PHONE 917.300.1958                   244 Fifth Avenue Suite 2369 New York NY 10001

Below is my winning Moton to Remove a Law Guardian with all attachments.  I represented the father in this case who was falsely accused of child abuse by the mother, which I proved were all false and he obtained custody of all of the children.  All names are redacted below to Smith, Jones, etc.

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
_________________________________________     
SUSAN C. Smith (f/k/a SUSAN C. Smith)                       File No.3XXXX
                                      Petitioner,                         Docket No. V-XXXX-02/09C
 -against-                                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C, V-XXXXX-02/09C
ROBERT H. Smith, JR.                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C 
                                                              NOTICE OF MOTION TO REMOVE LAW GUARDIAN    
                                     Respondent.                & OBJECTIONS TO ANY IN CAMERA
________________________________________  Assigned to: Hon. Joan E. Posner

      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affirmation of Susan Chana Lask, Esq. , Melissa Adams, Esq. and Affidavit of Respondent Robert H. Smith, Jr, all dated August 27, 2009, and upon all the papers and proceedings heretofore had herein, a motion will be made before Hon. Joan E. Posner, at the Courthouse, 50 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, New York on the 11th day of September, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon as counsel can be heard, for relief granting (a) removing Kent A. Jones, Jr. as the law guardian to the children, Robert, age 15, Steven age 12 and April, age 10 (the "Children") (b) appointing Melissa Adams, Esq.  as counsel to the Children, (c) objecting to any in camera interview of the children and/or insuring any in camera interview with any of the Smith children be made before a stenographer and (d) for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
 Pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering papers shall be served upon Respondent's counsel at least 7 days before the return date
 Dated:   August 29, 2009           Yours, etc
                                               LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK 
                                              ___________________________ 
                                               BY:  Susan Chana Lask, Esq. 
                                              Attorney for Petitioner
                                              244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369  
                                               New York, NY 10001
                                              (212) 358-5762
To:    Andrea A. Moron, Esq. XXXXX St., Kingston, New York 12401-4510
        Kent A. Jones,  Jr. Esq. XXXXXXX Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-3215
        Leslie Boring, Esq. XXXXXXX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
_________________________________________     
SUSAN C. Smith (f/k/a SUSAN C. Smith)                       File No.3XXXX
                                      Petitioner,                         Docket No. V-XXXX-02/09C
 -against-                                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C, V-XXXXX-02/09C
ROBERT H. Smith, JR.                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C 
                                                                          AFFIRMATION OF COUNSEL  
                                      Respondent.                         FOR RESPONDENT
___________________________________________    

 Susan Chana Lask, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York and in good standing with offices in this State, affirms to the following under penalty of perjury:
 1. I am the attorney of record for Respondent. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter.
 2.   I submit this affirmation, Melissa Adams's, Esq. Affirmation dated August 27, 2009, and Respondent's Affidavit dated August 29, 2009 in support of Respondent's motion to remove Kent Jones as the law guardian to the children, Robert, age 15, Jesse age 12 and Summer, age 10 (the "Children") and appoint Melissa Adams, Esq.  as counsel to the Children, as well as objecting to any in camera interview of any of the children, and, if denied, insuring a stenographer's presence.
 3.  Family Court Act §249 stipulates that a law guardian must be appointed to represent the child "if independent legal representation is not available to such minors."  Section 249 is read together with Section 241 that children "... should be represented by counsel of their own choosing or by law guardians."
 4.  On April 3, 2009, by Petitioner's ex parte Order to Show Cause ("OSC"),  Kent Jones was assigned as law guardian.  Neither he nor the Court notified the children or the custodial parent of the childrens' right to choose their own counsel when he was assigned.  The Children want Kent Jones removed for good cause (8/28/09 Smith Aff).
