Make a Smilebox greeting

How to Conduct a Child-Abuse Investigation in Tampla, Florida, USA

HOW TO CONDUCT A DCF—DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES—INVESTIGATION IN TAMPA, FLORIDA:

NOTE FROM WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE: All comments by the writer are in bold-face type.

Below and in bold-face, you will find a record of significant items that the investigator and the deputy Sheriff either did not notice, chose not to notice, or did not consider as part of this investigation.

Please note that many of the items below are highly significant in view of the fact that Arlen Slobodow has been accused of sexually molesting his sons, as well as abusing them in a wide variety of other ways: physically, mentally, emotionally, verbally and even spiritually.

So…on to the methodology of investigating an allegation of child abuse by social services folk in Tampa. If you were the employee involved, your venture might go like this:

1. Park your car on the street near the house of the suspected abuser.

2. Slip quietly up the front walk, ring the bell and/or knock timidly, hoping the perpetrator will not answer.

3. When no one responds, return very quickly and quietly to your car.

4. Return to your office.

5. Call home of abuser…leave message: “This is Ms. Marvil, of DCF. I will be stopping at your house on Wednesday afternoon, about 4:00 to investigate an allegation of sexual abuse that has been filed against you. Please acknowledge this call, and verify that you will be available during this time.”

6. When abuser fails to acknowledge your call, you make another call a week later, offering a different time, and once again asking for verification.

7. When abuser again fails to acknowledge your call—after another week has passed– report to your supervisor that no one seems to be present in the home. Ask if you have the correct address.

These are children who should have been in school. Where were they during this time?

8. Having verified that you do, indeed, have the correct address, and the correct phone number, attempt another contact. This is your third call, and two weeks have passed since your original attempt to schedule an interview with this alleged abuser about his alleged sexual abuse of his two sons. You may now begin to worry a bit about the children involved. You have in hand an abuse report from a local person—right in the Tampa area, whose identity must remain confidential, and yet you cannot seem to locate either the children or the alleged perpetrator.

These are children who should have been out and about with friends. Where were they during this time?

9. Just for the sake of your own peace of mind, you drive past the residence once more. There is no sign that anyone, children or adults, are present in the house. Very Strange. It has now been three weeks since your original attempt to schedule an interview with this man and his abused children.

These are children who surely would have been seen in their swimming pool—or at a window.

10. Finally, after a full month, you call again, and a friendly, pleasant gentleman answers, (said gentleman offering in his tone and attitude no hint of the sociopathic tendencies you might have expected in a pedophile who subjects his own children to a wide variety of sexual and other abuses.) Why of course! He would be happy to have you drop by for an interview.

Please note that a full month has passed since the investigator tried to begin her investigation

A month would more that provide time for signs of sexual abuse to vanish. In addition, bruises or welts—which I understand to be among other abuses that were reported—would have time to heal

And so the interview—after a month of waiting and wondering if the house is actually occupied–is scheduled as suggested: Wednesday afternoon, about 4:00—only a month later than originally requested.

11. At just before 4:00 on the newly-designated Wednesday, meet with Deputy from the Hillsborough Country Sheriff’s office, on the street outside the home of the suspected abuser.

12. Walk boldly to the front door with the Deputy. He has a gun, after all. You can now feel safe—just in case this Arlen Slobodow fellow actually turns out to be a child sexual abuser.

13. Knock firmly on the door, emboldened by presence of said Deputy and the aforementioned gun.

14. Enter house. Interview children in the presence of the father, the accused sexual predator. This, of course, will make certain that the children, with the support of their father will be a simple interview, and they will be sure to disclose any abuses—sexual, physical, mental, emotional or verbal you’ve heard that they have suffered at the hands of this “grow-your-own-victims-style” predator.

[Yes…of course I’m being sarcastic! No way were these children going to speak the truth about their father’s abuse when they knew full well that if they spoke the truth, they would get the s*** beat out of them when the investigator and the Deputy departed.
These kids are manipulated and terrified by this man. There is no way they are going to be able to help themselves. They are too far lost in what might be called a “jungle of child abuse.” If they ever escape, then escape will happen through the efforts of someone else. Only there doesn’t seem to be much of anyone else. Except me—and who the hell is going to believe an obnoxious, little, old, lady retired teacher from the back woods of Washington State?]

