I really need to update this site but have had a very hard time posting this. My sons father passed away. He died of a drug overdose.   I had been telling the courts about his problem but it fell on deaf ears. No one listened or cared at the time.  Had the court required him to get help to see his son he may have been alive today.  The court chose to ignore me and gave my son to an active heroin user. Now my son is without a father at all.

I don’t understand why Carol Orleck,  Keith Prater,  Sue Olsen, or Judge Kirby did what they did to me.  I am not the only one being hurt by this system.  Countless number of kids and parents are being delibertely harmed by the family courts that should protect them. Our system needs to be completely overhauled.

I will write more information soon but wanted to post this update.

My heart cries for the moms and dads who can’t hold their children tonight because the system let them down.  I understand the heartache.

 Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen (4)

Kusek, Laurie   Ms. H:  Per your request for reconsideration, I did review a transcript of the hearing before Judge Bernhardson on August 16, 2011, which included the comments from the Guardian ad Litem.  Based upon that transcript, I believe that the matter w

To Me

May 22, 2012

Ms. H:  Per your request for reconsideration, I did review a transcript of the hearing before Judge Bernhardson on August 16, 2011, which included the comments from the Guardian ad Litem.  Based upon that transcript, I believe that the matter was dismissed due to the jurisdictional issue. With regard to the interview with your son, the Guardian disclosed to the Court her concerns, which is her role, but ultimately it was the Courts determination on jurisdiction.

Based upon the transcript of the hearing, I will not be conducting a complaint investigation.    Thank you

Laurie A. Kusek

Guardian ad Litem Program Manager

Hennepin County District Court

Juvenile Justice Center C-35

590 Park Avenue, L878

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582

612-348-5017

FAX  612-348-4154

Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us

“You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.”

From: amy h[mailto: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:54 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen

Laurie, Thank you for your reply. I wanted to ask for reconsideration of the complaint review to be opened due to a couple of factors. I had made this complaint and sent it to you twice.  I could not find the first email which was sent in September, but the second was made in November and I have the time stamp on the original email.  I double checked to make sure it was sent to the correct email address and it was. Even though it was ultimately dismissed for jurisdiction.  The court weighed heavily on Mrs. Olsens statemnet that my son Peyton was coached.  Also, I brought up the jurisdiction question in court and I personally believe it was overlooked because the guardian Sue Olsen kept making the claim that Peyton was coached.  Mrs. Olsen could not have made that opinion within the brief interaction she had with Peyton.  Also Sue Olsen spoke with a Guardian Ad Litem in Georgia, Carol Orleck regarding the court hearing for the order of protection here in Minnesota.  Mrs. Orleck (the Georgia Guardian Ad Litem) testified under oath in a Georgia court that Sue Olsen told her that I delibertely coached Peyton to claim his father abused him and Mrs. Olsen said it was the worst case of coaching she had ever dealth with.  My two older children who witnessed some of the behavior exibihited by my ex-husband were not interviewed and the statements they made were ignored.  As a Guardian Ad Litem, I believe Mrs. Olsen’s actions were very hasty and very costly to the safety of my son. I am requesting a reconsideration on the opening an investigation to these actions. Thank you, Amy H Minneapolis, Minnesota — On Tue, 5/8/12, Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> wrote: From: Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: “‘amy h'” > Cc: “Kusek, Laurie” <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 8:57 AM Thank you Amy for sending me your email with your concerns.  It is my understanding that this matter came before the court on August 16, 2011, and was dismissed at that time.  Your complaint regarding the proper jurisdiction issue should have been brought to the attention of the court at the hearing, as that is a judicial officer determination.  As the matter was dismissed in August of 2011, I do not have any file/reports to review; therefore I will not be completing an investigation on your complaint.  Although I know this is not what you wanted to hear, I want you to know that I do appreciate your email regarding your concerns as it is important for the program to receive feedback and I have made note of them.  Thank you again Laurie A. Kusek Guardian ad Litem Program Manager Hennepin County District Court Juvenile Justice Center C-35 590 Park Avenue, L878 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582 612-348-5017 FAX  612-348-4154 Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us “You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.” From: amy h Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:04 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: Fw: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen Laurie, This is a copy of the original complaint that was send November 27th. Thank you, Amy H Amy HMinneapolis, Minnesota — On Sun, 11/27/12> wrote: From: amy h> Subject: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: laurie.kusek@courts.state.mn.us Date: Sunday, November 27, 2011, 9:15 PM I am writing a formal complaint against guardian Sue Olson, who on August, 16th 2011, violated several of my rights during court for a Temporary Order of Protection.  I obtained a temporary order of protection from the Hennepin County Courthouse on August, 4th 2011, case number 27-FA-11-5570.  When I filed the temporary order of protection I made sure that the court knew that there were ongoing custody issues in Georgia regarding my son. It was during a visit to Minnesota that my son Peyton H who is six started to open up to me about what was going on at his dad’s house.  I called the guardian ad litem involved in the Georgia case on August 2nd.  She told me to return my son immediately.  I then called the department of family and children services in both Minnesota and Georgia.  Minnesota told me to file for an order of protection on my sons behalf.  I immediately filed an order on his behalf which was granted on August 4th.  The court date was on August 16th. On Monday August 6th, I received a call from a detective Jones in Peachtree City regarding Peyton’s return.  I gave detective Jones the Order of Protection that was issued in Minnesota.  She then gave it to the guardian ad litem here and my husband. When I showed up for court on August 16th I was informed that the order had not been served and a new court date would be ordered.  I went upstairs to speak to the court.  The guardian ad litem on duty for the court date started to question me regarding the circumstances.  It was clear she didn’t believe what I was saying from the start.  She talked to my son for about thirty seconds and then announced I was coaching him.  I had coached him to say these things.  In court she brought up the fact that she felt Peyton was coached and said that it should be dismissed because of jurisdiction because of the ongoing court proceedings in Georgia.  I was completely devastated.  I was unable to submit any evidence I had that proved the abuse was not coached.  I was also forced to return my son to an abusive home. My rights were completely violated according to UCCJEA.  Because this was an interstate issue this case fell under the federal regulations of the UCCJEA signed by all states in the United States. Under the UCCJEA there are two requirements for Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction. 1.       Child must be physically present in the state; and 2.       Necessary in an emergency to protect child because child or a sibling or parent of child is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. Proper notice and opportunity to be heard given the opposing party before a custody determination is made. Because I already had the Temporary order of Protection I fell under this category when deciding jurisdiction.  On August 16th the court declined jurisdiction based upon an Inconvenient Forum thus violating my rights and my son’s rights. Also the UCCJEA states that Custody determination will proceed even though a court declines to assert jurisdiction under inconvenient forum grounds and finds that another court is a more convenient forum.  Court declining to assert jurisdiction must stay the proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding will be prompltly commenced in another state. This was not done at all even though the court in Minnesota declined because of Inconvenient Forum According to the UCCJEA courts are authorized to communicate with each other about any proceeding under the UCCJEA. Parties may participate in any communications between courts. If parties are not able to participate in such communications, the parties must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made. Courts are required to make a record of their communication and to promptly inform the parties of such communication and grant them access to same. The guardian at litem, Sue Olson spoke with the guardian ad litem in Geogia, Carol Orleck before court.  I had no knowledge of this until Jen who works for a domestic abuse organization let me know after speaking with Sue Olson.  Jen’s phone number is 612-673-3525.  Jen was also a guardian ad litem and familiar with the system.  I received no notification regarding this correspondence and it has been detrimental to my case here because according to Carol Orleck GAL in Georgia.  Sue Olson said that it was the worst coaching case she had ever seen in her history.  I was not allowed to present my children’s statements, psychological evaluations or have my two oldest children testify. I want to make a couple of more points regarding this.  Under the UCCJEA, the two courts were required to communicate with each other. Under an Inconvenient Forum, the issue can be raised upon a motion of a party, the court’s own motion or at the request or another court.  A Guardian Ad Litem may not raise the issue of Inconvenient Forum.   Sue Olson is the one who brought up the proceedings in Georgia and told the judge that she thought it should go back there. The UCCJEA requires that a court that is declining jurisdiction is required to stay proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another state” In deciding to decline jurisdiction on the basis of inconvenient forum, the court must consider all the relevant factors, including 1.       Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child. 2.       The length of time the child has resided outside the state 3.       The distance between the inconvenient forum court and the more appropriate forum court. 4.       The relative financial circumstances of the parties. 5.       Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction 6.       The nature and location of the evidence needed to resolve the case, including testimony of the child 7.       The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence Because of the actions of Sue Olson and the Hennepin County Court System there has been irreversible damage to my family.  My rights and my children’s rights were clearly violated.  I ask that this matter be formally looked into. Thank you, Amy H Amy Minneapolis, Minnesota

