Case Reference: In Re: A.T. (CC-02-2024-JA-229 / C-15-FM-23-003070)

Subject: Criminal, Civil, and Constitutional Violations Arising from the Unauthorized Psychological Evaluation by Dr. James “Toby” Behrmann

1. PREFACE: JUDICIAL UNFITNESS, PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, AND UNCONSCIONABLE DELAY

The actions of the 27th Judicial Circuit of West Virginia transcend mere procedural error; they demonstrate a profound, dangerous ignorance of basic child psychology and a fundamental unfitness to preside over child welfare cases. Independent of the fatal lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the tribunal’s conduct constitutes verifiable institutional child abuse. The tribunal did not seek to uncover the truth; instead, it operated from its inception on an absolute, unconstitutional presumption of guilt, weaponizing the judicial apparatus with the explicit intent to manufacture false evidence against the Father.

By halting court-ordered reunification therapy, imposing a total ban on visitation for over a full year, and relying on an inherently corrupted ex parte psychological investigation designed solely to produce fabricated outcomes, the Court has permanently and irreparably damaged the father-child relationship. A forced, state-sponsored separation of a parent and child for over three years (1,150+ days)—before litigation has even concluded—is legally unconscionable, morally abhorrent, and a catastrophic deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights.

2. CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

A. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements / Fraud)

• The Violation: Knowingly making materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations to a tribunal to secure a desired judicial order.
• Context: On January 10, 2025, Prosecutor Garretson and GAL Camardi explicitly justified the appointment of Dr. Behrmann by stating he would provide “insight as to what the child psychology is regarding coaching” and would evaluate the child “solely to assess truthfulness.” This was a deliberate deception. During cross-examination on August 6, 2025, Dr. Behrmann admitted under oath that he possessed no forensic certification (NICHD), had never testified as an expert for coaching, and utilized absolutely no scientific tracers (source monitoring). The state actors used false representations of his expertise to manufacture a forensic veneer, securing his appointment with the explicit intent to generate false, state-sponsored evidence.

B. 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)

• The Violation: Willfully subjecting a person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution under the color of law.
• Context: The Court and state actors weaponized the psychological evaluation to strip the Father of his 14th Amendment right to familial integrity. The evaluation was conducted in a strictly ex-parte manner rooted in an unconstitutional presumption of guilt. State actors fed Dr. Behrmann false, guilt-presumptive data—specifically fabricating a scenario that the alleged abuse occurred “on the way to school” in the morning. This allegation is a factual and physical impossibility, as third parties were always present in the vehicle during morning drop-offs. By feeding the evaluator this fabricated, impossible scenario while simultaneously concealing the active Maryland Final Protective Order and denying the Father an interview for rebuttal, the explicit intent of the state actors was not to conduct an objective investigation, but to intentionally manufacture false evidence to execute a predetermined outcome.

3. CIVIL, STATUTORY, AND ETHICAL VIOLATIONS

A. The Void Act: Defiance of Reunification and Institutional Child Abuse (W. Va. Code § 49-1-201)

• The Violation: Intentional, unauthorized physical or psychological medical intervention causing harm or emotional injury to a minor by a state entity, executed entirely without legal authority.
• Context: On May 30, 2024, the Home State of Maryland explicitly ordered scientifically validated Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) geared specifically toward reunification and visitation. In a legally void and malicious act of defiance, the West Virginia tribunal deliberately subverted the Maryland mandate. Having zero legal authority to do so, the West Virginia judge orchestrated a complete ban on visitation for over a full year, banned the ordered reunification therapy, and substituted it with an ex parte psychological interrogation. This complete reversal of an existing therapeutic mandate permanently damages the father-child relationship. Regardless of the jurisdictional defect, isolating a child from a fit parent and subjecting them to up to 16 prolonged, unrecorded interrogation sessions without the Joint Legal Custodian’s consent is a gross violation of abuse statutes and constitutes actionable institutional child abuse.

B. Civil Medical Battery and Trespass

• The Violation: Intentional, unauthorized physical or psychological medical intervention upon a minor without the required legal consent or jurisdiction.
• Context: The 16 sessions of psychological probing orchestrated by Dr. Behrmann constitute actionable medical battery. Because the West Virginia Court completely lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, its order compelling this psychological evaluation was void ab initio. Void orders are legal nullities and cannot provide lawful authorization, nor can a void order be “retroactively cured” by the fruits of an illegal evaluation. Furthermore, under the active Maryland Consent Custody Order, both parents share joint legal custody. Consent from only one parent (the Mother) is legally insufficient to authorize invasive, non-emergency psychological interventions. By executing these medical evaluations without the consent of the Joint Legal Custodian (the Father), and by deliberately refusing to even speak to the Father or the court-appointed Maryland Parent Coordinator, Dr. Behrmann and the State committed an egregious, unconsented medical battery against the minor child.