Let me emphasize again the difficulty of conducting an investigation after the alleged abuser has interfered with the time factor of the investigation—and caused said investigation to take place a month or more after it was originally planned.

Let me emphasize again that signs of sexual abuse could heal in a month.

Let me emphasize again that the bruises and welts reported by someone in the Tampa area would no longer exist, after a month has gone by.

Let me emphasize again that the month this father bought for himself by whatever means—a trip?
Pretending to be absent? Locked doors and windows to give the appearance of absence?—meant time for him to whip his sons into line and be sure the investigation turned out in his favor.

15. Take note of two or three toys carefully set out, to prove that the children have toys to play with.

What I know that the investigator did not know, is that these children are allowed to have virtually no toys. Toys they receive from their mother are routinely broken because “These are not good toys. They come from ‘bad Mom.’”
I’ve heard also that there are two drawers of toys—one which the father calls “good toys,” which can be used in his particular form of sexual abuse. These toys will fit easily into a child’s anus, while the father bites or otherwise assaults the child’s penis.
The other drawer contains “bad” toys—gifts from Mom or toys which are not useful to a father bent on sexually using his sons.

16. Take note of the television, carefully turned to age-appropriate children’s programming.

These children are seldom, if ever, permitted to watch television. It always goes on if someone from social services is scheduled to visit, however

17. Take note of food in the kitchen and in the refrigerator, to prove that the children are adequately fed.

Yes…there is plenty of food in the house. Yes…there is plenty of food in the refrigerator and the pantry and other storage places. What the investigator does not know and has no way to learn, however, is that there are times when this father takes great delight in seating himself and one of the boys at the table with a full and tasty meal—while the other boy will actually face a plate with perhaps a single French fry and a drop of catsup—or a single bean, which is all he will be allowed to eat that night.

18. Note the clean house as well as the number of bedrooms—to prove that the children have satisfactory surroundings, and each have their own room.

Of course the house is clean. What kind of man do you think this is? Child sexual abuse in unclean surroundings is no fun at all. And unless the area is clean, he cannot use it as a suitable background for snapshots and videos of child pornography, which these kids have disclosed is one of the things he uses them for.

19 . Ask the children a few questions: Does your father ever punish you? You know the difference between good touch and bad touch. Does anyone ever touch you with a bad touch? Do you always have plenty of food? Is the house always nice and clean like this? Do you like to play with your toys? What are your favorite TV programs?

20. Listen carefully to the children’s answers and record them.

Child #1: Sometimes he punishes me by making me go to my room and stay there for a while. Then he comes to my room and talks to me about why whatever I did is wrong.

Child #2: That’s right. Sometimes he punishes me by making me go to my room and stay there for a while. Then he comes to my room and talks to me about why whatever I did is wrong.

Child #1: Oh, yes. I know the difference between good and bad touch.

Child #2: Oh, Yes. I know the difference between good and bad touch.

Child #1: Oh, no. Nobody ever touches me with bad touch.

Child #2: Oh, no. Nobody ever touches me with bad touch.

Child #1: Yes, we always have all the food we want.

Child #2: Yes, we always have all the food we want.

Child #1: Oh, yes. Our house is always clean.

Child #2: Yes…our house is always clean.

Child #1: Yes. We have lots of toys. And we like to play with them.

Child #2: Yes. We have lots of toys. And we like to play with them.

Child #1: I don’t really have a favorite. I like cartoons.

Child #2: I don’t really have a favorite, either. I like cartoons, too.

Notice the similarities in the answers provided by the children. Could these answers be the product of forced memorization?

These similarities are quite obvious here in my theoretical presentation of the answers. My purpose here is to assist you in noticing that the same almost uncanny similarities appear in the investigator’s report. Could these children have been coached? Could they have been forced to memorize responses? Are they afraid, in front of their father, to stray from the memorized script he has prepared for them?

