Justice for Brix

Hi, my name is Bailey Hawkins. I am Brixton’s aunt. I would like to share his story to raise awareness on what is happening and how the family court system has failed him in so many ways. Brix’s story beginnings in 2021 he came home from the other parties’ house after a weekend visit with bruises ALL over his bottom. When asked what happened Brix stated the other party spanked him repeatedly because he did not know his ABC’s. This was reported to DHS. DHS ended up “confirming” the case a confirmed case which means the abuse happened but likely not to happen again… but it did, it happened may more times. Brix has come home with handprints on his bottom, bruising on his face and arms reported witnessing domestic abuse to the point he stated he had to hide in a closet. All reported to DHS, and nothing being done form that point. Brixton has been diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety from all he has witnessed at the other parties home and still nothing is being done. In July of 2022 Kelli had had enough and filed for a modification of custody. Kelli had to wait over a year before this was able to be brought before a judge. On August 29th, 2023, the modification hearing began. Kelli was seeking sole legal custody, supervised visits until Brix was 10 and no physical discipline. Kelli had pictures of all the marks left on Brixton and remembered in detail each thing that happened, picture/video proof of drug use in the other parties home and a clinical psychologist backing all the thing Brix has witnessed and reporting she has diagnosed Brix with PTSD due to all of this. This was a 2-day trial after it ended, we patiently waited for the judge to make his ruling. Surely after hearing all the suffering Brix has gone through SOMETHING would change Brix would be protected in some way… but no that was not the case (see below on just a few things the judge had said)

So, I bet you are wondering why the Go Fund Me? Kelli has already got a loan and maxed out her credit card in legal fees this amount is currently at $19,118.50 and the legal fees are going to continue, and I would like to help Kelli keep her head above water why….? Because the other party was arrested and recently pled guilty to child endangerment just a few months after this was ordered. Brixton was at the other parties home and was drug down a flight of stairs and thrown into a door leaving a bruise on Brixton’s head. Kelli will unfortunately have to go back to court and do this whole process again.

The money will go towards the current amount she owes and future legal fees. Any money that is raised above that will be donated to B.A.C.A- Bikers Against Child Abuse. They are a wonderful organization who help children that have suffered abuse.

** Few things the order stated**

This case centers on allegations of violence by other party, directed against B.B. and others. There were many allegations in the record. Some of those the Court finds to be credible allegations of violence that it considers in making its ruling. It is uncontested that other party assaulted partner’s dad by hitting him in the head with a rock in 2020. It is also uncontested that other party assaulted partner with a shoe in 2022. B.B. did not witness either of these incidents.

It is uncontested that B.B. was spanked by other party in July of 2021. This incident resulted in a confirmed child abuse report. (Ex. B). Bruises on B.B.’s buttocks were documented by Kelli. The Court agrees with the abuse assessment that the marks were caused by the spanking administered by other party. The Court finds that the force necessary to leave such marks is unreasonable and abusive.

The video of other party kicking Kelli’s dog in Exhibit 25 showed other parties’ violence as sudden, explosive, and out of proportion with the situation.

The clinical psychologist who has worked with B.B., recounted a detailed and troubling story related to her by B.B., wherein B.B. and A.B. hid in a closet while other party assaulted partner with a bat. The Court does not fully credit the details of the assault as relayed by B.B. to the clinical psychologist but the Court does find that B.B. witnessed something very frightening and agrees with the clinical psychologist that the experience has affected him.

The Court does believe that other party downplays the spanking incident of July 2021. The Court is skeptical regarding other parties claims about his marijuana usage and storage,

The Court is also concerned that there is more going on in his household (i.e., the “bat

incident”) than he is willing to discuss.

The Court places great weight on the testimony of the clinical psychologist. Her interactions with B.B. convince the Court that he has experienced trauma in other parties’ house. At the time of trial, her concerns going forward for B.B. were future exposure to domestic violence and adjusting to the academic and social rigors of school.

The Court has concerns about other parties’ future behavior based on his past behavior.

The Court finds that it is unlikely that B.B. will be physically harmed by other party while

in his care. The Court finds that the spanking incident is unlikely to be repeated.

The greater concern is the risk of significant emotional harm. Kelli has presented evidence, particularly through the clinical psychologist, that B.B. has suffered significant emotional harm from incidents he has experienced at other parties’ house, resulting in a PTSD diagnosis. Some sort of conflict occurred in B.B.’s presence that left him emotionally damaged. The Court finds that there is a likelihood that B.B. will suffer significant emotional harm unless restrictions are placed on other parties’ visits.

The Court has serious concerns about other parties’ household and the possibility that

B.B. will suffer emotional harm in that environment by being exposed to future acts of

domestic violence.

The Court’s ruling is predicated on finding that, while there is a likelihood that B.B will experience harmful situations at other parties’ house, those experiences will be rare, and will not be as severe as the incidents he has witnessed in the past.

I acknowledge that I may be wrong about that. Let me be clear that significant future violence or disruption in other parties’ household would serve to undermine the basis of this ruling, in a very close case, and a judge reviewing this matter in the future should calibrate the deference afforded to the findings in this ruling accordingly and consider imposing the more stringent restrictions requested by Kelli.

With all that being said, the ruling what changed exactly?...... Absolutely nothing to keep Brix safe.

Legal custody remined the same, Wednesday overnight was removed but the other party never used this to begin with, first right of refusal was removed, Brix will always have access to his communication device, other party shall participate in good faith in family therapy with Brix.