Elaine Pudlowski is currently being sued by multiple
parties in St. Louis County 21st Judicial Circuit.
Evita Tolu v. Elaine Pudlowski,
Case 20SL-CC04680
Tolu is a survivor of domestic violence. She had been treated at Safe Connections, an
organization that helps victims of domestic violence to reclaim their lives and
heal from trauma inflicted by their intimate partners. Tolu has been their patient for five
years. In 2017 Tolu sought custody
modification because her former spouse, Stientjes continued to perpetrate
domestic violence on Tolu’s children. Pudlowski
was appointed a guardian ad litem to Tolu's children on August 30,
2017. The Appointment Order provided in relevant part:
The GAL must be a lawyer licensed to practice law in
the State of Missouri and must act in accordance with the Rules of
Professional Standard (See GAL Standard 1.0).
The GAL’s caseload shall
not impede GAL’s ability to comply with the Guardian ad Litem Standards nor
shall it affect the GAL’s ability to comply with the ethical
standards of the Rules of Professional Conduct (See
GAL Standard 2.0);
The GAL shall adhere to applicable
statutes, rules and regulations relating to receipt and redisclosure of
privileged information received as a Guardian ad Litem (See
GAL Standard 7.0);
The GAL shall review the progress of the children’s
case and advocate for timely hearings, provision of necessary services and compliance
with court orders (See GAL Standard 8.0).
At the conclusion of this case, the GAL shall file a
“Memorandum of Compliance” with this court, indicated the Guardian’s compliance
with the Missouri Supreme Court Standards for Guardians ad Litem.
In the custody proceedings Pudlowski asked the Court to
appoint James D. Reid, Ph.D. to conduct a psychological evaluation of Tolu, her
former spouse, Stientjes and their children. Reid is Pudlowski’s buddy who
worked with Pudlowski previously on two dozens of other cases. Pudlowski did
not disclose to Tolu that she had other business relationships with Reid in the
past and that he was her designated expert in other cases. Pudlowski only uses experts and therapists
who do what she dictates. She is one of
the Cash For Kids LLC guardians. More on
Cash for Kids unethical and colluding guardians at litem see the secret meeting
of Pudlowski raising cash to kill Tolu’s lawsuit at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Re_bX118k&t=289s
The Court appointed Reid on October 26, 2017. Reid was
ordered to provide an objective evaluation. Reid met with Tolu and her
children. While talking to Tolu, Reid called her a bad mother, liar, a drunk
and an alcoholic. Tolu does not drink and never had a drinking
problem. Reid told Tolu that he had video and audio recording all
his meetings with Tolu, Stientjes, their children and
witnesses. Reid completed his report (Reid Report) on or about March
28, 2018, for which he was paid $30,000.00 dollars.
On March 28, 2018, Pudlowski filed a Motion to Limit
Release of the Reid Report. In her Motion, Pudlowski stated, “The
Guardian ad Litem and Dr. Reid believe that a direct release of the
report to the parties may place the children at serious
risk”. The Court granted Pudlowski’s Motion and entered the Order
Limiting Release of the Reid Report on April 4, 2018.
The Court Order stated:
The Guardian ad Litem’s Motion to Limit Release of
Evaluation of Dr. James Reid is sustained. Dr. James Reid shall
release his report only to the Guardian ad Litem. The Guardian ad
Litem shall re-release the report only to the attorneys of
record. The attorneys of record may share the report with
their staff and experts retained for this custody litigation, but the
report shall not be re-released further or to any other further parties.
The parties may view the report at the law office of their attorney of record,
but they shall not be allowed to receive copy of the report in any form until
further order of this court. No one, including the parents, shall discuss the
report with either children and no one shall provide a copy of the report or
any portions of the report to other of the children.
Reid did not undertake a psychological evaluation of Tolu
and Stientjes. Instead, he performed a custody evaluation and made a
custody determination in violation of the Court Order, dated October 26,
2017. Reid concluded that Tolu alienated Child T from Stientjes, but
did not find that Stientjes alienated Child A from Tolu. Nor did he
recognize or identify any domestic and intimate partner violence that riddled
the Tolu’s family for 14 long and painful years.