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

Me   Snippet unavailable

May 22, 2012

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

Kusek, Laurie   Ms. s:  Based upon the transcript itself, the Court indicated that because âthe state of Georgia clearly has jurisdiction hereâ the court indicated that you needed to go the state of Georgia, as there is a pending matter in that state.Â

To MeKusek, Laurie

May 30, 2012

Ms. H:  Based upon the transcript itself, the Court indicated that because “the state of Georgia clearly has jurisdiction here” the court indicated that you needed to go the state of Georgia, as there is a pending matter in that state.  Your son did not disclose to the Guardian any abuse by his father, and indicated that he was told to tell whoever would be speaking to him that he was scared to be in Georgia and everyone is slapping him.  The Court also indicated that since you did not have any firsthand knowledge or any present knowledge of what was happening in Georgia, the matter needed to be heard in Georgia, and that this Court, in Hennepin County, did not have any jurisdiction.  Being that the father has temporary custody of the child in Georgia, and that the father has had no contact with the State of Minnesota where there is a minimum contacts requirement in order to have Mr. Hopkins even served, the Court indicated that this matter needed to go to Georgia.  Based on these circumstances, I believe that procedures were correctly followed.

Laurie A. Kusek

Guardian ad Litem Program Manager

Hennepin County District Court

Juvenile Justice Center C-35

590 Park Avenue, L878

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582

612-348-5017

FAX  612-348-4154

Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us

“You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.”

 Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:50 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen

Mrs Kusek, I disagree with your decision that the court dismissed the case solely due to jurisdiction and not based on the Guardians actions.  The guardian Sue Olsen’s comments also affected a case in Georgia.  I would like know what agency would handle an appeal of your decision? There are a couple of reasons why and would like to appeal this.

Kusek, Laurie   Ms. H  Per your request for reconsideration, I did review a transcript of the hearing before Judge Bernhardson on August 16, 2011, which included the comments from the Guardian ad Litem.  Based upon that transcript, I believe that the matter w

To Me

May 22, 2012

Ms. H  Per your request for reconsideration, I did review a transcript of the hearing before Judge Bernhardson on August 16, 2011, which included the comments from the Guardian ad Litem.  Based upon that transcript, I believe that the matter was dismissed due to the jurisdictional issue. With regard to the interview with your son, the Guardian disclosed to the Court her concerns, which is her role, but ultimately it was the Courts determination on jurisdiction.

Based upon the transcript of the hearing, I will not be conducting a complaint investigation.    Thank you

Laurie A. Kusek

Guardian ad Litem Program Manager

Hennepin County District Court

Juvenile Justice Center C-35

590 Park Avenue, L878

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582

612-348-5017

FAX  612-348-4154

Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us

“You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.”

From: amy  [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:54 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen

Laurie, Thank you for your reply. I wanted to ask for reconsideration of the complaint review to be opened due to a couple of factors. I had made this complaint and sent it to you twice.  I could not find the first email which was sent in September, but the second was made in November and I have the time stamp on the original email.  I double checked to make sure it was sent to the correct email address and it was. Even though it was ultimately dismissed for jurisdiction.  The court weighed heavily on Mrs. Olsens statemnet that my son Peyton was coached.  Also, I brought up the jurisdiction question in court and I personally believe it was overlooked because the guardian Sue Olsen kept making the claim that Peyton was coached.  Mrs. Olsen could not have made that opinion within the brief interaction she had with Peyton.  Also Sue Olsen spoke with a Guardian Ad Litem in Georgia, Carol Orleck regarding the court hearing for the order of protection here in Minnesota.  Mrs. Orleck (the Georgia Guardian Ad Litem) testified under oath in a Georgia court that Sue Olsen told her that I delibertely coached Peyton to claim his father abused him and Mrs. Olsen said it was the worst case of coaching she had ever dealth with.  My two older children who witnessed some of the behavior exibihited by my ex-husband were not interviewed and the statements they made were ignored.  As a Guardian Ad Litem, I believe Mrs. Olsen’s actions were very hasty and very costly to the safety of my son. I am requesting a reconsideration on the opening an investigation to these actions. Thank you, Amy H Minneapolis, Minnesota — On Tue, 5/8/12, Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> wrote: From: Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: “‘amy h> Cc: “Kusek, Laurie” <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 8:57 AM Thank you Amy for sending me your email with your concerns.  It is my understanding that this matter came before the court on August 16, 2011, and was dismissed at that time.  Your complaint regarding the proper jurisdiction issue should have been brought to the attention of the court at the hearing, as that is a judicial officer determination.  As the matter was dismissed in August of 2011, I do not have any file/reports to review; therefore I will not be completing an investigation on your complaint.  Although I know this is not what you wanted to hear, I want you to know that I do appreciate your email regarding your concerns as it is important for the program to receive feedback and I have made note of them.  Thank you again Laurie A. Kusek Guardian ad Litem Program Manager Hennepin County District Court Juvenile Justice Center C-35 590 Park Avenue, L878 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582 612-348-5017 FAX  612-348-4154 Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us “You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.” From: amy hSent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:04 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: Fw: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen Laurie, This is a copy of the original complaint that was send November 27th. Thank you, Amy Amy HMinneapolis, Minnesota — On Sun, 11/27/11, amy > wrote: From: amySubject: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: laurie.kusek@courts.state.mn.us Date: Sunday, November 27, 2011, 9:15 PM I am writing a formal complaint against guardian Sue Olson, who on August, 16th 2011, violated several of my rights during court for a Temporary Order of Protection.  I obtained a temporary order of protection from the Hennepin County Courthouse on August, 4th 2011, case number 27-FA-11-5570.  When I filed the temporary order of protection I made sure that the court knew that there were ongoing custody issues in Georgia regarding my son. It was during a visit to Minnesota that my son Peyton Hopkins who is six started to open up to me about what was going on at his dad’s house.  I called the guardian ad litem involved in the Georgia case on August 2nd.  She told me to return my son immediately.  I then called the department of family and children services in both Minnesota and Georgia.  Minnesota told me to file for an order of protection on my sons behalf.  I immediately filed an order on his behalf which was granted on August 4th.  The court date was on August 16th. On Monday August 6th, I received a call from a detective Jones in Peachtree City regarding Peyton’s return.  I gave detective Jones the Order of Protection that was issued in Minnesota.  She then gave it to the guardian ad litem here and my husband. When I showed up for court on August 16th I was informed that the order had not been served and a new court date would be ordered.  I went upstairs to speak to the court.  The guardian ad litem on duty for the court date started to question me regarding the circumstances.  It was clear she didn’t believe what I was saying from the start.  She talked to my son for about thirty seconds and then announced I was coaching him.  I had coached him to say these things.  In court she brought up the fact that she felt Peyton was coached and said that it should be dismissed because of jurisdiction because of the ongoing court proceedings in Georgia.  I was completely devastated.  I was unable to submit any evidence I had that proved the abuse was not coached.  I was also forced to return my son to an abusive home. My rights were completely violated according to UCCJEA.  Because this was an interstate issue this case fell under the federal regulations of the UCCJEA signed by all states in the United States. Under the UCCJEA there are two requirements for Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction. 1.       Child must be physically present in the state; and 2.       Necessary in an emergency to protect child because child or a sibling or parent of child is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. Proper notice and opportunity to be heard given the opposing party before a custody determination is made. Because I already had the Temporary order of Protection I fell under this category when deciding jurisdiction.  On August 16th the court declined jurisdiction based upon an Inconvenient Forum thus violating my rights and my son’s rights. Also the UCCJEA states that Custody determination will proceed even though a court declines to assert jurisdiction under inconvenient forum grounds and finds that another court is a more convenient forum.  Court declining to assert jurisdiction must stay the proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding will be prompltly commenced in another state. This was not done at all even though the court in Minnesota declined because of Inconvenient Forum According to the UCCJEA courts are authorized to communicate with each other about any proceeding under the UCCJEA. Parties may participate in any communications between courts. If parties are not able to participate in such communications, the parties must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made. Courts are required to make a record of their communication and to promptly inform the parties of such communication and grant them access to same. The guardian at litem, Sue Olson spoke with the guardian ad litem in Geogia, Carol Orleck before court.  I had no knowledge of this until Jen who works for a domestic abuse organization let me know after speaking with Sue Olson.  Jen’s phone number is 612-673-3525.  Jen was also a guardian ad litem and familiar with the system.  I received no notification regarding this correspondence and it has been detrimental to my case here because according to Carol Orleck GAL in Georgia.  Sue Olson said that it was the worst coaching case she had ever seen in her history.  I was not allowed to present my children’s statements, psychological evaluations or have my two oldest children testify. I want to make a couple of more points regarding this.  Under the UCCJEA, the two courts were required to communicate with each other. Under an Inconvenient Forum, the issue can be raised upon a motion of a party, the court’s own motion or at the request or another court.  A Guardian Ad Litem may not raise the issue of Inconvenient Forum.   Sue Olson is the one who brought up the proceedings in Georgia and told the judge that she thought it should go back there. The UCCJEA requires that a court that is declining jurisdiction is required to stay proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another state” In deciding to decline jurisdiction on the basis of inconvenient forum, the court must consider all the relevant factors, including 1.       Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child. 2.       The length of time the child has resided outside the state 3.       The distance between the inconvenient forum court and the more appropriate forum court. 4.       The relative financial circumstances of the parties. 5.       Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction 6.       The nature and location of the evidence needed to resolve the case, including testimony of the child 7.       The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence Because of the actions of Sue Olson and the Hennepin County Court System there has been irreversible damage to my family.  My rights and my children’s rights were clearly violated.  I ask that this matter be formally looked into. Thank you, Amy H