16. Say 21. Say good-bye to the alleged pedophile and the children. Return to your office and write the following report:

Child protective investigator met with Hillsborough Deputy Lavallee who wrote Report #06-182223. As child protective investigator and [Deputy] arrived to…residence a van pulled up dropping off one of the sons. Family friend stated she took some kids to Adventure Island and was dropping off [child].

Face-to-face with father, Arlen. Father stated he resides in the home with his two sons. Currently [the other child] is at a friend’s house for a sleepover. Father agreed to pick up [child] and bring him to the home for interview. Re: allegations. Family has lived in Florida for about three years. They previously lived in Maryland & Washington D.C. Father stated that biological mother, Elsa is currently serving a 20 year sentence for conspiring to commit murder against him & accused him of sexually abusing their two sons.

Notice that this father—who has been accused of sexual abuse by his sons, rather than by the mother—neatly links the unjust imprisonment to the claim of child abuse and ties the two ideas into one tidy little package, although the two have nothing to do with each other. Notice here, as well, that Elsa Newman has never been the one who reported abuse. Doctors have reported. Police have reported. Friends, acquaintances, neighbors have reported. Teachers have reported. The children’s guardian ad litem—their attorney—reported. The head of the supervised visits center reported— during a time when Arlen Slobodow was allowed only supervised visits.

Father stated mother had her best friend…

This is blatant falsehood. In the first place, Margery Landry was a family friend, rather than just the mother’s friend. In the second place, Elsa Newman, the mother of the two boys, knew nothing of Landry’s plans. Newman was trying every possible avenue of working within the system. Landry was the one who decided, on her own, to step outside the system.

…try to kill him in front of his children in 2002. He was shot twice in the leg.

Further, Landry had no intention of and made no attempt to try to kill him. Landry had a gun because she had previously been assaulted by Slobodlow and was afraid of him. It seems that Slobodow saw the gun when Landry was trying to pull him away from his son, whom she believed him to be actively sexually abusing the boy at that very moment.

Slobodow tried to turn the gun on Landry. During their scuffle it discharged, and he was struck by one of the two bullets Landry had loaded in the clip. Burn marks on his hand seem to indicate that he may actually have shot himself. Although there were both entrance and exit wounds, Slobodow’s pajama bottoms, covered with blood, had no sign of bullet holes. I guess Landry was right about his state of undress—nude from the waist down.

Another blatant falsehood: although one son—the son in bed with him—may have witnessed this incident of accidental shooting, the other did not.

Yet another item of note: Had Elsa Newman known what was going on, she would never have allowed a gun in the same house with her children.

Father stated abuse reports out-of-state were unfounded and…

No, out-of-state abuse reports were NOT unfounded. Abuse reports had been made by such authorities as Dr. Jill Scharff, who was the treating psychiatrist for the boys for nearly a year—and who filed an abuse report. Others who filed reports included doctors, teachers, police, the GAL—or attorney for the children—and others.

…he stated he has no criminal record history.

Slobodow’s claims that he had no criminal record in Maryland are false. He had been accused of assault by Margery Landry, and he had more than once violated protective orders taken out by Elsa Newman to protect herself and her sons from this violent father.

Father state he has full custody of both boys…

No, Slobodow does not have full custody. He has physical custody by virtue of the fact that his ex-wife is unjustly imprisoned. Since the criminal trial interfered with family court hearings, she was never deprived of custody. The two parents actually share legal custody. In addition, Newman has religious custody, which means that the father should raise his sons as either conservative or orthodox Jews. This he refuses to do.

…and is court-ordered to take the boys three times per year to visit mother in prison in Maryland. Father stated sexual abuse allegations all began after divorce/custody issues began. Family has a Maryland appointed [guardian ad litem], Mr. Alan town….[One child] stopped counseling about 6 months ago (Dr. Mark Prang, Psychologist),

Father stated both children are doing very well in school

The boys may be said to be doing well in school if one ignores such things as wild fluctuation in grades over a period of time: anything from A’s to B’s to C’s to D’s— or if an investigator does not notice that one boy turns himself virtually into a recluse during his first period class, a clear sign that something is bothering him.
Might it be that sexual abuse just before he leaves home each morning would cause such behavior?