C. Ethical Violation: APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (Standard 4.02.01) – Irreconcilable Dual Role

• The Violation: The American Psychological Association (APA) explicitly prohibits psychologists from performing both therapeutic and forensic roles in the same case due to inherent conflicts of interest and the compromise of objectivity.
• Context: Dr. Behrmann conducted 10 to 16 “play therapy” sessions to form his forensic evaluation. By engaging in prolonged “play therapy,” he established a therapeutic alliance with the child, which inherently destroys the neutrality required for a forensic evaluation. Operating simultaneously as a “therapist” and a “forensic investigator” for the state violates core psychological ethics, allowing the evaluator to effectively “groom” or guide the child’s narrative over a prolonged period rather than objectively recording it. Furthermore, utilizing up to 16 clinical sessions to systematically extract adjudicatory evidence is the psychological equivalent of subjecting a minor to 16 consecutive forensic interviews. This relentless, repeated probing under the guise of therapy not only violates the APA’s strict prohibition against dual roles but inflicts profound, compounded trauma on the child.

D. W. Va. Code § 49-4-405 (Multi-Disciplinary Team Mandate Bypass)

• The Violation: State law mandates that critical medical, psychological, and investigative decisions in child welfare cases must be vetted through a Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT).
• Context: Judge Delligatti unilaterally ordered the commencement of Dr. Behrmann’s evaluation without convening an MDT. This bypassed statutory protections designed specifically to prevent unilateral “expert shopping” and ensured the exclusion of the legally mandated Maryland Parent Coordinator and the child’s existing therapist, Rachel Hernandez.

E. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Failure to Accommodate

• The Violation: Denying a qualified individual with a disability the benefits of public services or subjecting them to discrimination by failing to provide necessary accommodations.
• Context: The minor child is 100% deaf in one ear and requires hearing aids for basic auditory perception. During the evaluations, Dr. Behrmann completely failed to verify whether the child was wearing her hearing aids. Interrogating a hearing-impaired child without her assistive devices guarantees unreliable communication, manufacturing “evidence” from a disabled child who could not fully hear the clinical inquiry.

4. EQUAL PROTECTION AND DISPARATE TREATMENT (14TH AMENDMENT)

A. Institutional Bias: Refusal to Investigate the Mother’s Sexual Allegation Referrals

• The Violation: The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The Court, the Prosecutor, and WVDOHS engaged in blatant, systemic disparate treatment by weaponizing forensic investigations against the Father while granting absolute, unwarranted immunity to the Mother for identical or more severe allegations.
• Context: The official case record contains numerous formal CPS and law enforcement referrals explicitly alleging “Sexual Abuse or Sexual Exploitation” against the Mother. Furthermore, the Mother provided a voluntary admission of guilt to instructing the child to engage in sexual/genital contact—actions she later attempted to retroactively shield under an untested “medicinal” affirmative defense. In a staggering display of manufactured evidence driven by a presumption of guilt against the Father, the Mother later redirected the blame for this very same genital touching onto the Father, making these allegations months after the Father had absolutely zero contact with the child. Despite these severe, documented referrals, the physical impossibility of the timeline, and the Mother’s own admissions, WVDOHS and the Court refused to conduct a single Child Advocacy Center (CAC) forensic interview or psychological evaluation on the Mother. Conversely, the disabled Father—who was medically exonerated by the “Ground Zero” doctors—was aggressively prosecuted, subjected to multiple CAC interrogations, and forced through 16 grueling sessions with Dr. Behrmann. This profound investigative asymmetry proves the tribunal’s intent was not child protection, but the biased, targeted prosecution of the Father and the intentional shielding of the Mother.

5. EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS (CIVIL)

A. Judicial Fraud: “Speculative Fiction” vs. Best Evidence (Ground Zero Medical Eyewitnesses)

• The Violation: The Court committed structural fraud by granting adjudicatory precedence to a retroactive psychological evaluator’s speculative fiction while systematically erasing the exculpatory, first-hand best evidence of actual contemporaneous medical eyewitnesses.
• Context: To justify the unauthorized emergency removal, the Judge needed a “retroactive cure.” To achieve this, the Court willfully suppressed the “Ground Zero” professionals—specifically the April 8th MedStar Urgent Care doctors and the child’s original therapist (Rachel Hernandez/Safe Place). Crucially, the child explicitly stated to these Ground Zero professionals—who served as direct medical eyewitnesses to her physical and psychological state—that she was NOT touched or abused. These first-hand medical evaluations, immediate disclosures, and clinical eyewitness observations constitute the absolute best evidence under the law.

The tribunal’s absolute refusal to talk to these first-hand witnesses proves that this was an intentional scheme to manufacture false evidence to replace the firsthand evidence. Instead of factoring in these empirical facts, the Judge unilaterally ordered Dr. Behrmann to conduct an evaluation nearly two years after the fact. By overriding concrete, primary source eyewitness evidence with a psychologist’s speculative fiction, the Judge egregiously violated the Best Evidence Rule, the Best Interests of the Child, and Constitutional Due Process, demonstrating that the explicit intent was to pursue a predetermined outcome.

B. Complete Absence of Actus Reus, Discarded Narratives, and Ignored Coaching Evidence

• The Violation: Proceeding with adjudication despite a complete lack of evidence that any act of abuse actually occurred, intentionally discarding exculpatory behavioral evidence, and willfully ignoring overwhelming proof of parental coaching.
• Context: There is an absolute lack of evidence that any act of abuse ever occurred. This fatal evidentiary void starts with the child’s complete lack of fear or shame toward the Father during the exact time frame she was supposedly being physically and sexually abused. Direct eyewitnesses and contemporaneous logs prove she was joyous, loving, and entirely comfortable in his care.

When the State, the Guardian ad Litem, and the Court realized that the child’s actual behavioral presentation—a total lack of fear or shame—completely destroyed their timeline and allegations, they simply stopped pursuing it. They deliberately discarded and ignored this exculpatory behavioral reality. Instead of dismissing the baseless petition, they pivoted to manufacturing a new narrative. Compounding this fraud, the tribunal completely ignored overwhelming, documented proof of coaching by the Mother, including video evidence where the child was visibly prompted to recite hostile statements against the Father. The intentional discarding of the child’s lack of fear and the willful blindness to the Mother’s coaching demonstrates a tribunal operating entirely in bad faith to secure a predetermined outcome.

C. Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence: The April 8th Medical Baseline & Mother’s History of Violence

• The Violation: Willful concealment of exculpatory clinical evidence and witness history to manufacture a presumption of guilt and manipulate the evaluation process.
• Context: The Court, the Prosecutor, and WVDOHS completely suppressed the child’s clinical evaluation from April 8, 2024, at MedStar Urgent Care. This report is the critical medical baseline, as it documented a vaginal pH of 7.0 and explicitly declared “No signs of abuse.” Furthermore, the tribunal and the evaluator deliberately ignored the Mother’s documented history of severe mental instability, custodial interference, and violence—including erratic behavior that forced a school lockdown endangering 555 children and staff.

D. Weaponized CAC Interrogations and the Suppression of Contemporaneous Eyewitnesses

• The Violation: The State utilized coercive interrogation tactics to psychologically torture a minor child into confirming a predetermined narrative, while intentionally suppressing first-hand eyewitness testimony that completely exonerated the accused.
• Context: The multiple Child Advocacy Center (CAC) interviews were not neutral forensic inquiries; they were coercive interrogations directed exclusively against the Father, rooted entirely in a presumption of guilt. The interviewers relentlessly tortured the child, repeatedly prompting and reinforcing the fabricated narrative that the “father is bad” to mirror statements the child had been coached to say on videos produced by the Mother. This manufactured hostility is empirically contradicted by actual contemporaneous records. Phone logs up until the date of removal (April 19th) overwhelmingly demonstrate a loving, positive relationship.

Furthermore, the State deliberately suppressed the testimony of essential, first-hand eyewitnesses—specifically the child’s teachers, classmates, and the classmates’ families. These families were direct eyewitnesses who met the Father for the first time during the spring break camping trip, lived alongside the Father and child for the entire duration of that trip, and uniformly testified that the child was “joyous” during her last contact with him. The Prosecutor, WVDOHS, and the Court explicitly refused to interview or acknowledge these direct eyewitnesses because their real-time observations completely destroyed the tribunal’s predetermined outcome. When a tribunal deliberately buries the testimony of actual, contemporaneous eyewitnesses in favor of a retroactive, speculative psychological interrogation, it confirms its sole intent is the manufacturing of false evidence.