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

Me   Snippet unavailable

May 22, 2012

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

Kusek, Laurie   Ms. H:  Based upon the transcript itself, the Court indicated that because âthe state of Georgia clearly has jurisdiction hereâ the court indicated that you needed to go the state of Georgia, as there is a pending matter in that state.Â

To MeKusek, Laurie

May 30, 2012

Ms. H  Based upon the transcript itself, the Court indicated that because “the state of Georgia clearly has jurisdiction here” the court indicated that you needed to go the state of Georgia, as there is a pending matter in that state.  Your son did not disclose to the Guardian any abuse by his father, and indicated that he was told to tell whoever would be speaking to him that he was scared to be in Georgia and everyone is slapping him.  The Court also indicated that since you did not have any firsthand knowledge or any present knowledge of what was happening in Georgia, the matter needed to be heard in Georgia, and that this Court, in Hennepin County, did not have any jurisdiction.  Being that the father has temporary custody of the child in Georgia, and that the father has had no contact with the State of Minnesota where there is a minimum contacts requirement in order to have Mr. Hopkins even served, the Court indicated that this matter needed to go to Georgia.  Based on these circumstances, I believe that procedures were correctly followed.

Laurie A. Kusek

Guardian ad Litem Program Manager

Hennepin County District Court

Juvenile Justice Center C-35

590 Park Avenue, L878

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582

612-348-5017

FAX  612-348-4154

Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us

“You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.”

From: amy h[mailto:m] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:50 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen

Mrs Kusek, I disagree with your decision that the court dismissed the case solely due to jurisdiction and not based on the Guardians actions.  The guardian Sue Olsen’s comments also affected a case in Georgia.  I would like know what agency would handle an appeal of your decision? There are a couple of reasons why and would like to appeal this. The interstate child custody agreement for every state gives the courts jurisdication to interviene in and assume jurisdiction in a case where a minor is suspected of being abused in another state and the minor is currently in the state where a protective order is filed.  I believe it was due to the comments of the Guardian Ad LItem that my case was dismissed.  The Guardian Ad Litem did not speak with my son in dept and made a very hasty and detrimential decision which has endangered my son.  She did not interview my older children present or any family members present that day.  The judge dimissed jurisdiction because the judge did not believe my son was in danger due to the remarks of the Guardian. The Guardian Ad Litem Sue Olsen spoke with a guardian ad litem in Georgia assigned to represent my son in the original custody case in Georgia.  Sue Olsen did not tell that guardian Ad Litem that the case was dismissed for jurisdiction but told her I coached my son.  This statement was testified to under oath in Georgia by Carol Orleck.  Mrs. Orleck also testified under oath that it was Sue Olsen’s opinion that it was the worst case of coaching that she (Sue Olsen) had ever seen. These actions have cause more harm than I can describe and I would like for them to be looked into.  I don’t believe that procedures were followed. Thank you, Amy H — On Tue, 5/22/12, Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> wrote: From: Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: “‘amy hopkins'” <amylhopkins@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 8:48 AM Ms. Hopkins:  Per your request for reconsideration, I did review a transcript of the hearing before Judge Bernhardson on August 16, 2011, which included the comments from the Guardian ad Litem.  Based upon that transcript, I believe that the matter was dismissed due to the jurisdictional issue. With regard to the interview with your son, the Guardian disclosed to the Court her concerns, which is her role, but ultimately it was the Courts determination on jurisdiction. Based upon the transcript of the hearing, I will not be conducting a complaint investigation.    Thank you Laurie A. Kusek Guardian ad Litem Program Manager Hennepin County District Court Juvenile Justice Center C-35 590 Park Avenue, L878 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582 612-348-5017 FAX  612-348-4154 Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us “You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.” From: amy h[mailto:@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:54 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen Laurie, Thank you for your reply. I wanted to ask for reconsideration of the complaint review to be opened due to a couple of factors. I had made this complaint and sent it to you twice.  I could not find the first email which was sent in September, but the second was made in November and I have the time stamp on the original email.  I double checked to make sure it was sent to the correct email address and it was. Even though it was ultimately dismissed for jurisdiction.  The court weighed heavily on Mrs. Olsens statemnet that my son Peyton was coached.  Also, I brought up the jurisdiction question in court and I personally believe it was overlooked because the guardian Sue Olsen kept making the claim that Peyton was coached.  Mrs. Olsen could not have made that opinion within the brief interaction she had with Peyton.  Also Sue Olsen spoke with a Guardian Ad Litem in Georgia, Carol Orleck regarding the court hearing for the order of protection here in Minnesota.  Mrs. Orleck (the Georgia Guardian Ad Litem) testified under oath in a Georgia court that Sue Olsen told her that I delibertely coached Peyton to claim his father abused him and Mrs. Olsen said it was the worst case of coaching she had ever dealth with.  My two older children who witnessed some of the behavior exibihited by my ex-husband were not interviewed and the statements they made were ignored.  As a Guardian Ad Litem, I believe Mrs. Olsen’s actions were very hasty and very costly to the safety of my son. I am requesting a reconsideration on the opening an investigation to these actions. Thank you, Amy — On Tue, 5/8/12, Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> wrote: From: Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: “‘amy h'” <   Cc: “Kusek, Laurie” <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 8:57 A Thank you Amy for sending me your email with your concerns.  It is my understanding that this matter came before the court on August 16, 2011, and was dismissed at that time.  Your complaint regarding the proper jurisdiction issue should have been brought to the attention of the court at the hearing, as that is a judicial officer determination.  As the matter was dismissed in August of 2011, I do not have any file/reports to review; therefore I will not be completing an investigation on your complaint.  Although I know this is not what you wanted to hear, I want you to know that I do appreciate your email regarding your concerns as it is important for the program to receive feedback and I have made note of them.  Thank you again Laurie A. Kusek Guardian ad Litem Program Manager Hennepin County District Court Juvenile Justice Center C-35 590 Park Avenue, L878 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582 612-348-5017 FAX  612-348-4154 Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us “You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.” From: amy h [mailto:s@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:04 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: Fw: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen Laurie, This is a copy of the original complaint that was send November 27th. Thank you, Amy H Amy h Minneapolis, Minnesota — On Sun, 11/27/11, amy h @yahoo.com> wrote: From: amy hahoo.com> Subject: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: laurie.kusek@courts.state.mn.us Date: Sunday, November 27, 2011, 9:15 PM I am writing a formal complaint against guardian Sue Olson, who on August, 16th 2011, violated several of my rights during court for a Temporary Order of Protection.  