 5. A parent can retain an attorney for his child provided the children choose the attorney pursuant to  Section 241, that children "... should be represented by counsel of their own choosing or by law guardians." Fargnoli v. Faber 105 A.D.2d 523, 481 N.Y.S.2d 784 (3 Dept. 1984). To insure Sections 241 and 249 are used properly, the court may "conduct a voir dire on the record to ascertain the absence of a potential conflict, to demonstrate that counsel is indeed "independent", and to ascertain that the child wants the specific attorney to represent him." FCA 249, Practice Commentaries, 2008 Main Volume by Prof. Merril Sobie.  In this case, the children, as anyone else, have the right to choose their own representation and they must be presented with this choice.  S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437, 443, 515 N.Y.S.2d 735, 508 N.E.2d 647 (1987 ).  The two elder of the Children have terminated Kent Jones for cause (see 8/29/09 Smith Aff, Exh. A).
 6.  Respondent Robert Smith's August 27, 2009 affidavit relates that Mr. Jones made frightening scenarios  to the children of crime and violence in Family Court cases, called his own mother "dumb", including his references that the children have "lived with their father a long time" with numerous statements to the children that "we're going to kick your Dad out", without qualifying it as the meeting, and for two days thereafter the youngest child, Summer, became sick as a result of this experience (8/29/09 Smith Aff).  Robert Smith's affidavit further confirms the children told him that Mr. Jones is on the mother's side, puts words in their mouths and is not representing them.
 7.  Mr. Jones has not represented the Childrens' interests. He has taken a conflicting side with the mother before he ever met with the Children.  For instance, on April 16, 2009,  I met with Kent Jones in a court conference room. My legal assistant was present. He told us that when the OSC was signed, about April 3, 2009, he received a call from the mother's counsel, Moron, who directed him not to contact the children until after Robert Smith was served.  Notably, Moron's OSC has serious allegations of indecency, mental illness, and mental and physical abuse, including that Robert Smith is "dangerous", that the children are "in danger", he "has become peculiar and physically threatening to his children." and the mother "fears for the safety of the children" (see Petition, 3/12/09 Smith Aff., paras.1,4 & 5, filed with this Court and made a part of the record hereof).  Those incredibly serious allegations along with Moron substantiating the seriousness more by her literally testifying to this Court on April 16, 2009 that Robert Smith engaged in "indecency" before his children and he has "damaged" the children (Exhibit "A"-4/16/09 Trans 7-8:8-4) mandated Mr. Jones to communicate with his clients, the children.
 8.  He was assigned immediately, by an ex parte OSC, on April 3, 2009 clearly based on the Court reading those serious allegations of danger to the children.  Yet, despite the emergency mandating his immediate appointment and the serious danger alleged to these small children, Mr. Jones did nothing. Instead, he followed the directions of the mother's counsel, Moron, not to communicate with the children he was ordered to represent and was communicating with her before Robert Smith even knew what was going on.  Why did Kent Jones refuse to even call Robert Smith to introduce himself?  In fact, he never met the children until May 6, 2009, over 30 days after he was assigned.  That is a long time to wait when danger, indecency and abuse is alleged--unless he waited because he knew from his conversations from Moron that it was all a lie. And then he had the obligation to represent the law as it is, not perpetuate the lie by refusing to meet the children at Moron's behest.
 9.  Kent Jones had the responsibility of contacting the children immediately to determine if they were in danger.  As a State Mandated Reporter, he was obligated pursuant to Soc Servs Law Sec 413 to report even suspected abuse.  The Petition's allegations rose to the level of a reasonable suspicion of abuse, whether they are false or not.  In fact, this Court accepted the allegations of "physical" threats and "danger" to the children "as true" on April 16, 2009 (Exhibit A-15:11-16) and again confirmed it "as true" by its July 2, 2009 Order, made a part of the Court file, when it again denied Robert Smith's second motion to dismiss. Why then did the Court or the law guardian fail to make a report of suspected abuse or even get forensics in to discover if the children are being physically threatened and in danger as the petition alleged?  The allegations were accepted as true.
 10.  Despite such a serious Petition filed, Kent Jones's conduct to follow directions of the mother's counsel to do nothing and not meet with the children to protect them in itself makes his conduct suspect. He raises questions of serious impropriety regarding his position to represent the children when he is communicating with the mother's counsel Moron to not meet with the children he was court ordered to meet with and not communicating with the father. Kent Jones prejudiced his clients' rights, welfare and well-being because he predetermined what parent he was going to take sides with, even when it was obvious that parent's petition, Smith, was baseless. That baselessness was apparent when Smith had her attorney, Moron, direct Jones not to meet with children they alleged were being physically abused, threatened and in danger.