& he has no concerns for their well being at this time. Father stated children’s pediatrician is Michael Gaynor.

Father stated there are no court restrictions as far as him taking the children out of state.

I believe this is untrue. I believe Slobodow was not supposed to remove the children from the Maryland/DC areas—but he did, anyhow.

The children were born in Washington D.C. But family lived in Maryland then moved to Florida. Both children went to Essrig Elementary.

L. moved to Muller Magnet School & H. went to Ben Hill for one year then Williams M.S.

Notice the frequent changes in schools the boys attended. Such changes are typical when an abusive parent does not want teachers to have an opportunity to observe a child or children over an extended period of time.

NOTE [from DCF investigator]: While investigator was conducting the interview father contacted G.A.L. attorney Alan Town by phone who requested to speak to investigator. Investigator advised a current abuse report has been received in Florida and department is aware of on-going history with family. Investigator advised he will be contacted at a later date as collateral.

Interesting timing for this call. Could it have been pre-arranged so the GAL—the attorney supposedly looking out for the children’s interests—would have been forewarned and available to take a phone call and become involved in the investigation at this time?

NOTE [from investigator], F/F with one child. Child stated he is 10 years old in 4th grade at Muller M.S. Child stated he lives with brother, father, 2 geckos & 1 hamster . He takes care of the hamster and his brother takes care of the 2 geckos.

These animals all seem to have died horrible and unexplainable deaths. The hamster was crushed between a wall and a dresser. One gecko was also crushed. The other was apparently disappeared. This is typical of what happens to pets when children are in the hands of an abuser.

Investigator established [understanding of] good and bad tough. Re: allegations—child denied any
type of bad touch by father or anyone else.

On the other hand, before the boys left Maryland and before their mother was unjustly imprisoned, they had disclosed abuse not only to their mother, but to a variety of other people, including Dr. Jill Scharff, who actually reported the abuse.

Child stated he likes Florida a lot. He stated the weather isn’t as cold as Maryland. Child stated he likes playing on the computer, playing with his hamster or going swimming in his pool. Child stated he has a lot of friends who come over to his house or he goes to their house. He stated he has family like his paternal grandparents who live in Florida and come to visit them. Discipline – Child stated father tells him to go to his room for a while then he will come in his room and talk to him about why whatever he did was wrong. Same for brother. Child presented as an articulate white male with no visible marks of abuse.

Well damn! Of course there were no visible marks of abuse! This father had a month’s warning of the pending investigation! In addition to that, I find it difficult to believe that this investigator would have looked for blood in the underwear from rectal bleeding…or for bite marks on genitals…or for rash on the buttocks…or whatever else would testify to sexual abuse. The hardest abuse in the world to prove seems to be abuse by a member of the victim’s family. A neighbor accused as Arlen Slobodow has been accused would find himself quickly imprisoned and the abused children placed in the custody of their mother.

Child was polite & answered all questions. Child’s facial expressions made an impression to investigator that he has been through this type of questioning numerous times.

Or that he was hiding the truth, for fear of his abusive father’s wrath.
Or perhaps he really had been through it many times, as this allegedly pedophile father had taken them through repeated simulated interviews.

Somehow I have a picture in my mind of this man setting his two sons on a couch and seating himself in front of them with a coffee table between him and them. On the coffee table is a knife—a very sharp knife.

And somehow I can hear him saying, “Boys,”—only he would use their names—“Boys, you see this knife? You see how sharp this is? There’s a woman coming to talk to you sometime soon. We need to be sure to have the right answers for this woman, so I don’t have to use this knife on any portion of your anatomy, if you see what I mean?”

And I can see two young heads bobbing vigorous and terrified assent, clearly aware of what portion of their anatomy Daddy Dearest has in mind.

“So let’s practice a little. Why is this woman coming to see us?”

“H” responds first. “I dunno.”

“L” follows. “Mom has been telling bad stuff about you again.”

