Watch for Updates

.

Francesca (Fran) Amato-Banfield came to my attention recently when she showed up with Samantha Brown and Jamie Sparks Wehrheim Johnson to try and bring some attention to the case of Lee Kenworthy who had his 2 children removed by New Jersey’s child protective agency (“the Division”).  In  conjunction therewith, Lee Kenworthy went through a short period of institutionalism due to mental issues and has been released.

.

Fran fancies herself a leader in the movement against the Government with a specialty in child welfare and family court matters.  She has had her own, personal issues involving child custody and family courts which may have conditioned her for her chosen cause.

.

Link to Fran’s personal FaceBook page (from which I am blocked):

.

https://www.facebook.com/toccarenon

.

Link to my related story on this site on Lee Kenworthy:

.

http://kehvrlb.com/lee-kenworthy-v-the-world

.

Link to Fran’s cause FaceBook page:

.

https://www.facebook.com/punished4protectingadvocacynetwork/

.

Link to Fran’s website:

.

https://www.punished4beingaparent.com/

.

Public Service Announcement regarding Fran, Jamie & Samantha:

.

.

What Lee Kenworthy said about Fran just before his infamous Memorial Day 2018 standoff with authorities before his kids were removed by the State and he was sent to a mental institution.

.

.

What Christine Mueller, Lee’s program host, said shortly before Lee gave his opinion of Fran:

.

.

Fran’s movement appears to be fracturing with various “players” being at odds with each other.  Fran and Lee seem to be trying to present an image of “kiss and make up” and move forward even while Fran declares war on her “in-house” adversaries who also appear determined to go to war with Fran.

.

Here’s a link to Fran’s July 23, 2018 interview with Lee and a screenshot/quote in the context of Fran’s efforts to “get” her “in-house” adversaries such as C.J. Abernathy and John Anderson.

.

.

.

In light of my earlier coverage of the Lee Kenworthy case and critical reporting of her on-line antics with Samantha Brown and Jamie Sparks Wehrheim Johnson, Fran has blocked me from her personal FaceBook page.

.

After hearing what Fran said today about “suing” people, I thought it might be appropriate for me to document my own objection to what Fran is and what she does.

.

On her website, Fran makes the following claim about her “P4P” organization:

.

“Punished 4 Protecting, Inc. (P4P)

as a 501 (c) 4 social welfare non-profit

Family Court Reform entity,

was established January 2018.”

.

I am not personally aware that Fran’s “P4P” has officially been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(4) organization.  That process may or may not be underway or has been completed.

.

Fran seems to have many irons in many fires which makes figuring out her schemes somewhat difficult.

.

Based on my own experience in covering her movement and related causes over the last couple of years, I consider Fran more likely a “fraud” as Lee Kenworthy and others of her own kind have claimed; exploiting the unfortunate circumstances of people with issues with child welfare/family court agencies for her own purposes instead of working, in good faith, to help them deal with “due processes” in place and/or work to change the systems.

.

I consider Fran’s involvement and antics in the Lee Kenworthy case as evidence supporting my opinions about Fran and her operations.

.

Update July 23, 2018

.

Link to Abernathy-Kenworthy broadcast of July 23, 2018 and one earlier related broadcast:

.

https://www.facebook.com/cjabernathey/videos/10160813879920232/

.

https://www.facebook.com/cjabernathey/videos/10160811313170232/

Graphic:

.

.

C.J. Abernathy responds to Fran’s challenge at:

.

https://www.facebook.com/cjabernathey/videos/10160815142530232/

.

Update July 30, 2018

.

Francesca’s (aka Francis/Frances/Fran) frivolous federal suit dismissal action.

.

Francesca Federal Suit

.

Update July 31, 2018

.

Shortly after the above case was dismissed, Fran regrouped and filed another frivolous federal suit.  Best I can tell, it is currently being postured for dismissal as was the above case (Fran has other, older cases in federal court she has also “lost”).

.

Here’s the file containing the COMPLAINT in the pending case:

.

Amato Suit 112117

.
Here’s a link to and text of a State case involving Frances and her child’s father (he won).

.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2018/524467.html

.

Matter of Beesmer v Amato

.

Matter of Beesmer v Amato 2018 NY Slip Op 04403 Decided on June 14, 2018 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. 
.
Decided and Entered: June 14, 2018 
524467 
.
[*1]In the Matter of PATRICK BEESMER, Respondent, 
.
v
.
FRANCES J. AMATO, Appellant. 
.
Calendar Date: April 24, 2018 
Before: Lynch, J.P., Devine, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ. 
.
Meth Law Offices, PC, Chester (Michael D. Meth of counsel), for appellant.Tracy E. Steeves, Kingston, for respondent.Marcia Heller, Rock Hill, attorney for the child..
Aarons, J.MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (McGinty, J.), entered January 31, 2017, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of custody.

.

Respondent (hereinafter the mother) and petitioner (hereinafter the father) are the parents of a son (born in 2007). In 2015, the mother and the father filed competing petitions to modify a prior custody order under which, as relevant here, the mother had primary physical custody of the child.

.