 11.  There are many scenarios we can believe as to just what that conversation was between Kent Jones and Moron to make him disregard his duties as a State officer Law Guardian for protecting children and their well fare.  Possibly she informed him that the Petition was false and malicious and it was filled with misrepresentations just to get the court's attention to harass Respondent Robert Smith. I can only assume that Moron told Mr. Jones he did not have to see the children despite the serious allegations because it was frivolous, with an ulterior motive. Maybe they discussed between themselves that the father has had the children long enough and now it's the mother's turn to have them as Kent Jones announced at his first meeting with the Children (8/28/09 Smith Aff). Nowhere does anyone in this case ever address a real change of circumstances and everyone ignores their obligation to investigate the serious allegations in the Petition and as stated at the April 16, 2009 regarding Robert Smith engaging in "indecency" before his children and "damaging" them.
 12.  Mr. Jones failed to meet with the children alleged to be in immediate danger until more than 30 days later, May 6, 2009, because he was following Moron's orders and then he stated to me and my Legal Assistant on April 16, 2009 that he was too busy doing his taxes. On April 16, 2009, the first court appearance, he deliberately failed to inform this Court that it was he who refused to promptly arrange to see the children because he was following the directions of the mother's attorney, Moron, not to see the children, despite the April 3, 2009 OSC from this Court appointing his assignment under conditions of alleged abuse and danger existing.  He instead misrepresented that:
 MR. Jones:  Clients that I  have not been permitted to see as of this time.
                  (Exhibit "A" 11:12-14)
 13.  No one prevented him from seeing the children.  He refused to see them at the direction of Moron. He later corrected his misrepresentation somewhat when I informed he told me before we walked into the court that he was too busy with his taxes (which did not make it to the transcript), then he retreated by confirming I did call him the week before to arrange he meet with the children  (Exhibit A 11:17-22). But he still fails to inform that it was he who never returned my call.  Instead he skews the facts as if we both could not be reached.  I have multiple modes of reaching me 24 hours, 7 days a week; including e-mail and my cell number is on my office number.  Mr. Jones chose not to contact me.  The same as he sent this Court a letter stating he joined in opposing Robert Smith's motion to dismiss the Petition when he never even met with his clients to get their position on that motion.  He decided to oppose something that he never discussed with his clients. Worse, he did that the same way he decided to follow Moron's orders not to meet his clients after he was assigned as their attorney by this Court. 
 14. I do not have to recite the multiple Rules of Professional Conduct Kent Jones has violated in his "assignment" to represent the Childrens' interests. His conflict is obvious, his failure to follow their wishes is obvious and his undermining their needs by taking the side of the mother from day one is obvious. He must be removed from this case.  The children do not want him to misrepresent their wishes anymore (8/29/08 Smith Aff Exh A). We are very aware that Kent Jones is every day in this Court acting by assignment from this Court, that does not negate the fact that he has neglected his duties in this case.
 15.  His conduct in taking directions from Moron, ignoring allegations of danger against his children clients and his skewing facts before this Court on April 16, 2009 raises the question whether the childrens' wishes are being represented without being skewed too.  That is easily answered as he is skewing the childrens' wishes when he reported on August 24, 2009 at a court conference, in my presence and before Law Clerk Susan Flynn, that it was "like pulling teeth" but that "the other three are all on board with the mother's petition."  That is a suspicious way to report childrens' feelings, especially children in danger whom he failed to meet for over 30 days at the direction of the mother's attorney. Moreover, the Petition in no uncertain terms states the children want to live with the mother. Hence, their response should not be as reluctant as "like pulling teeth". If the children supported the mother's petition then  they would seize the opportunity for their freedom, not be reluctant.