“Ahhhhh,” says Daddy Dearest. “L” has the right answer.” His hand moves a little closer to the knife. “Now…the woman will probably ask you about good touch and bad touch. Do you know the difference between good touch and bad touch?”

“Yes, sir,” say the two in unison.

And on and on the questioning goes, with the knife staring the two boys square in the eye, hour after hour or perhaps day after day and week after week—until Daddy Dearest is sure that they have the answers he wants ready on the tips of their tongues.

Not only did this alleged abuser take them through how to talk, but he also worked with them on how to draw. He would take them to the basement and have them draw pictures: bad pictures of “bad mom,” and nice pictures of “dad.”

F/F with other child. Child stated he is 12 years old in 7th grade at Williams M.S. He stated he lives with father, one brother, 3 geckos and one hamster. He stated he takes care of the geckos. Investigator established [understanding] of good and bad touch. Re: allegations – child denied any type of bad touch by father or anyone else.

Child stated all this must be connected to his mother who is “kinda weird.”

RED FLAG! RED FLAG! RED FLAG! This not what Daddy Dearest has told him to say (which, of course, I know, but the investigator would not have known). It is hedging on the part of the child. Does this kid perhaps hope that the investigator will pick up on the red flag and ask some questions about what he means when he says his mom is “kinda” weird? If so, the investigator missed an opportunity. Her miss could have been a deadly mistake for these children.

He stated he has asked his mother in the past why she does these types of things but she never answered him.

Another red flag! Having taught 7th graders for years before I retired, I can say unequivocally that this is an unusual turn of phrase for a kid in 7th grade: “…why she does these types of things…”

Child stated she has said that his father does all kinds of things that he hasn’t.

Actually, it was the children themselves who made these disclosures of abuse—to a treating psychiatrist, Dr. Jill Scharff, who then reported the abuse; to a police officer who interrogated them for hours in an attempt to force them to recant—and who was finally successful; to a police officer who escorted one of the boys to a restroom, but who said nothing, as well as to many others.

Child says he likes living in Florida because it isn’t cold.

The truth is that when the children lived in Maryland this child loved winter sports such as ice skating.

He stated he has a lot of friends that he spends time with either he goes to their house or they come to his house. He stated his grandparents who live in Florida come to visit and spend time with them. He stated he likes to play video games, tag outside with friends at night or use the computer. Discipline- child stated his father will make him go to his room for a while then he’ll come back and talk to him about it. He stated if that doesn’t work, his father will ground him by not allowing him to play with his video games for about a week or two. Same for his brother.

He stated his brother gets punished more than he does.

Red flag! If one child is being “punished” more than another, this is one of the signals teachers and others required by law to report abuse of children are taught to watch for.

Again, please notice the similarities in the responses of the two boys, as recorded by the investigator.

He thinks it’s because he [the other child] is just younger. Child’s facial expression made an Impression to investigator that he has been through this type of questioning numerous times.

Sure has—during practice sessions with Daddy Dearest.

Residence is a 4 BD/2BA home with no visible hazardous conditions, adequate food & furnishing. Both children have their own bedrooms.

And you will never notice that as soon as you depart, the toys are put away or broken, especially any that might be gifts from their mother…the television is turned off…perhaps the computer goes back on, so the father can go back to work on the child pornography he allegedly makes and collects…the doors and windows are locked…the food disappears to be doled out at the whim of the father.

How in the name of heaven does anybody prove anything about a man like this?

Johanna, Sophia–and Sophia’s father who abuses both

Above are pictures of Johanna vonGeldern and the daughter she loves more than life itself. Please remember as you view these photos that they were not taken by a professional. That means that sometimes you have to look carefully to see the abuses shown in the photos. In the picture of the little hand, arrows point to places where the child’s fingernails had been cut below the quick. When she arrived for her visit with “Mommy,” the fingers were still bleeding, and this little girl was unable to use her hands to play with her mom that day. There is a similar problem with the picture showing Sophia with a black eye, the discoloration is a little hard to see. I imagine, however, that when Daddy Dearest threw the punch, Sophia felt it quite easily. The black and white photo shows Johanna and her daughter together. And the picture of Sophia when she was smaller shows the rough, raw and scraped face with which Sophia was one one day returned to her mother after a visit with her father. Notice in the same picture there is some scabbing on the nose, as well as redness and slight swelling around the eye–all compliments of Dear old Dad.

