This page reveals exactly how it happened, every step, every omission, every abuse of process.
A Court-Involved Therapist is a “trusted professional.”
The court grants them access to the children and relies on their confidential reports to make critical decisions. Their primary duty is to the patient’s well-being and the court’s orders. Therefore, you cannot win by simply disagreeing with their clinical methods. You must prove that the therapist abandoned their neutral, patient-focused role or violated direct court orders, using their trusted position to exclude a parent and advocate for a specific, biased outcome.
According to the record, the therapist’s conduct included:
Unauthorized Sessions & Exclusion: Conducting 69 therapy sessions from 2023-2025 without the mother’s knowledge or inclusion, contrary to a February 13, 2023 court order that required communications to include both parents.
Report Leading to Emergency Order: Submitting a January 28, 2024 report with “extreme allegations” that the mother was never allowed to see or respond to. The judge reviewed this report in camera and cited it as “too graphic” to share.
Continuing Work After Replacement: Allegedly continuing to provide and bill for therapy, including unauthorized charges, after a new therapist was appointed by the court on July 22, 2024.
Clic
Julia Battle — Using her license to spin a lie.
January 29, 2024
Reviewed a therapist’s report in camera (privately) on January 29, 2024.
The mother was denied access to this report. Parenting time was suspended on the same day the report was reviewed. The written journal entry for this order was issued on February 21, 2024
January 29, 2024
March 1, 2024
Protective-Order & Records Access Rulings (2025)
On March 14, 2025, denied the mother’s objections to a restrictive protective order from DCF and required in-camera review.
On April 4, 2025, denied the mother’s motion to revise this ruling, which filings allege delayed her access to exculpatory records.
March 1, 2024
April 1, 2025
Trial Cancellation & Access Findings (April 2025)
On April 1, 2025, the court cancelled the April custody trial, citing unpaid GAL fees.
On April 4, 2025, the court denied multiple motions filed by the mother, including motions to reinstate the trial and for ADA accommodations.
The court also imposed a “pre-filing restriction” on the mother alone.
The most glaring allegation is a clear violation of a court order. A February 13, 2023 order reportedly required that all communications include both parents and the GAL. Despite this, filings allege that from 2023-2025, Battle conducted 69 therapy sessions without the mother’s knowledge or inclusion. This isn’t a simple oversight; it’s a documented pattern of deliberately excluding one parent. In a high-conflict custody case, this conduct would be presented as the therapist actively obstructing reunification and fostering an environment of alienation, all while ignoring a direct judicial mandate.
The “Secret Report” as a Weapon
This is the central event. The record alleges Battle submitted a report on January 28, 2024, containing “extreme allegations”. This report was immediately used by the GAL and the Judge the very next day to suspend all of the mother’s parenting time. The most severe due process violation, however, is that the mother was “never allowed to see or respond to it”. The judge himself even cited it as “too graphic” to share. This action transforms the therapist’s role from a reporter to an accuser, effectively “convicting” the mother with secret evidence that she had no chance to rebut.
The “Disregard for Authority” Pattern
The allegations portray a pattern of complete disregard for judicial authority. Even after the court appointed a different Court-Involved Therapist on July 22, 2024, filings allege Battle continued. Furthermore, the complaint details unauthorized charges to the mother’s credit card. This behavior, when combined, would be framed as a rogue practitioner who not only violated court orders but continued to operate and bill for services she was no longer authorized to provide, suggesting a financial motive that supersedes court directives and ethical boundaries.