 16.  At that August 24, 2009 conference, I vehemently insisted on forensics because the allegations of danger were so serious.  I also asked Ms. Flynn, the Law Clerk to this Court, that the mother should be psychologically evaluated through forensics for a lot of reasons, considering she is repeating the same misconduct that this Court in the past found as the reason she does not have custody in the first place, and the bizareness of her recent filing, including claiming every one is mentally ill, including personal attacks of mental illness against counsel.  Ms. Flynn, Kent Jones, Leslie Boring (the Law Guardian for the eldest daughter), and Moron immediately refused forensics.   Ms. Flynn directed me to tell my client that if he wanted forensics it would cost him some $10,000, and she specified that should end his request for an investigation. She also directed me to have him obtain his own expert. Yet this is a case demanding court based investigation considering the unbalanced sentence structure of the Petition and other documents filed by Moron and her client Smith showing irrationality and a Petition filed to harass and annoy Robert Smith with allegations of indecency and endangering the children. Again, it is hard to understand why this court and its appointed law guardians have such serious allegations before them yet no one has done anything except say the kids are "on board" and support the mother's petition; simply ignoring the danger and physical threats they are enduring, as alleged.
 17.  Mr. Jones's reporting of the childrens' wishes is incredible when he is taking directions from the mother's counsel, made improper statements to the children during the initial interview referencing crimes, violence and calling his own mother "dumb",  disrespectful statements of "kicking out" the father, Robert Smith, and refuses any investigation of these serious allegations. He met with the children and is not reporting that they are in danger according to the Petition.  He only reports that the kids are "on board" with the mother's petition. That is not a change of circumstances warranting the petition or a hearing.  Every one in this matter is ignoring the standard of a change of circumstance that would support the Petition.  Instead, the standard they are using is a biased,
 prejudicial standard of reporting the children are "on board".  Kent Jones is basically telling us that he got the children to say they want to live with the mother; but never did he express a change of circumstances warranting why there should be a change of custody. That is a dereliction of his duties as a law guardian and as a lawyer. He has the duty to follow the law and the childrens' wishes, not make up law and wishes as he goes along. His twice misrepresenting facts to this Court concerning not being able to meet with the children puts him under scrutiny as ethically he must be truthful to this tribunal, not conceal his own failings of not meeting the children because he was doing his taxes, and worse, not meeting them because he was taking directions from Moron.
 18. Nonetheless, the children have stepped forward and written their wishes to obtain their own counsel because Kent Jones was not representing them (see 8/29/09 Smith Aff. Exh. A).  I note that I took great pains to inform Respondent Robert Smith that the children can not be influenced in any way and he assured me he only asked them if it would be true that they reported to anyone that they wanted to change their residence and if that was false. He let them know they had the right to an attorney of their own choosing.  I make this point because I anticipate the response that he cajoled them.  Robert Smith's position is that he, as the custodial father, can not be prevented from speaking with his children when he understands their interests are not being represented, and are instead being misrepresented with what appears to be an agenda to side with one parent, creating a serious conflict with the Childrens' wishes.
 19.  And again, to preserve this record with his constitutional rights, it is our position that his constitutional right to parent his children under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000) includes his right to speak with them as a parent without interference from the State, and as a parent who is obligated to protect their interests when he is made aware of a possible fraud to the Court regarding their interests, and certainly regarding any baseless, fraudulent Petition and further false allegations by Moron of indecency, physical threats and damage to the children. The fact is, he did what he is obligated to do as a parent in speaking with his children. On the other hand, when petitioner Smith and her attorney Moron have the gall to file such a hideous Petition that they can not support and no one wants to investigate, then they should be prepared to stand by it-not communicate with law guardians and direct them not to meet with the children they allege are in danger.
  20. As this Court affirmed, children should be heard and have the right to be represented by counsel (Exhibit A 20-21:21-25).  As this Court's Children's Bill of Rights mandates, the children's wishes should be followed.  This Court must accept the children's wishes, remove Kent Jones and allow the children to choose their own counsel, whom they indicated they choose Ms. Adams.