So much for pictures. Here begins the story:

Once upon a time there was a mother who gave birth to a beautiful little girl. This little girl had a father, too, since that seems to be one of the rules governing how such things must proceed. If a woman wants to have a beautiful little girl like this one, she must also have a man person willing to provide the sperm, so that she can choose one of said sperm, join it to an egg she has produced from her own body, and begin the process of creating the child of her own flesh and blood. The sperm donor has little to do with the process thereafter, although many a sperm donor proves quite adept at disturbing the process.

As a matter of fact, when Bennett Tocci first learned that Johanna was creating a child, he became furious and demanded that she have an immediate abortion. Johanna refused. Tocci’s fury increased and he became more aggressive and threatening: “If you have this baby, plan on spending every dime you’ve got fighting me for custody. I will use my money, my connections and influence to take this baby away from you. I will take you down, Johanna. I will not share ‘my’ child with anyone. My mother will move in with me and raise the baby. I have already talked to my parents about it.”

When Johanna still refused to give in to Tocci’s demands, he began a legal attack beyond belief, suing for paternal rights over the unborn fetus. This suit occurred in Saratoga County, New York, Family Court in March of 2005.

When Johanna was six months pregnant, January 1, 2005, she filed a Domestic Incident Report with the New York State Police, documenting in detail physical abuse, emotional abuse, and repeated threats from Tocci that he would murder the mother of “his” child. That  filing is not the only record of the abuses claimed by Johanna. Other documentation exists in the form of witnesses, obstetrician’s records, pediatriacian’s records, shelter records and sworn statements.

Sophia Grace was born later in 2005, and by November 9, 2005, Johanna was still living in fear of Bennett Tocci. On that day, she was forced to call 911 after Tocci completely lost control of himself and shoved Johanna repeatedly back and forth across a living room—while Johanna held seven-month-old Sophia in her arms and tried to protect her baby  from the abuse being inflicted. A Jackson County Deputy arrived and removed Tocci from the home.

Then came what Johanna terms “a fatal error on my part.” The pastor of her church, a man named Jack Hollis, arrived almost immediately, with a word of advice: Johanna must not press charges against Tocci for the domestic violence, because—among other things—Tocci would then lose his license to teach. It was this advice and Johanna’s decision to follow said advice and refrain from pressing charges that kept the abuse out of legal records. And it was this advice that turned the whole situation around and turned it against Johanna von Geldern.

After the 9-1-1 call when Sophia was just seven months old, Johanna allowed Tocci to have daily visitation with the baby. But the results were unexpected. The visits seemed to be having a negative impact on the child. Sophia began hitting herself in the head. She began screaming for no apparent reason. She began crying if someone said the word “no.” She demonstrated an extreme fear of men. Her reaction to any form of confinement was dramatic. And Sophia became hysterical at the mere sight of Tocci’s parents.

Then came further details—more clues that there was something terribly wrong with Sophia’s emotional and physical well being. Every visit brought some new negative: neck injuries; leg injuries; bruises; sullen, withdrawn moods; stretched labia; specks of blood in the child’s diaper;  and a persistent anal rash and redness. Johanna was doing her best to cooperate with the Tocci’s. One of the major problems for mothers trying to protect their child or children is that the mother is sometimes literally unable to realize the true horror of what is happening to her offspring. Despite what would seem in retrospect to be obvious signs of abuse, this was part of Johanna’s mind-set: Nobody, but nobody did the things she suspected Tocci and his family were doing . Did they?

Before long, Bennett Tocci began stalking Johanna. Over the next few months, he entered her house unannounced, tampered with her belongings and destroyed her mailbox. The final straw for Johanna, however, was when Bennett Tocci returned Sophia to Johanna with the entire side of her face bruised, scraped and raw.[ See the photo above.] The child was only eleven months old. Tocci handed the child, in her car seat, to Johanna; then he turned and walked away without a word. Johanna looked at the baby and asked, “What happened to her face?” From several feet away, Tocci half turned and said, “Oh…she fell. She’s fine.” And he got into his car and drove away.