Reid refused to provide Tolu a copy of his file in
violation of the October 26, 2017 Court Order unless Tolu paid Reid an
exorbitant fee 2700 times more than the Court Order instructed.
Tolu filed a Motion to Strike the Reid
Report. On April 24, 2018, the Court struck the portions of the Reid
Report with his custody recommendations. At the same hearing, the
Court ordered counseling for Child A and Child T and allowed Pudlowski to
choose the counselor. The Court Order stated:
1) Pursuant
to Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Dr. Reid’s Report, Page 106 of said report
containing custody recommendations shall be stricken;
2) Pursuant
to Respondent’s Motion for GAL to Hold Passport, the GAL shall hold the
passport of [Child T], and neither party shall apply for a passport for Child
A;
3) Pursuant to
Respondent’s Motion for Reunification Counseling, the Court Orders that the GAL
shall choose a therapist for said reunification counseling. Petitioner’s Motion
for Return of Piano passed.
After the April 24, 2018 hearing, Tolu asked therapist
Dawn Swinger, with Family Forward, if she would conduct the therapy pursuant to
the April 24, 2018 Court Order. Therapist Swinger had been the
family’s and the children’s therapist, from June 2015 until April 2016 and she
was aware of the family and the children’s needs, and the situation at home. She
was willing to counsel the family.
Tolu immediately informed Pudlowski that Dawn Swinger,
with Family Forward, would counsel the family and the children at no charge to
the parties.
At a hearing on May 25, 2018, Tolu’s attorney told the
Court that Safe Connections and Provident Behavioral Health were willing to
counsel family members at no cost and that therapist Swinger, with Family
Forward, already agreed to counsel the family and children at no
cost. At the hearing, Pudlowski told the Court that she would
contact therapist Swinger with Family Forward. The Court entered the following
Order:
Respondent’s Motion for Further Orders
Regarding Reunification Counseling called and heard. The GAL shall
determine whether Family Forward or other counseling agency is available at
less cost for the reunification therapy previously ordered by the
Court. The parties shall each pay fifty percent (50%) of said therapy
and the therapist shall be given Dr. Reid’s report.
At that hearing, Pudlowski did not disclose to the
Court that she already “hired” Van Luven (a corrupt, unethical and dishonest therapist,
who uses Coercive Persuasion Therapy, common in cults) on May 9, 2018 to
conduct the Court ordered counseling. Pudlowski did not ask the
Court to appoint Van Luven to help the Tolu’s family. Pudlowski
signed the May 25, 2018 Court Order as a GAL knowing that she would not abide
by its terms.
Pudlowski’s assistant told Tolu that Pudlowski said,
“Swinger is not able to do what Elaine wanted her to do.” Tolu,
thus, presumed that Swinger did not have the necessary experience to counsel
the family. That was wrong. Pudlowski ignored the Court’s
Order.
Tolu contacted therapist Swinger requesting a referral
to another therapist. Therapist Swinger emailed that Shannon Cherwitz, BSW,
with Kids in the Middle, is highly qualified and is ready to start counseling
for $40 per session. Tolu forwarded that email to Pudlowski.
On June 1, 2018, Tolu received Reid’s “file” and gave
it to Tolu’s expert Dr. Williger. The Reid file lacked testing,
information assessment data, notes, and evidence of Stientjes’ moral
character. Almost all of Reid’s video tapes were missing, and his
audio tapes were altered. The Court ordered Reid to produce his
original video and audio recordings, but Reid never complied.
After reviewing the Reid file, Tolu’s expert concluded
that Reid failed to use the degree of skill and learning, ordinarily used under
the same or similar circumstances by the members of Reid’s profession when
performing a forensic psychological evaluation within the parameters of the
Court Order appointing Reid and identified numerous breaches of standard of
care in her report.
On August 7, 2018, Pudlowski filed a proposed order
with the Court, asking the Court to appoint Van Luven to conduct sibling
therapy and the parents to meet with Van Luven when necessary. Pudlowski
also asked the Court to allow her to release the Reid Report to Van
Luven.