 21.  Melissa Adams, Esq. is a licensed attorney ready, willing and able to represent the children. She affirms she will represent the children with out any bias to either parent (8/27/09 Adams, Aff.)  The children are familiar with her.  It will not be "like pulling teeth" to talk to her as it is for the children to talk to Mr. Jones.  I doubt Ms. Adams would shun her legal responsibilities to protect the welfare of the children.  Moreover, if there is any danger, indecency and damage to the Children as this Court accepted as true from the petition then we invite Ms. Adams to report it.
 22. Lastly, the court scheduled an in camera interview of all 4 children for October 6, 2009.  Respondent Robert Smith objects to any in camera interview of his children. The children are 15, 14, 12 and 10 years old.  Notably, it was Robert Smith's position from day one of this case that this is a non-case, completely dismissable, and that the children should not be subjected to any of this.  In response to our wanting to protect the children from another morass of frivolous proceedings that Respondent contends are damaging to children1, this Court said on the record "Children are resilient." and should be heard, and refused to keep the children out of a proceeding at the same time refusing to appoint forensics to investigate the seriousness of the allegations of danger upon them. Thus, it should be of no consequence that the children speak in open court as the Court confirmed they are resilient and should be heard and clearly the Court sees no danger to them from being involved in these proceedings.  The children are very aware of these proceedings not only from involving them with a Law Guardian who made his hideous speech to them regarding Family Court crimes, his "dumb" mother and his other tasteless comments (8/29/09 Smith Aff), but from the fact that they told the father that the mother informed them of these proceedings prior to their meeting the Law Guardian.  They are mature enough to express their feelings in open court.  If this court denies this application, it is requested that a stenographer be present for any in camera interview made at any time with any of the children.
  23.  No previous application for the relief sought herein has been made to this or any other Court or Judge .
            WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the application be granted: (a) removing Kent Jones as the law guardian to the children, Robert, age 15, Steven age 12 and April, age 10 (the "Children") (b) appointing Melissa Adams, Esq.  as counsel to the Children, (c) objecting to any in camera interview of the children and/or insuring any in camera interview with any of the Smith children be made before a stenographer and (d) for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
   Dated:   August 29, 2009           Yours, etc
                                               LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK 
                                              ___________________________ 
                                               BY:  Susan Chana Lask, Esq. 
                                              Attorney for Petitioner
                                              244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369  
                                               New York, NY 10001
                                              (212) 358-5762
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
_________________________________________     
SUSAN C. Smith (f/k/a SUSAN C. Smith)                       File No.3XXXX
                                      Petitioner,                         Docket No. V-XXXX-02/09C
 -against-                                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C, V-XXXXX-02/09C
ROBERT H. Smith, JR.                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C  
                          Respondent.                                AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT  
_________________________________    
                     
STATE OF NEW YORK    )  ss:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS  )
   ROBERT H. Smith, JR., being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:

 1. I am the Respondent herein.  I submit this affidavit in support of my application for an  order removing Kent Jones as the law guardian of my children, Robert, age 15, Steven age 12 and April, age 10 (the "Children") and objecting to in camera interviews of my children.
 2.  This court assigned Kent Jones as the Law Guardian for the Children. On May 6, 2009, at 4:45 p.m. I brought my children to meet with Kent Jones at his office located in Poughkeepsie.
 3.  Upon meeting Kent Jones with my children, he never greeted me in any way, extended his hand nor ever offered me any accommodation of "please come in" or "please sit here".  I said hello to him and he did not respond to me at all.  He treated me with disrespect in front of my children.  At that meeting Kent Jones delivered a 15 minute speech to the children in my presence.  He started with "You've lived with your Dad a long time."  My conclusion from that was he was inferring to the children that it was time to live with their mother.  He referred to me numerous times as  "We're going to kick your father out".  Every time he said that, I saw my children's expression change to fear. His speech included informing the children that there could be  "possible criminal charges against parents" in family courts and he gave an example of a father hitting his child in the head with a brick while the child was in bed.  He told the children that they should feel very loved because "both parents are fighting over you.".  I find that a hideous statement and creating immediate conflict to the children. He also said that his own Mother was "dumb" because she had six children and there was only one television in his house with a few channels.  Then he criticizes these young children by asking what their favorite television program was, and when Jesse responded "Nickalodean", he condescendingly retorted "Nickolodean is not a program, its a channel." Steven's feelings were outwardly hurt by his
 response. 