I obtained a temporary order of protection from the Hennepin County Courthouse on August, 4th 2011, case number 27-FA-11-5570.  When I filed the temporary order of protection I made sure that the court knew that there were ongoing custody issues in Georgia regarding my son. It was during a visit to Minnesota that my son Peyton H who is six started to open up to me about what was going on at his dad’s house.  I called the guardian ad litem involved in the Georgia case on August 2nd.  She told me to return my son immediately.  I then called the department of family and children services in both Minnesota and Georgia.  Minnesota told me to file for an order of protection on my sons behalf.  I immediately filed an order on his behalf which was granted on August 4th.  The court date was on August 16th. On Monday August 6th, I received a call from a detective Jones in Peachtree City regarding Peyton’s return.  I gave detective Jones the Order of Protection that was issued in Minnesota.  She then gave it to the guardian ad litem here and my husband. When I showed up for court on August 16th I was informed that the order had not been served and a new court date would be ordered.  I went upstairs to speak to the court.  The guardian ad litem on duty for the court date started to question me regarding the circumstances.  It was clear she didn’t believe what I was saying from the start.  She talked to my son for about thirty seconds and then announced I was coaching him.  I had coached him to say these things.  In court she brought up the fact that she felt Peyton was coached and said that it should be dismissed because of jurisdiction because of the ongoing court proceedings in Georgia.  I was completely devastated.  I was unable to submit any evidence I had that proved the abuse was not coached.  I was also forced to return my son to an abusive home. My rights were completely violated according to UCCJEA.  Because this was an interstate issue this case fell under the federal regulations of the UCCJEA signed by all states in the United States. Under the UCCJEA there are two requirements for Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction. 1.       Child must be physically present in the state; and 2.       Necessary in an emergency to protect child because child or a sibling or parent of child is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. Proper notice and opportunity to be heard given the opposing party before a custody determination is made. Because I already had the Temporary order of Protection I fell under this category when deciding jurisdiction.  On August 16th the court declined jurisdiction based upon an Inconvenient Forum thus violating my rights and my son’s rights. Also the UCCJEA states that Custody determination will proceed even though a court declines to assert jurisdiction under inconvenient forum grounds and finds that another court is a more convenient forum.  Court declining to assert jurisdiction must stay the proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding will be prompltly commenced in another state. This was not done at all even though the court in Minnesota declined because of Inconvenient Forum According to the UCCJEA courts are authorized to communicate with each other about any proceeding under the UCCJEA. Parties may participate in any communications between courts. If parties are not able to participate in such communications, the parties must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made. Courts are required to make a record of their communication and to promptly inform the parties of such communication and grant them access to same. The guardian at litem, Sue Olson spoke with the guardian ad litem in Geogia, Carol Orleck before court.  I had no knowledge of this until Jen who works for a domestic abuse organization let me know after speaking with Sue Olson.  Jen’s phone number is 612-673-3525.  Jen was also a guardian ad litem and familiar with the system.  I received no notification regarding this correspondence and it has been detrimental to my case here because according to Carol Orleck GAL in Georgia.  Sue Olson said that it was the worst coaching case she had ever seen in her history.  I was not allowed to present my children’s statements, psychological evaluations or have my two oldest children testify. I want to make a couple of more points regarding this.  Under the UCCJEA, the two courts were required to communicate with each other. Under an Inconvenient Forum, the issue can be raised upon a motion of a party, the court’s own motion or at the request or another court.  A Guardian Ad Litem may not raise the issue of Inconvenient Forum.   Sue Olson is the one who brought up the proceedings in Georgia and told the judge that she thought it should go back there. The UCCJEA requires that a court that is declining jurisdiction is required to stay proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another state” In deciding to decline jurisdiction on the basis of inconvenient forum, the court must consider all the relevant factors, including 1.       Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child. 2.       The length of time the child has resided outside the state 3.       The distance between the inconvenient forum court and the more appropriate forum court. 4.       The relative financial circumstances of the parties. 5.       Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction 6.       The nature and location of the evidence needed to resolve the case, including testimony of the child 7.       The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence Because of the actions of Sue Olson and the Hennepin County Court System there has been irreversible damage to my family.  My rights and my children’s rights were clearly violated.  I ask that this matter be formally looked into. Thank you, Amy Amy Hs Minneapolis, Minnesota