At that time Stientjes and Child A were already seeing
Van Luven although she was not then appointed by the Court. Because Tolu
and her expert challenged the validity of the Reid Report, and the Court
ordered Reid to produce the original video tapes that he concealed from the
Court and omitted from his file, the Court never entered Pudlowski’s proposed
Court Order and never gave Pudlowski the authority to release the Reid Report
to Van Luven or to anyone not previously authorized to receive it.
Toward the end of August 2018, Pudlowski told Tolu to
begin therapy with Van Luven, although there was no Court Order appointing Van
Luven at that time.
On Pudlowski’s recommendation, Tolu met with Van Luven
at West County Psychological Associates (WCPA) on August 23,
2018. At that meeting, Tolu completed WCPA’s patient intake forms,
signed releases, signed WCPA’s fee agreement that listed Van Luven as a
provider of services; provided WCPA and Van Luven with Tolu’s credit card for
payment for their services; signed the WCPA’s Notice of Privacy Rights; and
discussed the WCPA’s intake forms in detail with Van Luven.
Tolu spent two hours at WCPA talking to Van Luven
during which Tolu disclosed to Van Luven her depression diagnosis and treatment
at Safe Connections for anxiety and PTSD all caused by trauma inflicted by
Stientjes on Tolu, Child A and Child T during the Tolu’s marriage to
Stientjes.
At that meeting, Tolu shared her fears, co-parenting
concerns, worries, feelings and expressed hope for WCPA and Van Luven’s therapy
during Tolu’s pending child custody litigation. WCPA and/or Van
Luven never told Tolu not to share her medical and psychological history with
them.
Van Luven was sympathetic, receptive, and encouraged Tolu
to take care of herself and her children. Van Luven treated Tolu
as if she were her and WCPA’s patient and/or client. To bond with Tolu,
Van Luven shared that she divorced the father of her 3 children because “he had
some major anger issues” and she was also abused as a wife and a mother.
Tolu felt a rapport and was secure with Van
Luven. Tolu established a therapeutic relationship with Van
Luven. Van Luven told Tolu that she “would treat the entire family
as a unit;” “she would work together with both parents for the good of the
children;” “she would treat parents and children with respect;” “she would
contact parents, children’s healthcare providers, tutors, and grandparents;”
“she would ask both parents to sign a release before she would speak to anyone
other than a parent;” “she would stay focused on the children’s needs” and “she
would never hurt the children.” (all these statements were lies, but
at that time Tolu did not know it).
Van Luven assured Tolu that she would look at the
court orders in Tolu’s case because she was trained in law. She
stated that it was “her policy to discourage children from criticizing,
blaming, or denigrating their parents” and “she would help both parents to stay
involved.”
Van Luven told Tolu that she had a degree in family
law (that was another lie) and that she was a Certified Civil Mediator,
Forensic Child Evaluator, custody, and family expert, for the Family
Courts.
Van Luven said that she had already started working
with Child A and Stientjes. Hearing this from Van Luven, Tolu
understood that Tolu, Child A, Child T and Stientjes were WCPA’s and Van
Luven’s patients before any court order appointing her was
entered. Van Luven was, by her own admission, the expert in family
court litigation, mediation, and reunification. Van Luven also told Tolu
that many family law attorneys and GALs view her as the utmost “custody expert”
in Saint Louis and that Pudlowski referred to her as “a custody
expert.”
Van Luven told Tolu that she had received the Reid
Report from Pudlowski, but she had not yet read it. In response, Tolu
asked Van Luven not to read it because on April 5, 2018, the Court entered a
Protective Order prohibiting Pudlowski from releasing the Reid Report to anyone
except the parties’ attorneys. Van Luven assured Tolu that she would
resolve Tolu’s concerns regarding the Reid Report with Pudlowski.
Neither WCPA nor Van Luven sought Tolu’s
authorization, at any time, to allow them to receive, read and use the Reid
Report during their services. Neither of them complied with HIPPA
(45 C.F.R. Part 16 & Part 164, thereafter referred as HIPPA
throughout) and the WCPA’s Notice of Privacy Rights when they received the Reid
Report from Pudlowski.