 4.  I watched my children frightened from his monologue of parental name calling of his own mother and scenarios of violence of hitting a child in bed and possible criminal charges in family court cases.   
 5.  At the end of his monologue, he asked the children in my presence if they would like to meet as a group or individually.  The children responded they did not want to meet him individually.  Two of the children. Steven and April specifically stated "I do not want to meet with you alone." Each child looked sad and frightened by the end of his monologue.
 6.  Before I left the room, Mr. Jones received a text message that he relayed to me stating he had to cut the meeting short to pick up his son. At 5:22 he dismissed the children. Upon leaving he told me he would meet the children at school or at my house.  I offered to return the children to his office at his convenience. He refused my offer, saying "I will come to you, either to your home or school.".
 7.  On our drive home, the children were silent, sad, frightened. Jesse was holding my hand. Robert told me that Mr. Jones mocked his intelligence by treating him like a two year old by Mr. Jones's attitude and approach.  Because of this one meeting, the children missed soccer practice, baseball practice, softball practice and USA swimming practice.
 8.  The next day my youngest daughter, Summer, 10 years old, complained to me of abdominal pain and heartburn.  She did not feel good and could not sleep well that next might.  By the second day her teacher called me and said Summer was complaining about stomach pains.  As a licensed physician, I knew her complaints followed the traumatic effects of meeting the Law Guardian as Summer has a perfect attendance record at school for the past 6 years, and the relation to her complaints immediately after meeting Kent Jones were not a coincidence.
 9. On May 11, 2009, the next court appearance, Mr. Jones stated to this Court that he had only been given a one hour window to meet the children, therefore he did not have time assess them.  He deliberately failed to inform the court that I offered to bring the children back to accommodate Mr. Jones's schedule before the Court date. He failed to inform he refused my offer, insisting he wanted to see the children at school and/or at my home.   
 10.  On July 10, 2009, Mr. Jones had the mother bring the three children into his office to meet them.  Neither he nor the mother informed me of this scheduled meeting with my children. I surreptitiously discovered this only because my son Robert called me the night before to obtain his Boy Scout advisor's phone number. When I asked why, he related he had to reschedule for July 10.  As the custodial parent, I have the right to know and must be informed where my children are, including if they are going to Mr. Jones's office. 
 11.  On August 24, 2009, my attorney reported to me that during a conference before law clerk Susan Flynn, with Mr. Jones, Ms. Boring and Ms. Moron present, Ms. Boring, who represents the individual child, Joy, age 14, reported that her "client supports the Mother's petition".  Mr. Jones then stated that he met with my other 3 children and "it was like pulling teeth" to get them to speak but he stated that "the other three are all on board with the mother's petition."
 12.  I object to Mr. Jones's handling of this matter and my children.  His speech was unprofessional and frightening. He has refused to acknowledge the Childrens' wishes nor even treat them in an acceptable manner.  Despite Mr. Jones's report, Robert and Jesse have consistently informed me that they do not want to leave their residence with me.  On August 24, 2009, after hearing Mr. Jones's report that "the other three are all on board with the mother's petition.", and knowing that my children tell me otherwise, I, as the custodial parent, asked Robert and Steven if it would be untrue if someone reported to the court that they wanted to change their present circumstances and move to their mother's and/or leave my custody.  Both children stated that would be a false report, and they spontaneously volunteered that Mr. Jones was very difficult to communicate with, was trying to put words in their mouths, and was not listening to them. I informed them that the law guardian's job was to represent them. They stated he was not representing them and that he was on their Mom's side.