E. W. Va. Rule of Evidence 702 (Daubert/Wilt) – Catastrophic Failure of Forensic Methodology

• The Violation: Admission of expert testimony that is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and has not been applied reliably to the facts of the case.
• Context: Dr. Behrmann’s methodology represents a catastrophic failure of forensic science. During his August 6, 2025 testimony, he admitted that he never even watched the primary evidence (the CAC videos), relying entirely on WVDOHS summaries. Furthermore, he failed to conduct any collateral interviews—completely ignoring the Father, the Ground Zero medical eyewitnesses, and the spring break eyewitnesses. Forming a forensic conclusion of abuse without reviewing the primary source videos or interviewing collateral eyewitnesses is legally and scientifically invalid junk science designed exclusively to manufacture false evidence.

F. Fraud on the Court & The “Observer Effect” Contamination (Pre-Due Process Bias)

• The Violation: A scheme by officers of the court to direct the judicial machinery to an improper end, thereby corrupting the integrity of the judicial process through flagrant bias, presumption of guilt, and the denial of due process.
• Context: There is no greater proof of the tribunal’s active deceit than its facilitation of the “Observer Effect.” The suspected coacher (the Mother) was permitted to be present in the evaluation sessions and to exclusively manage the child’s transport and interactions with the psychologist. This constitutes a clear sign of institutional bias and a complete abandonment of forensic neutrality. Crucially, this inherently biased process occurred before due process was ever afforded to the Father, and while an active Maryland Protective Order and a formalized safety and permanency plan for the child were legally in place. The Court and the evaluator granted the Mother unchecked, unmonitored access while exhibiting an absolute, documented refusal to talk to or interview the Father.

Compounding this egregious bias is the fact that the Mother’s access was completely unsupervised. At no point during these 16 sessions was there a CPS worker, Guardian ad Litem, or any neutral third-party present to monitor the Mother’s active participation with the child and the psychologist. Allowing the accused coacher to unilaterally chaperone and actively participate in the psychological evaluation without supervision—while deliberately silencing the Father and subverting an active, sister-state permanency and safety plan—strips the process of any forensic validity. It unequivocally proves that the tribunal’s initial basis for ordering the interview was a complete fabrication, driven by a presumption of guilt and designed with the explicit intent to unlawfully manufacture evidence rather than uncover the truth.

G. Rule 807 (Residual Hearsay Exception) Breach

• The Violation: Admitting hearsay statements (or recordings) of a child without conducting a rigorous “trustworthiness and necessity” analysis.
• Context: The findings generated through Dr. Behrmann’s evaluation entirely lack “trustworthiness.” A trustworthiness analysis fails instantly when: (1) the child is interrogated without necessary hearing accommodations, (2) the evaluator possesses no forensic credentials for coaching detection, (3) the evaluator violates APA Standard 4.02.01 by blending therapeutic and forensic roles, (4) the evaluator never viewed the original CAC interviews, (5) the child is subjected to coercive interrogation tactics that prompt predetermined answers, and (6) the suspected coacher is permitted unsupervised, unmonitored presence. Admitting these findings violated fundamental evidentiary rules designed to protect against manufactured testimony.

H. Evidentiary Source Tracing: The Anatomy of a Frame-Up Without Jurisdiction

• The Violation: Substituting actual evidentiary facts with state-manufactured testimony to frame an innocent party, revealed through basic forensic source tracing.
• Context: A forensic “source trace” of the evidence used in this case reveals a chilling anatomy of a judicial frame-up.

1. The Source of the Petition: The entirety of the initial abuse petition was sourced exclusively from the Mother. Every allegation within that petition was systematically disproved, physically impossible, or medically exonerated (e.g., the April 8th MedStar baseline). The Mother’s claims amounted to nothing more than fabricated “dreamer status” fictions, yet the State utilized her as the sole, uncorroborated source to launch the petition.
2. The Source of Adjudication: Because the initial petition was entirely disproved and factually bankrupt, the State arrived at adjudication completely devoid of actual evidence. To salvage their predetermined outcome, the Judge and Prosecutor colluded to affirmatively manufacture new evidence. They weaponized Dr. Behrmann’s 16-session “play therapy” to generate speculative psychological testimony.