Through that incident, Johanna came at last to realize that she needed to go far beyond what she was already doing. In the middle of the night, she moved herself and her daughter to a domestic violence shelter, driving two states away. Behind her she left everything of life as she knew it—except for her baby. She left a beautiful home, her teaching position, her church, her friends and all of life as she had known it.

Since there was nothing in Johanna’s background to give  Bennett legal grounds to sue for custody of Sophia, he began to search for a legal back door to custody. To date, he has “manipulated” she says, people in high places in the state of Florida—Jackson County. He has persuaded these people to prosecute her on “bogus criminal charges.”

“As a consequence,” says Johanna, “of his legal warfare and criminal charges, I am not able to work in my career as an elementary teacher. I am only allowed four visits a month—which I pay for—and I also pay my ex-boyfriend for gas money to transport her to and from visits. It costs me close to $500.00 a month to see my own daughter.

No more than four months after Johanna made her escape from Tocci’s grip, his most devastating act of abuse occurred. He managed to create a criminal charge against Johanna, based on a complaint filed by Tocci’s friend, Jackson County Deputy Rusty Booth. The charge read to this effect: “…violating a court order on March 5, 2006…removing child from jurisdiction contrary to a court order.”

However, there was no court order until the created and illegal “order”suddenly appeared on June 20, 2006. Johanna has a letter stating that her entire family was at the Domestic Violence Shelter in March. Even if there had been a court order in place, leaving for safety reasons is an exception to the law.

But it was not over. On August 15, 2007, Johanna was arrested on this trumped-up “violating a court order” charge, near the shelter where she and Sophia had been staying. The police threw her into the car, as if she were a hardened criminal. She spent the night in a freezing cold cell, hungry and sobbing as if her heart would break over the pain of not knowing what was happening to her daughter. Every breath she took was agony about the pain and fear she imagined the child must be experiencing. Johanna had had no opportunity to say good-by to Sophia or try to explain what was happening.

The police were no help. Detectives advised Johanna that the baby was hysterical and inconsolable and wanted to know if “she had had a nap,” as if a simple thing like a nap would solve the problem of a mother who had suddenly been disappeared from her sight. Johanna tried to explain that the hysteria and panic were quite natural for a child who was still nursing, and who had never been away from her mother for more than four hours at a time, never left with a sitter or a stranger.

Suddenly, like some lost soul, the child was ripped away from her mother and placed in a foster home with total strangers. And the following day,  Sophia was handed over to Johanna’s abuser—who was also Sophia’s abuser.

At the time that Johanna left Florida, paternity of Sophia had not even been legally established. No custody order existed. Johanna seems to have been well within her legal rights—as set forth in Section 742 of Florida Statutes to maintain custody and control over her daughter. Yet Johanna feared that Bennett Tocci would follow through on his continual threats to use family money and family influence, as well as “mob connections” he  seemed to be constantly boasting about—to hunt Johanna down and kill her as his solution to the problem of gaining control of Sophia.

 The first death threat was made in August, 2004, when Tocci sneered at Johanna, “I’ve got our solution. If you are out of the way, I can have total control of her.”

In addition to that charge of violating a court order that didn’t exist, Johannna  was to be arrested again—a mere three days before her first scheduled contact with Sophia in over two months—this time for “making a false report of child abuse.”

There was nothing false about the report. Johanna was deathly concerned for her daughter’s safety. Her report was made the day that Sophia was handed over to Tocci. On that day, Johanna called the abuse hotline, as directed by her attorney, and made a simple, truthful statement about her concerns for Sophia’s safety. Johanna has a sworn statement, taken from a friend, Ruth Hansen, by the lead detective, Rusty Booth, in which Hansen stated that Tocci had been violent, both with Johanna and the baby, during 2005. Hansen further stated that Tocci had been taking baths with Johanna’s infant daughter when Johanna was not at home. It was Hansen’s opinion that these “baths” had caused the baby to “act strangely.”