 13. Mr. Jones has also violated the Childrens' Bill of Rights handed out by this Court. I do not believe that Bill of Rights is limited to the Parents as any adult, including a Law Guardian, should respect the Childrens' rights. They had already expressed to Mr. Jones they did not want to be seen alone.  Mr. Jones ignored the childrens' requests, which according to the Children's Bill of Rights that this Court handed to us, states they have the right to express certain feelings.  Their feelings were they did not want to be seen alone by him.  The children have the right not to be asked to choose sides between their parents, yet Mr. Jones drives an agenda of sides by starting his speech with "you've been with your Dad a long time." And the children informed me they feel he has taken the mother's side. The Bill of Rights says they have the right not to be asked by one parent to tell the other parent untruths.  The untruth is basically passed on to this Court by Mr. Jones that the children do not want to live with me.  It also says they have the right not to be used as a confidant regarding the legal proceedings between the parents. How do the children know through their mother and not their father that they will meet confidentially with the law guardian?  I was not informed until I accidentally discovered from my son who was afraid to tell me of the confidential meeting with Mr. Jones.  Another one is the right to express feelings whatever those feelings may be. Why is Mr. Jones not informing that the children want to live with me?  They have the right not to express certain feelings.  The word "not" is underlined to show its importance.  Then why when the children do not want to speak to Mr. Jones is he describing their communications to this court as "like pulling teeth." If that is the case, Mr. Jones should not be near my children as clearly he makes them uncomfortable, and I witnessed his horrific monologue that frightened my children.
 14.  Neither this Court nor the Law Guardian informed me nor my children of their right to have their own counsel as permitted by law.  On April 6, 2009, this Court ex parte imposed a law guardian of its choice on my children and confirmed that unilateral appointment again on April 16, 2009 at the first appearance, never informing me that the children had the option to counsel of their own choice. Mr. Jones never during his introduction in my presence, stated to me or the children that they have a right to choose their own counsel.
 15.  The children have the right to their own counsel. They do not want Mr. Jones.  They have expressed their feelings by their letters attached hereto as Exhibit A.  I, as the custodial parent and on their behalf, request his removal. The children shall choose their own counsel.
 16. At all costs, the mother should not take the children secretly to another meeting with Mr. Jones until this motion is resolved.
 17.  I object to any in camera of my children.  They are 15, 14, 12 and 10. They are mature enough to speak in open court.
 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that my application be granted: (a) removing Kent Jones as the law guardian to the children, Robert, age 15, Jesse age 12 and Summer, age 10 (the "Children") (b) appointing Melissa Adams, Esq.  as counsel to the Children, (c) insuring any in camera interview with any of the Smith children be made before a stenographer and (d) for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
STATE OF NEW YORK   )      

COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ) ss.: 
 ROBERT H. Smith, JR., being duly sworn, states that he is the Respondent in this action and that the foregoing affidavit is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true.
      
 ___________________________                          _____________________________
Sworn to and Subscribed                                        ROBERT H. Smith, JR.,
before me this 29th day of August, 2009      
NOTARY PUBLIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
_________________________________________     
SUSAN C. Smith (f/k/a SUSAN C. Smith)                       File No.3XXXX
                                      Petitioner,                         Docket No. V-XXXX-02/09C
 -against-                                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C, V-XXXXX-02/09C
ROBERT H. Smith, JR.                                                V-XXXXX-02/09C
                                                                             AFFIRMATION OF COUNSEL  
                                        Respondent.     
________________________________________________    
       Melissa Adams, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York and in good standing with offices in this State, affirms to the following under penalties of perjury:
 1.   I am a licensed attorney. I submit this affirmation in that I am willing to represent Robert, Steven and April Smith.
 2.  I am a fellow parent in the school district that the Smith children attend.  My children are the same age as Dr. Smith's children. I have observed the children at school, athletic events and social functions.
 3.  I am informed that their present assigned law guardian, Kent Jones, stated during an August 24, 2009 court conference that "it was like pulling teeth" to communicate with the children.  Dr. Smith states his sons have informed him they do not want to be represented by Mr. Jones.
 4.  I have not communicated in any way with the children with regard to this case; however, I am prepared to represent their interests without any bias to either parent. Since the children know me, the hope is that the reluctance they are experiencing with Mr. Jones would not be present with me.
 5.  I will advocate for the children according to whatever their wishes shall be.
 Dated:  Hopewell Junction, New York
             August 27, 2009                    ______________________________________
                                                        Melissa Adams, Esq
                                                         XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
                                                         Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
                                                         (845) XXXXXX