Fact Sheet: Custody Case & Abuse Allegations

Subject: Allison Thomas (Mother) | Timeline: April – May 2024

1. WV Courtesy Referral & Initial Allegations (April 8 – April 22)

  • April 8, 2024: A full medical exam was conducted on the child. Despite the Mother’s later claims, the medical report showed no evidence of a yeast infection or abuse. The child denied being touched or abused when asked by the doctor in the Mother’s presence.
  • April 19, 2024 (Abduction): The Mother took the child from school, violating custody protocols while the Father and grandparents were en route for pickup.
  • Law Enforcement Perjury: On April 19th, the Mother falsely told police that a doctor had already “found abuse” and that she was currently obtaining a protection order. Subsequent verification proved both statements were false at the time they were made.
  • Teacher Manipulation: The Mother contacted the child’s teacher in Maryland, claiming the child had a yeast infection and suspected abuse. Based solely on these assertions (as the teacher later testified in August 2025), the teacher filed a referral in Maryland rather than West Virginia about april 22
  • Withholding Access: Phone records (Exhibit A) show the Mother made numerous calls to CPS from March 27–29 (which were screened out) and again starting April 22 to disrupt the custody order.

2. Forensic Interview & Alleged Coaching (April 22 – April 26)

  • April 22, 2024 (False Protective Order): The Mother filed for a protective order in Maryland using false statements, claiming Maryland CPS had an open investigation when they did not yet have one. This was used to secure custody before the forensic interview.
  • Evidence of Coaching: Prior to the interview, the Mother allegedly gifted the child a new scooter and toys, and placed “propaganda posters” in the child’s room to influence her testimony.
  • Pre-Interview Behavior: On April 21st, the child made statements about “tricking” the Father so he would go to jail. On May 22nd, the Father witnessed the child performing sexual acts she claimed the Mother taught her.
  • April 26, 2024 (Forensic Interview): Maryland CPS conducted a forensic interview. Observations noted:
    • The child answered questions before they were asked.
    • The mandatory “truth affirmation” was not completed.
    • Statements regarding the location of the alleged abuse were factually impossible (claiming it happened in a house the family had not yet moved into during the timeframe described).

3. Investigation Reports & Findings

  • Geofence Verification: Law enforcement verified the Father’s location via geofencing, proving he made no stops in parking lots during The few times the father had custody this cat
  • West Virginia CPS Contradictions: When West Virginia CPS interviewed the child, her statements directly contradicted those she gave during the Maryland forensic interview. She claimed she told her mother immediately when she got home A statement The mother disputes
  • Medical Record Blocking: It was discovered that the Mother attempted to block the Father’s access to the April 8th medical records which cleared him of the abuse allegations.
  • Final Finding (May 30, 2024): Maryland CPS officially deemed the abuse allegations unsubstantiated. The investigation found a total lack of corroboration and significant contradictions in the child’s testimony.

4. Final Protection Order & Letters (May 30, 2024)

  • Maryland Adjudication: On May 30, 2024, the matter was heard in a Maryland court. Due to the “unsubstantiated” finding by CPS and lack of evidence, no finding of guilt or abuse was made against the Father.
  • Mutual Consent Order: To resolve the immediate conflict and ensure a safe environment for the child to recant coaching, the Father’s counsel proposed a consent order.
  • Terms of Agreement:
    • The protective order was entered by mutual consent without a finding of abuse.
    • Mandated reunification therapy for the Father and child.
    • Weekly supervised visitation at a facility in Maryland.
    • The Mother insisted on a three-month duration for these terms despite the Father’s reluctance.
  • Purpose of Supervised Setting: The supervised setting was intended to allow the child to speak freely of the Mother’s manipulation in the presence of professional witnesses to prevent future false allegations.