Rather than take the time to deconstruct and reconstruct this response piece, I have decided to let Amy Joan Schneider's words speak for themselves with the following disclaimers: I have not verified what Amy Joan has written here, but will do so if asked. The only "edits" I have done to Amy Joan's response has been formatting for the blog and some minor spelling. What few editorial comments I have inserted will be [bracketed and italicized]. Lastly, I do have a packet of information coming from Karen Coates that I will make relevant portions of available.
By Amy Joan Schneider
Before Amy Joan Schneider’s children were abducted on August 28, 2002, by Non-Parent Karen Coates, they had never been to her San Angelo, Texas home
The Lies:
Karen: “temporary custody of the children was originally asked for in hopes that Amy and/or the father (Mark Sliney) might resume custody when they were capable of doing so…”Christine would not allow Amy Joan to have her own children back after she gained Amy Joan’s confidence. Christine did not have children and simply kept Amy Joan’s children.
[I don't think either side can really prove their case on this point.]
Karen: because Amy wasn't involved in the kids' lives at all after 1995. She told me personally in July 2001 that 'If Christine dies, I don't want the kids back.'A lie, this is how Karen operates. “She said.” Amy Joan has denied the above allegation made by Karen. Again, there is no proof to support Karen’s derogatory claim against the Mother Amy Joan.
In 1995, the children became eligible for child support in the state of Washington. Mark has apparently been paying back child support, but the state of Washington had given up on locating Amy because she had, according to Karen, "vanished and hid from her family until 2001."It is an uncontroverted fact that Amy Joan has owned and operated her own photography business for the past 14 years. Amy Joan has coresponded on her letterhead and has run a buisness ad in THE YELLOW PAGES each and every year, how could it be true that Amy Joan “VANISHED AND HID FROM HER FAMILY UNTIL 2001”? A Lie! Records show, and there is no dispute, that Christine and Benito collected Forty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($49,000.00) in Public Aid for Amy Joan’s two children.
Karen: “Why are we spending money to protect the children from their mentally unstable mother? Because it is exactly what Christine would have wanted me to do.”Again, where is Karen’s proof. Amy Joan has provided a letter from a Illinois medical Doctor of Psychiatry which concluded that Amy Joan “is not unfit to parent her children.”
Matt Hurley writes: I think we have to question the "money" motive of both sides of this case.If you remember, the Court found that Amy Joan Schneider did not express interest in her two children until she became aware of the trust fund established in their names.
[I'm not real sure that Amy Joan phrased that last paragraph correctly, perhaps she will clarify. It isn't a pull quote from my story, so the words are hers. And I don't recall ANYBODY saying that the Court found anything about when Amy Joan expressed interest in the custody of her children.] [3/25 Update - see AJS's clarification below.]
Now in Karen’s own words, my proof that Karen is lying, the trial Court was factually wrong, and the Fourth District Court was factually wrong: Karen Coates’ January 14, 2003 sworn deposition testimony starting at p. 28, line 19:
Q: And were there any discussions with Amy regarding the kids in the fall of 2001.Karen’s sworn testimony,which was in the record, proves that the prevailing story regarding Amy Joan Schneider responding only to “the money” is yet another BIG LIE.
A: …during that telephone conversation, she began questioning whether or not the children should, you know, be in Seattle with Benito because he was not a blood relative. And I said, oh, please, you know, don’t start anything now. They just lost Christine. Don’t – I said, please, just, you know, leave them be…
Matt Hurley writes: In a number of the press releases that Amy has published, she states that she has had motions denied and witnesses that haven't been allowed to testify. Karen sheds some light on this situation: “there hasn't been an evidentiary hearing on the case since January 2003.”Again, a lie.
On October 30, 2003 and December 4, 2003 evidentiary hearings were held before Associate Judge Scott Diamond (Diamond works for Webber) on Benito, Dan, and Karen’s Motions. Judge Diamond granted their motions on December 5, 2003. Benito, Dan, and Karen were not present but they still won.
