Bad Judge: Judge Patricia Gardner with the the 17th Circuit Court, Family Court in Kent County, Grand Rapids, Michigan


Judge Patricia Gardner with the the 17th Circuit Court, Family Court in Kent County, Grand Rapids, Michigan is a bad judge.

How Does A Bad Judge Stay In Office?

Read this article by Deanna Kloostra, February 1,  2011….  

Judge Patricia Gardner removed herself form the Karen Holmes case in 2009 claiming bias. In 2010 Judge Zemaitis gave sole custody to this mother based on the recommendations of Dave Bosworth, with the Friend of The Court, and the next day the father commits suicide. (Thank you God, that he did not decided to take his daughter with him.) Judge Zemaitis stated, “That was a very selfish thing for him to do.” Was it selfish or was it because of something else? This father had several Personal Protection Orders, even one that Judge Gardner personally signed. Karen had filed four complaints with the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC). To read more go to

In the Haner v Haner case, Judge Gardner gave Jennifer’s former spouse custody of the children. Judge Zemaitis came into the case and Jenifer received sole custody of her children, only a small filed can be obtained for review at the clerk’s desk.

Ann Lotus Deling had Judge Gardner give custody to her former spouse also. She went to the court of appeals and on October 7, 2010 the court of appeals in their opinion commented, “We note that this Court has in several previous cases reversed the trial judge in this case, Judge Patricia Gardner, for failure to conduct requisite hearings, to properly apply the law before changing or modifying custody.” The court of appeals sited four cases; one of them was Karen Holmes case mentioned earlier. In the Ann Lotus Deling case, the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) is Donna Mobilia. Donna is an attorney who sits on the State Bar of Michigan’s Family and Domestic Violence Committee. Being an attorney Donna knew that Gardner did not apply the laws correctly to this case.

Then we have the Ryan v Ryan’s case where the Court of Appeals said Judge Patricia Gardner ‘s decision to terminate parental rights was “clearly erroneous” given the evidence. In a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard of its proper role, ( Gardner ) stripped (the parents) of their basic constitutional rights to manage and care for their child without state interference. Judge Gardner ordered the parents to undergo counseling and sent their daughter to a foster home even thought the parents were never found to be unfit. Mary Benedict was the attorney in the Ryan v Ryan case. Mary Benedict called Judge Gardner at home and had a “secret meeting.” The Court of Appeals not only criticized Judge Gardner, but also criticized attorney Benedict, saying she failed to check into the facts of the claims made before filing the suit. Mary’s action was called into question, and so was her good faith and competence. Several people were deeply troubled that this matter was allowed to proceed in the trial court for as long, and in the manner in which it did. Several people are deeply troubled on how Judge Gardner handled the case. The case was about the intentional misuse of the legal system to circumvent laws designed to protect and maintain the integrity of families.

In the private v private case, the father did not pay the mother child support for 10 months. The mother lost custody of her house and then Judge Gardner gave the children to the father. This father owns his own business and has a huge house with a private move theater in his home. This father has been ordered to not drink around his children, but he continues and yes, this is also a case of domestic abuse.

In the Lowe v Lowe case, the mother Ruth lost custody of her children because the father retired and then did not pay his child support. Once again the mother lost her home ended up losing custody of her children to the father. The father moved to Ohio and continues to move the children. Ruth does not get regular contact with the children and the children do not show up for visitations. Ruth is currently living with friends and is unable to obtain wor

ge and understand of abuse where children are concerned. Deanna has written Donna twice and the Chief Judge once asking what Donna’s qualifications are and her understanding towards domestic violence, and they are ignored. Recently Deanna has filed a request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Deanna was ill and unable to represent herself or afford legal representation. West Michigan Legal Aid denied Deanna’s request for help several times. Deanna was under duress at that time and needed to find out what was making her ill. Deanna gave her former spouse custody of her children unable to fight against Donna. A year later it was discovered Deanna’s illness was due to mold being in her home that was detrimental to her health. The mold attacked the joints in Deanna’s hips and she attended physical therapy twice. After five years Deanna is finally in good health.

In May 2008, Deanna started a web site for non custodial mothers at August 1, 2008 Judge Gardner sends Deanna to supervised visitation without any evidence of harm. After visitation failed at the YWCA because Deanna was being harassed, parental boundaries were being stepped over, and they were not following safety protocols, Judge Gardner sent Deanna to Journies Inc. Deanna was made a 100% pay to receive services even though Judge Gardner knew Deanna was living on $400 per month after paying child support obligations. Judge Gardner denied Deanna Access to Visitation funding by State and Federal monies. Journies denied visitations because Deanna could not afford to pay $40 per hour per week.  Judge Gardner abused her discretion and then removed herself off the case claiming bias, and Donna Mobilia the GAL just sits back and allows it to happen.