Tolu also told Van Luven that Dr. Williger found that
Reid did not meet the standard of care in conducting his evaluation and
documenting his findings; that Tolu had filed several motions asking to strike
the Reid Report and that the Court ordered Reid to produce his original,
unaltered files to Tolu which he never did.
After 2 hours, Tolu left the WCPA’s office on August
23, 2018 trusting that WCPA and Van Luven would heal and reunify her family and
that Van Luven would not read the Reid Report. Tolu believed that a
therapeutic relationship was established at that meeting.
On September 17, 2018, the
Court was ready to try Tolu v. Stientjes, Case No.
16SL-DR4088-01. Pudlowski asked the Court for a meeting in
chambers. In chambers, Pudlowski asked the Court to enter several
orders including: 1) to continue the case for several months for family
reunification with Van Luven and Erica Ottolini over the parties’ objections;
2) to enter her proposed Order regarding release of the Reid Report to Van
Luven, which Pudlowski e-filed on August 7, 2018; 3) to order Tolu and Child T
to stop their therapy at Safe Connections; and 4) to allow Pudlowski to appoint
her own therapists for Tolu and Child T in lieu of Safe Connections.
Having heard the party’s arguments, the Court entered
the following Order:
Child T and Child A shall continue to work
reestablishing their relationship by continuing to meet with Jennifer Webbe Van
Luven for joint therapy. Child A and Tolu shall begin therapy with Erica
Ottolini. Child T and Stientjes shall begin therapy with Erica
Ottolini. The goal of the above listed therapy is primarily to
focus on reestablishing the relationship between Child T and Child A; the
secondary goal is to reestablish the relationship between the children and the
parents. … Child T shall continue to meet with Meg Meyers at
Safe Connections; Child A shall continue to meet with Nancy Mesey. Tolu
shall continue to meet with Jessica Boyd at Safe Connections. Stientjes shall
continue to meet with Nancy Mesey. … The parents shall cooperate with all
therapists and shall ensure that the child in their custody attends all therapy
sessions on time. The purpose of the family therapy is to reunify
the family and improve relationships within the family and it is
the intent of the Court not to allow the family therapists to testify as to the
substance of the therapy provided and for them not to be called for litigation
purposes. The copies of the Court Order to be distributed to Jennifer Webbe Van
Luven and Erica Ottolini (another Pudlowski’s buddy, who sings her tune).
The Court removed the case from the trial
docket. It refused to release the Reid Report to Van Luven and/or
WCPA or to allow Pudlowski to replace Safe Connections.
From then until June 7, 2019, Van Luven and WCPA were
servicing Tolu’s family, pursuant to the September 17, 2018 Court Order, at the
WCPA location. During this time, Van Luven and WCPA sent various
letters, invoices, and forms to Tolu’s home and email, advising about their
updates on privacy and billing. Van Luven, noted as WCPA’s Assistant
Director, and Tolu, exchanged almost 300 emails. In not one of these
emails did Van Luven state or otherwise indicate that she was an independent
contractor and not an employee of WCPA. WCPA’s website also stated
that Van Luven is the WCPA’s Assistant Director.
From September 2018 through June 2019, Van Luven met
with Tolu’s children and told them it was not her job to fix the children’s
relationships with their parents. Van Luven encouraged Child
A to berate Child T and fueled Child A’s anger. Van Luven discussed
Reid’s diagnoses of Tolu of being a narcissist and crazy with the children, in
violation of the Court Orders, Tolu’s HIPPA, and WCPA” Notice of Privacy Rights.
Van Luven accused Tolu of distorting the truth about domestic violence; Van
Luven assured the children that they would never reconcile with their parents. Van
Luven pressured Child T to visit Stientjes in Defiance even after Child T told
Van Luven that Stientjes sexually abused him and Child T did not feel safe
around Stientjes.
At the same time, Pudlowski told
Tolu to start therapy recommended by Reid, which was not sanctioned by any
Court Order. Pudlowski threatened that if Tolu did not terminate her
and Child T’s therapy at Safe Connections, Pudlowski would consider Tolu “a
non-cooperating parent” and recommend that she suffer the total loss of custody
of both Child A and Child T.