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More

Me   Snippet unavailable

To Kusek, Laurie

May 30, 2012

Mrs. Kusek, The guardian ad litem spoke with my son for a second. She did not get any information from him regarding the abuse from him because she did not have time. I would like to know who I need to speak to regarding appealing your decision.  The court in Minnesota could have taken jurisdiction if the guardian had not made those statements. Not to mention her passing them on to another guardian who is out of state. She did not interview my son. My family was there with two older children who witnessed the abuse and were not interviewed. I would like to know who to appeal this decision to. Amy Hopkins
Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!

—– Reply message —– From: “Kusek, Laurie” <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Date: Wed, May 30, 2012 12:03 pm Subject: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: “‘amy ns@yahoo.com> Cc: “Kusek, Laurie” <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us>

Ms. s:  Based upon the transcript itself, the Court indicated that because “the state of Georgia clearly has jurisdiction here” the court indicated that you needed to go the state of Georgia, as there is a pending matter in that state.  Your son did not disclose to the Guardian any abuse by his father, and indicated that he was told to tell whoever would be speaking to him that he was scared to be in Georgia and everyone is slapping him.  The Court also indicated that since you did not have any firsthand knowledge or any present knowledge of what was happening in Georgia, the matter needed to be heard in Georgia, and that this Court, in Hennepin County, did not have any jurisdiction.  Being that the father has temporary custody of the child in Georgia, and that the father has had no contact with the State of Minnesota where there is a minimum contacts requirement in order to have Mr. Hopkins even served, the Court indicated that this matter needed to go to Georgia.  Based on these circumstances, I believe that procedures were correctly followed.

Laurie A. Kusek

Guardian ad Litem Program Manager

Hennepin County District Court

Juvenile Justice Center C-35

590 Park Avenue, L878

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582

612-348-5017

FAX  612-348-4154

Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us

“You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.”

From: amy [mailto:a@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:50 PM To: Kusek, Laurie Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen

Mrs Kusek, I disagree with your decision that the court dismissed the case solely due to jurisdiction and not based on the Guardians actions.  The guardian Sue Olsen’s comments also affected a case in Georgia.  I would like know what agency would handle an appeal of your decision? There are a couple of reasons why and would like to appeal this. The interstate child custody agreement for every state gives the courts jurisdication to interviene in and assume jurisdiction in a case where a minor is suspected of being abused in another state and the minor is currently in the state where a protective order is filed.  I believe it was due to the comments of the Guardian Ad LItem that my case was dismissed.  The Guardian Ad Litem did not speak with my son in dept and made a very hasty and detrimential decision which has endangered my son.  She did not interview my older children present or any family members present that day.  The judge dimissed jurisdiction because the judge did not believe my son was in danger due to the remarks of the Guardian. The Guardian Ad Litem Sue Olsen spoke with a guardian ad litem in Georgia assigned to represent my son in the original custody case in Georgia.  Sue Olsen did not tell that guardian Ad Litem that the case was dismissed for jurisdiction but told her I coached my son.  This statement was testified to under oath in Georgia by Carol Orleck.  Mrs. Orleck also testified under oath that it was Sue Olsen’s opinion that it was the worst case of coaching that she (Sue Olsen) had ever seen. These actions have cause more harm than I can describe and I would like for them to be looked into. — On Tue, 5/22/12, Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> wrote: From: Kusek, Laurie <Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Guardian Ad Litem Complaint Sue Olsen To: “‘amy hopkins'” <amylhopkins@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 8:48 AM Ms. s:  Per your request for reconsideration, I did review a transcript of the hearing before Judge Bernhardson on August 16, 2011, which included the comments from the Guardian ad Litem.  Based upon that transcript, I believe that the matter was dismissed due to the jurisdictional issue. With regard to the interview with your son, the Guardian disclosed to the Court her concerns, which is her role, but ultimately it was the Courts determination on jurisdiction. Based upon the transcript of the hearing, I will not be conducting a complaint investigation.    Thank you Laurie A. Kusek Guardian ad Litem Program Manager Hennepin County District Court Juvenile Justice Center C-35 590 Park Avenue, L878 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1582 612-348-5017 FAX  612-348-4154 Laurie.Kusek@courts.state.mn.us “You are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the individual or organization to which they are addressed.  They may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be disseminated.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you should not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or the attachments.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 612-348-5017.  Thank you.”