Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #393504

Complaint Review: (((NAME(S) REDACTED DUE TO PERCEIVED HARASSMENT / CYBERSTALKING / CYBERBULLYING / REVENGE POST))) - Phoenix Arizona

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Appleton Wisconsin
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • (((NAME(S) REDACTED DUE TO PERCEIVED HARASSMENT / CYBERSTALKING / CYBERBULLYING / REVENGE POST))) (((REDACTED))) Phoenix, Arizona U.S.A.

(((NAME(S) REDACTED DUE TO PERCEIVED HARASSMENT / CYBERSTALKING / CYBERBULLYING / REVENGE POST))) | RIPOFF REPORT POST-PUBLICATION CONTENT REVIEW: EDITORIAL REDACTIONS | allowed physical abuse of daughter and protected boyfriend when daughter reported sexual abuse Phoenix Arizona

*Author of original report: Answer to the WHY's!!!

*Consumer Comment: WHERE IS THE LITTLE GIRL'S BIOLOGICAL FATHER? WHERE ARE HER GRANDPARENTS?

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

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

EDITOR’S COMMENT:  Ripoff Report strongly believes in the First Amendment, especially when consumers are truthfully warning other consumers about potential frauds, scams, rip-offs or the like by shady individuals or businesses.  Ripoff Report is by consumers, for consumers…and we want to keep it that way!  Unfortunately this Report was posted and, upon additional information, appears to have been primarily for the purpose of bullying or harassment.  In many instances Ripoff Report will reach out to the author of the Report to obtain further information.  In other instances, enough information is provided to Ripoff Report to warrant redactions without reaching out to the author.  Ripoff Report is working to combat tactics that are perceived to be cyberharassment, cyberstalking, cyberbullying and/or what is generally considered a “revenge post” as we do not condone such behavior. 

The Report was brought to our attention and, upon review of compiled information (which will be done on a case by case basis without any obligation as resources allow), and at Ripoff Report’s sole discretion, information that did not conform to current policies and/or the identifying information relating to the individual(s) and/or business(es) named in this “Report” and any subsequent comments thereto have been editorially redacted as indicated by the following “(((REDACTED)))” or (((REDACTED DUE TO PERCEIVED HARASSMENT / REVENGE POST)))”.

CONSUMERS:  Be kind.  Keep it honest.  Keep it fair.  Stick to the facts.  Do your research.  Keep the dirty laundry in the laundry hamper…not on Ripoff Report.

PLEASED TO SEE SUCH EFFORTS?  YOU CAN HELP RIPOFF REPORT COMBAT THOSE WHO ABUSE THE SYSTEM:  Ripoff Report, as resources allow, is working towards combatting Cyberharassment, Cyberstalking, Cyberbullying and/or other problems such as what is generically called “revenge posts” that can be riddled with nasty personal allegations that can be serious.   Ripoff Report would love to be able to timely address each and every review request we receive, however, this takes resources.  If you think this is a worth-while endeavor, we encourage you to make a donation so that we can expand the resources that we can devote to this project.  You can make a non-tax deductible donation by clicking on the PayPal icon at the bottom of the page located at the following URL:  http://www.ripoffreport.com/ConsumersSayThankYou/Donate.aspxThe more resources we have, the more resources we can devote to this project and other forward thinking and positive initiatives like it.

Thank you!

~ Ripoff Report Staff

NOW TO THE EDITORIALLY REDACTED REPORT:

(((REDACTED))) is a despicable "mother". Her live in boyfriend, (((REDACTED))), molested and tortured her 4 year old daughter. As a result of the failures of our "justice" system (((REDACTED))) was not only found to have not molested her, he is allowed to once again have contact with the child (after a series of counseling sessions are complete). Here is a little background. The 4 year old girl went through a taped forensic interview wherein she said repeatedly that (((REDACTED))) "tells her secrets" and that he "touched her privates with twenty million fingers". The child also goes on to report that (((REDACTED))) puts Tabasco sauce in her panties, her mouth, and in her ears, causing it to "burn". In addition to the child's statements, her older sister disclosed that while her sister is in the bathroom with (((REDACTED))) that she hears her sister "crying" and say "ow". Despite the MANY disturbing disclosures throughout this 45 min. taped and well conducted interview by the Child Advocacy Center, the Phoenix Police Department would not file charges because it was "his word against her word" and there was no "physical evidence". In addition, the child's own mother refused to file charges. She claims she believes the child made the story up and fought to protect the boyfriend. It was also previously documented in police reports that after the child first reported the physical abuse that she was later spanked by (((REDACTED))) for her disclosure. The girls mother, (((REDACTED))), hired a slimy unethical defense attorney, Gregg Woodnick, and convinced the system that the child was coerced by her father to say these things. Anyone in their right mind would realize that there would be no way for a child to be capable of remembering to say so many different horrible things with so much intricate detail, ie. how he undresses her, how it made her feel, how he looked when touching her, how she hides under her bed to get away from him, etc. Well...ultimately the mothers defense attorney "won" her case. So now this poor child is once again back in the home of the same man who tortured her with Tabasco sauce and touched her privates while in the "bathroom with the door closed". If you know (((REDACTED))) or (((REDACTED))) keep your children away from their home. They will not be safe!!! NOTE: (((REDACTED)))r is NOT REGISTERED as a SEXUAL OFFENDER because Maricopa County Officials say "its her word against his" and that is not enough to pursue charges. This person works for (((REDACTED))) and could be working at your business or company, or on nearby building projects. BEWARE ..Not all, in fact very few, Child Molesters are registered. Why, because of the lack of "evidence" from this "non-violent" crime. (((REDACTED))) is a sales executive for(((REDACTED))) and plays football for the (((REDACTED))). Iwantjustice Appleton, Wisconsin
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/20/2008 09:22 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/names-redacted-due-to-perceived-harassment-cyberstalking-cyberbullying-revenge-post/phoenix-arizona/names-redacted-due-to-perceived-harassment-cyberstalking-cyberbullying-revenge-393504. 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!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
2Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#2 Author of original report