Michigan laws. MCR 2.504(B) states the Court is required to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its decision on certain types of motions as in Jacobs v. Jacobs. Michigan Court Rule 2.517 In actions tried on the facts without a jury the court shall find the facts especially state separately its conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment. A brief, definite, and pertinent findings and conclusions on the contested matters are sufficient. The court may state the findings and conclusions on the record or include them in a written opinion. Pursuant to Michigan Child Custody Act MCL 722.27a. A child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record by clear and convincing evidence that it would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health.  MCL 722.27 (1) (d) The trial court’s ultimate findings relative to custody must be based upon competent evidence adduced at the hearing as in Duperon v Duperon. The trial courts must arrive at its own conclusion in a custody dispute and cannot delegate its authority to the FOC or other experts.

Judge Zemaitis takes over the Kloostra v Kloostra case and tells Deanna she needs to have Michigan law and case law that tell him how to do his job, yet Patrick can change all his phone contact numbers, go into court and request that Deanna not have phone communications with the children. He presented no evidence of Deanna even upsetting the children or abusing the phone conversations. Deanna is held at a higher standard then all parties in the case even though she is a pro se litigant. When Judge Zemaitis denied Deanna phone contact with her children, at that exact point the children were completely concealed from her under the color of law.

Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally and expansively, affording them all opportunity in obtaining substance of justice, over technicality of form. Mary v. Grassell Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938). If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax or sentence construction, or a litigant’s unfamiliarity with particular rule requirements Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70L.Ed.2d 551 (1982). When interpreting pro se papers, this Court is required to use its own common sense to determine what relief the party either desires, or is otherwise entitled to S.E.C. v Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)

Judge Zemaitis admits that he helped get the Safe Connection Program in the community because it was well needed, but Deanna sent all of the Safe Connection funder’s information on her experience and 30 days later the program was closed after only being open for five months. Deanna has also gone to Cooley Law’s Access to Justice Program for help after it was suggested by a public defender. Deanna was told by Cooley Law that the case was too complicated to take and that they did not have the funding. Judge Zemaitis is an instructor at Cooley Law and Judge Gardner donates money to the program. Judge Gardner is also a part of the Inn of Courts and grooms third year law students.

Journies refused Judge Zemaitis order to facilitate the supervised visitation and Deanna was then told by Judge Zemaitis to find her own supervised visitation since she was acting as her own attorney. Deanna found someone with the proper credentials and then was told in an order after hearing written by Donna Mobilia she needed file an evidentiary hearing as to this person’s “inappropriateness.” Deanna refused to put this man through her living night mare and a year later found out that Mary Benedict has a personal vendetta against this person. Judge Zemaitis then suggest Judy Gabriel’s do the supervised visitations. Patrick refused the place Deanna requested, the Wyoming Park Library. The library has glassed in rooms and security. Plaintiff wants the visitations to be in Greenville and extra expenses paid for by Deanna even though he knows Deanna can not already afford the $20 per week cost being charged her. (Patrick lives on $5,000 per month while Deanna was living on $600 per month after child support was paid. Currently Deanna is living on unemployment benefits of $260 per month and has not seen her children in two years and is unable to speak with her children.)

The court contracts with the Human Resource Associates for psychological evaluations. On purpose, Deanna made her appoint with Jeff Kieliszewski to do the psychological evaluation because a non custodial mother she had been communicating with told her how bad Jeff’s psychological evaluation was for her. Jeff and Donna had communication without Deanna being present. Deanna is a pro se litigant and was not privy to the communication. Donna faxed two motions Deanna filed to Jeff for him to review. Deanna’s test results came out as expected, not in her favor. Data is missing and Jeff contradicts himself through out the report. Father has a history of domestic violence and he is not sent for a psychological evaluation or supervised visitations, this is considered bias by the courts.

December 10, 2010 hearing, father cornered Deanna’s friend on an elevator screaming at her and threatening to file harassment charges against her. This friend had never met nor spoken to Patrick. Several people witnessed this in the court house that day and security was alerted. Donna, Mary, and Judge Zemaitis ignored his actions as if they did not occur.  Once again Deanna asked Judge Daniel Zemaitis the reasons for the supervised visitations Judge Zemaitis skirts his way around the question and refused to hold an evidentiary.

MCR 2.611 when findings of fact are made in an action tried by the court without a jury the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised.

Deanna is harassed at the Safe Connection program and then denied phone contact with the children even though there is no evidence of her inappropriateness. Deanna has jumped through hoop after hoop to see her children. This is outrageous behavior by all the parties in this case who are intentionally inflicting emotional distress on these children and their mother. This court has concealed Deanna’s children from her and is trying to coerce Deanna into shutting down her web site in order to see her children. We are currently aware of 28 non custodial mothers who have lost custody of their children to abusive fathers or illegally to foster care. Mothers are afraid to come forward for fear that they will be treated like this mother.

How does a bad judge stay in office? Because everyone turns a blind eye as to what is happening in our family courts. Follow the Kloostra v Kloostra case in the court of appeals. Go to click on Docket Number. The Kloostra v Kloostra Leave to Appeal case number is 302015 and the Appeal of Rights case number is 302006. Attached are the appeals for both cases.


To receive more information on Deanna’s case, others cases, or information regarding the 17TH Circuit Court, please go to and sign up for updates to be emailed to you directly. It is time to stop the family courts from harming our children.

Appeal-Custody Rights-Constitutional Finished Document

Appeal-Visitation-Lead to appeal Finished Document

Deanna Klos0tra

Leave a Reply