On October 1, 2018 during a therapy session, Van Luven
told the children:
I had a long conversation today with your
guardian ad litem. And her and I both agree that we really don’t
think either of you is going to have a relationship with the other
parent. I don’t think you [Child A]’re going
to have a relationship with mom, and I don’t think you [Child T]’re going to
have a relationship with dad.” … I mean really could a judge
order you to go live with mom and you live with dad? With all of this time and
history of what’s gone on, will he? I would sure hope not.
Van Luven told the children that Tolu fabricated
domestic violence. Van Luven did not report to proper authorities
physical and sexual abuse that Tolu’s children reported to Van Luven. Van
Luven discussed with the children the Reid Report and told them that Tolu was a
liar. Van Luven questioned Child A about his and Tolu’s counseling and made
Child A breach Tolu’s confidentiality of treatment. Van Luven pressured Child T
to reveal his conversations with Tolu. Van Luven used the information from the
Reid Report to alienate Child A and Child T from Tolu in violation of August
30, 2017, October 26, 2017, April 5, 2018, September 18, 2018 Court Orders, Tolu’s
HIPPA and WCPA’s Notice of Privacy Rights.
Van Luven told the children that Tolu was isolating
Child T, by fabricating domestic violence. Van Luven falsely stated
to the children that their mother took Child T to Safe Connections to ingrain
his brain with PTSD. Van Luven called her own children “bitch” and
“asshole,” and used the word “fuck” in her therapy. Van Luven pitted Child A
against Child T and Tolu and called the children “dick, asshole, fricken
difficult, jerk, crazy and not normal.”
When Child A reported to Van Luven that he was
breaking and entering the Tolu’s house for two years after the divorce, Van
Luven did not report Child A’s behavior to the Court, Tolu or Pudlowski; instead,
Van Luven mocked Tolu’s attempts to report the thefts to Reid as acts of
manipulation and Tolu’s seeking negative attention from her children; Van
Luven encouraged Tolu’s children to break the law and when Child T refused, Van
Luven shamed him.
Pudlowski asked the Court to continue Tolu’s case to
prolong Van Luven and WCPA’s therapy for 11 months, causing the children’s
alienation from Tolu. Pudlowski asked the Court four times to order Tolu
and Child T to cease their therapy at Safe Connection and instead see a
therapist of her choosing. The Court, however, ordered Tolu and Child T to
continue therapy at Safe Connections on September 17, 2018 and the Court never
amended its order regarding Safe Connections.
Child T was traumatized during Van Luven’s therapy and
reported feeling unsafe, insulted, intimidated, voiceless and
powerless. Child T took notes during each session and told Tolu that
Van Luven talked about the custody case in great detail, shared adult
information with the children, discussed Reid’s diagnoses that Tolu “was a
narcissist and crazy.”
At that time, Child T told his therapist at Safe
Connections that “life was not worth living.” Child T reported that
therapy made Child A, incredibly angry and hateful towards Child T and Tolu,
and both children reported to Van Luven that her therapy made them feel
worse. Child T begged Tolu to stop Van Luven’s therapy.
Tolu contacted Pudlowski many times expressing Tolu’s
and Child T’s concerns related to Van Luven and WCPA’s therapy and Van Luven’s
disclosure of the Reid Report to the children. Pudlowski refused to
address Tolu’s concerns stating that Tolu’s
children were lying.
At that time, Tolu contacted four family law attorneys
for an independent second opinion to determine whether Tolu could disqualify
Pudlowski from Tolu’s case. These four attorneys told Tolu that Tolu
had no standing to disqualify Pudlowski. The attorneys told Tolu
that Pudlowski would retaliate by treating Tolu “as a non-cooperating parent”
and Tolu would lose custody of her children.