On February 17, 2004 an evidentiary hearing was held before Judge Webber. He granted the motion in their favor. Benito, Dan, and Karen were not present but they still won.
On June 11, 2004 Judge Albert G. Webber IV held an EVIDENTIARY hearing in his court on Benito DiTerlizzi’s Motion To Suspend [Amy Joan Schneider’s] Visitation. Again, Dan, Benito and Karen did not attend the June 11, 2004 evidentiary hearing but they still won.
On June 15, 2004 Judge Albert G. Webber IV GRANTED Benito DiTerlizzi’s motion and SUSPENDED the Mother Amy Joan Schneider’s visitation with her two Caucasian children who are being held in Texas by Dan and Karen Coates. I have copies of the motions if you want to see them.
The Macon County Illinois Court system was so corrupt that Karen Coates was able to foretell the eventual June 11, 2004 evidentiary hearing outcome regarding the Mother’s “visitation” with her children—18 months before it occurred. With hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, Karen’s prolific forecast was part of the record on January 14, 2003, in her sworn deposition.
Karen’s January 14, 2003 sworn deposition testimony this is what Karen had to say about “their mentally unstable mother”: “(Mother) Amy (Joan Schneider) is capable—a capable parent of Hailey and Eros” (African American) but that “I don’t think she should have regular visitation” with Kaela and Josh (Caucasian). Karen also testified, “I personally don’t believe that she should have more than one week of visitation. I personally prefer she have no court ordered visitation.”
ON JUNE 15, 2004, JUDGE WEBBER GRANTED KAREN’S MOTION AND SUSPENDED ALL VISITATION BETWEEN AMY JOAN SCHNEIDER AND HER TWO CAUCASIAN CHILDREN.
3/25 Update: AJS Clarifies
My petition to terminate the guardianship was filed on August 28, 2002.¶16 of Associate Judge Scott B. Diamond's April 2, 2003 order:
“Amy Schneider filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. This was after she learned that Christine De Terlizzi had left a trust for the two children with about $550,000.00 in it.”There have been direct allegations that I did not try to get my kids back until I found out about the trust fund. This is a very important point because Karen’s own sworn testimony shows that is wrong.
Karen's January 14, 2003 sworn deposition testimony, p. 37, line 15:
But Amy and I did talk about it. There was a day … August 14, I believe, about 5:45 in the afternoon, I had a conversation with her on my cell phone … when I talked with her on August 14, she – that was the first time that she said that she wanted to be considered … for guardianship of the children.According to the Fourth District Appellate Court’s Opinion, Karen has a $600,000.00 incentive to keep the Mother Amy Joan Schneider’s children in HER home and serve as guardian:
Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court Opinion:
…On August 17,2001, Christine died, leaving Benito as the sole guardian of K.E.S. and J.M.S. Christine's will named her other sister, Karen Coates, as the successor guardian of K.E.S. and J.M.S. in the event Benito was unable or unwilling to care for the children. The will also named Karen as successor trustee of a "$5-600,000.00" trust (estimates varied) established for the children's care if she were to become guardian…The whole thing is sadistic in a way. This incentive to Karen is the bottom line on the money controversy.
Under Illinois law, Karen should not be able to compete with any parent as long as the natural parent is willing and able:
Whether a nonparent petitioner may have the ability to provide a better environment for the child is not a factor to be considered where standing is in issue so long as the presumption that the natural parent is willing and able to care for the child remains unrebutted. In re Estate of Johnson, 284 Ill. App.3d 1080 (1996).This is good law but was not considered. I did not have a petition to be named guardian pending at the time the trial court entered its order. The Appeals court only looked at my Petition to terminate and therefore applied the “change in Circumstances’ standard. Now I do have a petition to be named guardian. The question now is “whether or not Amy Joan Schneider is willing and able to care for the child.”