Therefore, source tracing proves that the adjudicatory outcome did not originate from any real-world act of abuse, nor from any legitimate independent investigation. The sole source of the adjudicatory findings is the illegal actions of the Judge and Prosecutor themselves. Operating entirely without subject matter jurisdiction, they actively framed the outcome, replacing the Mother’s completely disproved petition lies with their own state-manufactured psychological fiction.

I. The Induced Medical Incident: Blocking Cross-Examination and Covering Up Illegal Procurement

• The Violation: Exploiting or inducing a medical incident during adjudication to unlawfully block the introduction of counter-evidence, deny the fundamental right of cross-examination, and distract from the tribunal’s own illegal actions.
• Context: During the adjudication phase, the proceedings were abruptly interrupted by an induced medical incident. This disruption was not handled as a neutral administrative delay; instead, it was weaponized by the tribunal to prematurely and unlawfully block the introduction of exculpatory counter-evidence. More egregiously, the incident was utilized to actively deny the Father his constitutional right to cross-examine hostile witnesses. The strategic timing of this induced incident served a secondary, deeply corrupt purpose: it provided a calculated distraction to obscure and cover up the Judge’s own illegal, extra-judicial procurement of video evidence. Orchestrating a procedural halt to shield the bench’s own evidentiary tampering while gagging the defense is an absolute deprivation of Due Process.

J. Systemic Perjury and the Intentional Scrubbing of the Record

• The Violation: Willful subornation of perjury, spoliation of evidence, and the deliberate scrubbing of the judicial record by state actors to maintain a false narrative.
• Context: The official record is plagued by no fewer than twenty (20) distinct, provable examples of perjury and false allegations made against the Father. A glaring example of this systemic deceit occurred on April 19th, when the Mother was documented blatantly lying to the police welcome duck while committing her felony abduction. Rather than charging or addressing this perjury, the Prosecutor and the Court conveniently excluded the April 19th police lies—along with all 19 other instances of perjury—from the adjudication entirely. The Court and State actors actively scrubbed these twenty instances of perjury from the record wherever possible, and willfully ignored them where the evidence was too concrete to erase. This systematic sanitization of the record proves an absolute abandonment of truth-seeking, demonstrating the tribunal’s intent to protect perjured testimony that supported their predetermined outcome.

6. CONCLUSION: THE INTENTIONAL MANUFACTURE OF EVIDENCE TO DECEIVE

In totality, the record exposes that the Judge herself orchestrated the manufacturing of all “evidence” used in this proceeding. The reality is that there was not even enough evidence to establish probable cause, nor was there sufficient evidence to lawfully file the initial petition. Because the State lacked actual evidence, they were forced to manufacture it instead of finding it.

The deliberate refusal to talk to firsthand witnesses proves that this was an intentional scheme to manufacture false evidence to replace the truth. To secure her predetermined outcome, the Judge executed a series of overt, illicit acts specifically designed to conceal the truth:

1. Creating a False Psychiatric Profile: The Judge weaponized Dr. Behrmann’s unauthorized ex parte “therapy” to construct a speculative, guilt-presumptive psychological fiction that directly contradicted all actual firsthand evidence.
2. Obtaining an Illegal Video: The Court engaged in the illegal, extra-judicial procurement of video evidence outside the bounds of evidentiary rules and due process.
3. Causing a Medical Incident to End Proceedings: When the defense began dismantling the state’s narrative during adjudication, the tribunal exploited an induced medical incident. This calculated disruption was deployed as a distraction to unlawfully end the proceedings, actively blocking the introduction of exculpatory counter-evidence, and denying the fundamental right to cross-examine hostile witnesses.

These overt acts were engineered with a singular intent to deceive—specifically, to obscure the glaring reality that the Court lacked any factual or legal basis for jurisdiction, completely devoid of any details regarding when or where any junction with West Virginia ever occurred.

Despite twenty documented instances of perjury by the Mother, overwhelming proof of coaching, and an absolute absence of any corroborating information to support the allegations against the Father, the tribunal pressed forward. By willfully ignoring the facts, scrubbing the record of perjury, violating the Best Evidence Rule, discarding the Best Interests of the Child, and denying fundamental Due Process, the tribunal spotlights the crime that never was. The Judge actively engaged in a scheme to manufacture false evidence not to protect a child, but to deceive the appellate courts, strip a disabled Father of his constitutional rights, and retroactively mask the tribunal’s void, illegal inception.