In December,  2006, before Johanna felt forced to flee with her daughter, the pediatrician’s report shows that Sophia had anal irritation and an anal tear. On the basis of that report, DCF conducted a superficial investigation, concluding that since Sophia’s hymen was intact, Johanna could not be telling the truth. Thus Rusty Booth and the state prosecutor, with the help of DCF, proceeded to charge Johanna with “false reporting of abuse.”

Bennett Tocci is a charming, gregarious elementary school teacher. Behind closed doors, however—where Johanna and Sophia know him well—there is a Tocci that few people have met. This Tocci is violent, with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and has been arrested for driving while intoxicated. He has attempted suicide and displayed impulsive and erratic behavior. He has a special method of achieving climax during sex—the only way he can achieve climax—by fantasizing that he is overpowering and sodomizing a young girl.

Also extremely distressing to Johanna are Tocci’s bouts of paranoid delusion and manic mood swings. During one such episode, Tocci’s father explained to Johanna, “When Bennett gets upset like this, he doesn’t respond because he can’t hear anyone talking to him.” The father’s solution to the problem was to “grab Bennett by the elbow and whisk him out of the house whenever his son ‘lost it’.”

Likewise, there are other examples of mental difficulties in the household. The father, Anthony Tocci, is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and his mother, Natalie, with clinical depression. Both control their illnesses with medication. Two of Bennett Tocci’s uncles committed suicide within the last three years.

Such is the story of Sophia Grace, three-year-old battered child, trapped in her father’s attempt to steal the child from the mother. Legal files show that since Sophia was handed over to her abuser, she is withdrawn, she hits herself in the head, she throws her stuffed puppy on the floor and punishes it, she is emotionally shut down. During visits, she plays a game where her stuffed bunny is sad because  he can’t find his mommy.

The first time Johanna managed to see Sophia after two and one-half months, she bent down close to the child and asked the question that choked her throat with tears, “Do you know who I am?” Sophia nodded and smiled softly, but at the same time she appeared dull and lifeless. It is as if, says Johanna, “the sweet, curious, vibrant, joyous little girl I raised has been reduced to a hollow shell.” During visits, Johanna adds, “she revives in my presence, and I catch glimpses of the pure spirit inside her. It is unforgiveable what her ‘father’ and his parents are doing to this child.”

For nearly a year, this problem has been dragged out—intentionally, Johanna believes—by opposing counsel. Tocci is so intent on keeping Johanna out of her daughter’s life that he even had the judge who granted Johanna visitation removed from the case.

Today, visits consist of Johanna reminding Sophia how much she is loved. During visits Johanna showers the child with tender care, hoping against hope to make up for some of the tragedy Sophia endures  with her father. Johanna shows her photographs, feeds her homemade cookies and gives her homemade cards. And all the time these things are going on, Johanna is asking herself, “What kind of a father wants his child to suffer like this?”

Every visit closes with the same question from Sophia. “Do you have to go bye-bye? I want to stay with you!” How do you explain to a three-year-old where her mommy went—and why? And besides, Johanna is not allowed to discuss any facts about the case, so she must simply smile and pretend everything is fine—when both of them know their hearts are broken.

Sophia was born a free citizen of the United States, but the United States “justice” system has failed to protect her and her mother. Bennett Tocci has filed for sole custody. Johanna has hired five attorneys to combat attempts to convict her of crime. She is still waiting for some of the charges to be dismissed, so she can be Sophia’s mommy once again.  She has spent her life savings. She has been forced to file bankruptcy.

And Sophia? She continually cries and asks when she can go to “mommy’s house.”

If we heard about such legal contortions as this in another country, we would shake our heads and declare, “What a shame! What a damn shame!” But it is not taking place elsewhere. It is taking place in the United States of America. It is happening to thousands of women and children. And it is the United States of America and our justice system that is the subject of the head shaking and the shame.

Where is the person—or persons—with authority who will put an end to this kind of gender bias in the courts? An end to this torment of mothers and children?