by shifting all the blame to the deputy who arrested me. It is also a matter of fact that my ex had made three false 911 calls to the police prior to this "alleged" incident that resulted in my false arrest. 

 

Also, I never asked for 100% custody. I asked for more than 50% because I was my daughter's primary caregiver since the day of her birth, and my ex had very little interactions with her prior to my filing for divorce. As for mental illness, I believe someone who calls 911 because he cannot find a child's carseat in the garage is mentally unbalanced (which is what my ex did two times), as a 911 call is for an emergency call ONLY. I did mention this very fact to Dr. Kerner, which was not used as fact against my ex in his so-called "neutral" custody report. Also, a mentally balanced person won't make false allegations to the police if a family court ruling is issued against him. A mentally balanced person will do his best to obey the law and pay the court-order money instead of having his wages garnished, which is what happened in my case--a fact that was also disclosed but ignored by Dr. Kerner in his determination of financial abuse. It is based on those two acts and others like them that I believe my ex is mentally unbalanced in a way that makes it impossible for him to control his impulsive and irrational behaviors.

 

As I stated in my complaint, Dr. Kerner was fully aware of the facts that pointed toward my ex staging the domestic violence incident. However, Dr. Kerner has a terrible habit of taking the side of abusive, aggressive and violent men, which is quite dangerous because it validates and cultivates their obnoxious and dangerous behaviors toward their partners.  I encourage you to read the other complaints written on Dr. Kerner on this site (also search on Yelp under non-recommended reviews) to make up your own mind as to whether you would like to consider hiring Dr. Kerner as your "neutral" custody evaluator. Based on my own experience, I believe Dr. Kerner cannot act as a "neutral" evaluator.

Respond to this report!

#21 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Repeating Lies Don’t Make Them True

AUTHOR: Responder - (USA)

This is a response to the March 3, 2017 submission by “April,” where she continues to lie and smear Dr. Kerner and myself, her ex-husband, and fails to take responsibility for her own actions.

1. Despite her claim, “April” was not “falsely accused of domestic violence by my ex.” April along with her mother assaulted me by each grabbing my camera with one hand and my right wrist/arm with the other when they didn’t like the fact I was photographing her mother sequestering my 4-year old daughter into my daughter’s bedroom, which they had previously placed a deadbolt on to keep me out of, but that I had subsequently removed. At least one of them scratched me, with deep scratches drawing blood. Almost four years later, a scar still exists on my wrist. I not only passed a polygraph test, but “April” admitted to contacting me in court documents. She has also made up several conflicting claims of the event, thus cannot even get her lie straight.

2. While the case was not prosecuted, the District Attorney’s Office, in response to “April’s” request to the criminal court to be declared factually innocent, stated, "Petitioner should not receive this relief because the evidence shows that there is reasonable cause to believe that she committed a violation of Penal Code 242-243(e)(1). As such, the petition should be denied."

3. Subsequently, the criminal court denied “April’s” request for a finding of factual innocence. The court found that “April” did not meet her burden of proving innocence.

4. Prior to that, “April” and her mother sued the Sheriff’s office and me, claiming the Sheriff damaged her hearing when the Sheriff turned up the stereo in the squad car when “April” was verbally harassing the Sheriff and falsely claiming to the Sheriff that I suffered from a mental illness as she does in her letter on this site. She further falsely claimed subsequently that I colluded with the Sheriff and made up the scratches to get her arrested to get more custody. This was nonsensical, since I always asked for 50% custody (whereas she was asking for 100%), and even when I was offered 100% custody immediately after her arrest pending the court process, I declined.

5. “April” dropped her lawsuit against me after my reply laid out the facts and law indicated she would likely lose her claim. She further agreed never to make the claim that I had a mental illness again, agreeing to pay $1,000 for every incidence of that, indicating again that she lied to the Sheriff when she made that claim to her and to Dr. Kerner in the first place. I find in her March 3, 2017 submission here to “RipoffReport.com,” that she violated that agreement by stating, “that he was and is mentally disturbed.”

6. She continued to sue the Sheriff over the ear damage and arrest leading to it. The County eventually settled, determining that it was less costly to settle than  go through litigation. The settlement specifically states that the County "den(ies) any liability or wrongdoing" and that "Neither this Agreement nor any of its terms shall be offered or received as evidence in any proceeding in any forum.” Thus, “April’s” claim that the settlement was for a false arrest is another lie.                                                                                                                                         

7. “April” and her mother not only attacked me then lied to Dr. Kerner about not doing it,  but also lied to Dr. Kerner about not hiring someone to follow me (who I caught), in fact claiming that I imagined these people following me due to my “illness,” lied to Dr. Kerner about not poisoning the children against me, and lied about the quality of Dr. Kerner’s service. Dr. Kerner recommended 50% custody, which is normal in California, and she is angry because she did not get 100% custody and because Dr. Kerner uncovered her poisoning of the children and her nonstop malicious lies through the custody process. She is also angry against her former attorney, her accountant, and my attorney, who she also posted negative comments on Yelp about. The fact that she maliciously attacks everyone who she disagrees with speaks volumes about her credibility against Dr. Kerner.

Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.