Answer to the WHY's!!!

AUTHOR: J. Schenke - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, March 09, 2009

The little girl's biological father is the one who DID report the abuse. The little girl originally made her disclosure to her biological fathers wife. Her father then reported the incident to the local police department in his hometown (a town in WI). The PD in the fathers town, which is where the children were when the disclosures were made, enlisted the assistance of the Child Advocacy Center to forensically interview the child. During the interview the child made SEVERAL disturbing disclosures...such as the mothers boyfriend putting Tabasco sauce in her panties, mouth, and ears. And how the boyfriend "flaps" her on the bottom of her feet making it hurt...(no one really ever knew what "flaps" meant), and how he crumples her panties up and throws them aside when he would take her skirt off. The child even indicated that the boyfriend would leave her shirt on. Upon the conclusion of the interview the biological father filed an "Emergency Petition" for the children to stay in his home (he has joint-custody with extended visitations).

Through a long series of events the children were returned to their mother in Phoenix until a trial could be held. In the meantime, CPS in AZ decided that they would go against ALL of their own protocol and re interview the child. Keep in mind the child had already been interviewed by the Police Dept. and Child Advocacy Center in Wisconsin. Well.....what do you think happened when a 5 year old little girl was re interviewed while in her mothers care (the same mother who spanked the children for telling their father these things...which is also documented in a police report)...you guessed it....she recanted.

After completing a shotty and biased investigation CPS sided with the mother saying that they believed the biological father set the child up to say all the things she disclosed. Keep in mind, at no point did the AZ CPS contact the reporting agency who conducted the first investigation or the father. Additionally, the mothers boyfriend REFUSED to take a polygraph test on this matter. Logically, if one was truly innocent and accused of such a heinous crime wouldn't they volunteer for such a test...not REFUSE it. Obviously that would make too much sense and as the saying goes "common sense is not so common". Since the AZ CPS was sided with the mother in this theory that the child was coerced, the Guardian Ad Lidem jumped on that band wagon as well rather than conduct his own investigation and talk to all parties involved. The GAL also only spoke with the mother of the children...not the reporting agency in WI or the biological father. Keep in mind, the children actually told the Guardian Ad Lidem that they wanted to live with their father in WI. However, he then determined that they were too young to offer a meaningful opinion as to where they want to live (then why did he ask the question to begin with...clearly he expected to receive an answer different than what he did).

Prior to trial, the Arizona Ombudsman Office investigated the protocol, or lack thereof, of CPS's investigation. They ruled again CPS and concluded that CPS was extremely biased in their investigation and had not followed protocol (keep in mind, it is rare for the Ombudsman to rule against CPS). However, the report against CPS was not allowed into Court as evidence because of an AZ statute which doesn't allow for an Arizona Ombudsman Office investigator to testify. And...since the report was so damning against CPS the mothers attorney would not even agree to it being admitted standalone, without testimony. Well, a long story short is that this case got mishandled at several points and as a result the child is now back in the home of the same man she was once brave enough to speak against.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

WHERE IS THE LITTLE GIRL'S BIOLOGICAL FATHER? WHERE ARE HER GRANDPARENTS?

AUTHOR: Joe - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 01, 2009

WHY HASN'T THE LITTLE GIRL SAID SOMETHING TO HER FATHER OR GRANDPARENTS ABOUT THIS GUY ALLEGEDLY DOING ALL THIS STUFF TO HER?

WHY HASN'T HER SISTER TOLD A TEACHER OR SOMEBODY OR REPORTED IT TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE?

WHY HASN'T SOMEONE CALLED THE CHILD ABUSE HOTLINE AND REPORTED THIS?

TOO MANY "WHYS" HERE ...

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now