When Tolu met with Pudlowski, on several occasion,
Pudlowski told her that Pudlowski was a GAL in another case with Tolu’s
attorney Eisen who represented Caroline, “a crazy mother” who fabricated
allegations of her child’s sexual abuse. Tolu contacted Caroline who
filed a motion to disqualify Pudlowski and learned that her motion was never
granted. Pudlowski disclosed Caroline’s private and confidential
information to Tolu in violation of court orders in her case and the Missouri
Rules of Professional Responsibility.
Tolu also contacted Laura Gardner who filed a motion
to disqualify Pudlowski for violations of every GAL Standard in Pudlowski’s
appointment order. The court denied Gardner’s motion to disqualify
Pudlowski. Pudlowski retaliated against Gardener and informed the
court that Gardener was not a suitable custodial parent.
Litigants Arsenau and Richmann told Tolu that they
wanted to disqualify Pudlowski. They were advised that the court
would not strike Pudlowski. Pudlowski would retaliate by
recommending to the court for the parents to lose custody of their
children. Pudlowski talked to Tolu about the Richmann’s
case. She told Tolu that Reid and Van Luven diagnosed Richmann as
“delusional” because she claimed that her ex-husband poisoned her
children. Pudlowski disclosed other litigant’s private and
confidential information to Tolu in violations of the court orders in their
cases and the Missouri Rules of Professional Responsibility.
On October 5, 2018, Stientjes filed a Motion to
Release the Reid Report to Van Luven and Ottolini. Tolu
objected. The Court never granted Stientjes’ motion.
At that time, Pudlowski threatened Tolu that if she
did not consent to Ottolini receiving the Reid Report, that Pudlowski would
report Tolu as “a non-cooperating parent” and seek to terminate any custody Tolu
had or might gain with her children.
On November 13, 2018, Pudlowski, in a string email,
released the Reid Report to Ottolini and to Tolu. This release of
the Reid Report was in violation of August 30, 2017 Court Order that required
Pudlowski to comply with “the applicable statutes, rules and regulations
relating to the receipt and redisclosure of privileged
information.” This release was in violation of the October 26, 2017
Court Order which allowed the release of the Reid Report only to
Pudlowski. This release was in violation of the April 5, 2018 Court
Order which allowed Pudlowski to release the Reid Report to the parties’
attorneys only. The September 17, 2018 Court Order confirmed the
previous three Court Orders.
In her famous YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Re_bX118k&t=289s) Pudlowski never said that she was innocent of what Tolu accused her. Instead, she said that she now claims immunity. In her court papers Pudlowski argued that she did not owe Plaintiff any fiduciary duties because Tolu was not her client and therefore, she was free to receive, read, and divulge Tolu’s private medical information to Van Luven, WCPA, Ottolini and Tolu’s children. This is wrong. What she says means that an attorney who receives private medical records of a nonclient while performing her duties is free to publish these records to the world and not be liable for this unauthorized disclosure. This means that Pudlowski could, hypothetically, pick up private medical records from her colleague’s desk and publish those records on Facebook because she does not have a relationship with the colleague’s client. When Tolu brought it to Pudlowski’s attention, Pudlowski threatened Tolu that she would lose custody of her children. No GAL should threaten a parent with loss of custodial rights for disagreeing with her and not doing what the Court would not authorize. Pudlowski concealed from the Court her malfeasance in releasing the Reid Report to Van Luven.
In a secret meeting orchestrated by Pudlowski, Pudlowski is raising money for her attorneys to hire a forensic firm to find out who runs the Daily Docket (a publication circulating in Missouri) uncovering collusion, corruption and lawlessness in family courts). Pudlowski's buddies, the colluding guardians and family law lawyers are raising $10,000 to give to Pudlowski's attorneys "to kill the Daily Docket and Tolu's lawsuit two birds with one stone" because "it threatens to take [their] entire system down" and the judges who "are on it."
After reading these court records, decide if Elaine Pudlowski is a suitable guardian for your children and whether you would trust your private medical information to her. Elaine Pudlowski has been named a party in four other lawsuits which are currently pending. Check our next issue on Elaine Pudlowski and her deep involvement in Cash For Kids LLC which she is spearheading with her defense attorneys secretly against Tolu.
If you are a victim of Elaine Pudlowski contact evitatolu@outlook.com.
Comments
Post a Comment