In October 2016, Family Court, among other things, awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child and awarded the mother supervised visitation with the child. The October 2016 order also imposed a 60-day jail sentence upon the mother, with the term being suspended so long as the mother complied with the order and delivered the child to the father within 10 days of being served therewith. In January 2017, the father filed a violation petition seeking to hold the mother in contempt based upon her failure to comply with the terms of the October 2016 order.

.

Following a hearing, Family Court found that the mother willfully violated the October 2016 order and ordered her to be committed to the Ulster County jail for 60 [*2]days [FN1]. The mother appeals.

“To sustain a finding of civil contempt for a violation of a court order, a petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that there was a lawful court order in effect that clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, that the person who allegedly violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that his or her actions or failure to act defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a right of the moving party” (Matter of Wesko v Hollenbeck, 149 AD3d 1175, 1175—1176 [2017] [internal quotations marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Eller v Eller, 134 AD3d 1319, 1320 [2015]; Matter of Aurelia v Aurelia, 56 AD3d 963, 964 [2008]). A court’s determination finding a party in contempt of an order will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion (see Seale v Seale, 154 AD3d 1190, 1192 [2017]; Matter of Gerber v Gerber, 145 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2016]; Matter of Aurelia v Aurelia, 56 AD3d at 964).

.

Contrary to respondent’s assertion, the record evidence supports Family Court’s determination that she was properly served with the October 2016 order via her designated agent for service (see Family Ct Act § 154-b [2] [c]).

.

To the extent that the designated agent denied being served with the October 2016 order, Family Court did not credit her testimony (see Matter of Yeager v Yeager, 110 AD3d 1207, 1210 [2013]).

.

Moreover, the mother had notice of the October 2016 order, at the latest, by the middle of December 2016. In this regard, she testified that, at that time, she learned of the October 2016 order through her social media account and immediately hired an attorney [FN2]. She did not, however, return the child to the father.

.

Furthermore, when the mother knew there was a change in custody pursuant to the October 2016 order, she still refused to return the child to the father.

.

In view of the foregoing, the father established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother willfully violated a lawful order (see Matter of Dorsey v De’Loache, 150 AD3d 1420, 1423-1424 [2017]; Matter of Seacord v Seacord, 81 AD3d 1101, 1102-1103 [2011]; Matter of Joseph YY. v Terri YY., 75 AD3d 863, 867 [2010]).

.

Finally, the mother waived her argument that the father’s contempt petition was facially deficient by failing to raise any objection thereto and by appearing and defending against the petition’s allegations (see Matter of Glenn v Glenn, 262 AD2d 885, 886 [1999], lv dismissed and denied 94 NY2d 782 [1999]).

.

In any event, the petition satisfied the requirements of Judiciary Law § 756.

.

Nor do we find merit in the mother’s contention that the imposed jail term was excessive or stemmed from an abuse of Family Court’s discretion.

.

The mother’s remaining contentions have been examined and have been found to be without merit.

.

Lynch, J.P., Devine, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

.

Footnotes 
.
Footnote 1: This Court stayed enforcement of Family Court’s order of commitment pending this appeal. 

Footnote 2: Notwithstanding her testimony, we note that the mother, in her brief, stated that she received notice of the October 2016 order towards the end of November 2016. 

.

.

Update August 12, 2018

.

Link to Richard Provost notice of above on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/P4PWV/status/1028553326240182272

.

Update October 28, 2018

I saw the following and thought it worth posting here for reference.  I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of the claims.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2004067452972707&set=a.664410956938370&type=3&theater

.

From: Jim Mims

Date: October 28, 2018

Time: 9:47 AM

.

true and false:

.

1. Fran is running for governor of ny…this is false, this is another one of her many schemes to get donations from unsuspecting parents.

.

2. Fran is fighting the system hard and they fear her. this is false, Fran is actually too stupid to fight the system, she is using that as a ploy to get donations.

.

3. Frans ADA complaint has been excepted. this is false. unless being denied is a win she is oblivious to law.

.

4. I am mad because Traci, is cheating on me. this is false, first Traci is and never was cheating on me. there have been multiple men that have hit on her including the perv she is with. we laughed at them together.

.

5. trolls are trying to take Fran, down. this is true, she labels everyone that knows what she is doing a troll.

.

6. I want her. this is without a doubt false. she expressed interest in me many times before and while I’m in a relationship. many other men have come forward as well, all to smart to get involved, including her ex. she tried to get him back while she is with the pervert she is dating.

.

7. Fran helps kids. this is false. she somehow convinces poor unsuspecting parents that she knows what she is doing and destroys their case, for a fee.

.

8. Fran is sending nude phots to men in the movement. this is true. in her misguided attempt to convince people that she is female she will send the most discusting pictures of her self. please use caution, its not a pretty sight.

.

9. her ex is a drug user. this is false, her current boyfriend is, he has even been charged with manufacturing. she says this to get support for alienating her son from his father.

.

10. Traci is just mad because she wants her man. this is faulse, Traci met him and was discussed at who and what he is. he is butt hurt because she rejected him for obvious reasons. Traci actually thinks they are ment for each other, so does frans ex.

.

11. everyone is attacking Fran. this is false. she is hurting people and their cases and they are angry about that.

.

please feel free to add in comments.

.

Related Photo

.


 


Comments

Francesca Amato-Banfield – Fraud Alert! — No Comments

Leave a Reply