Nicole Rene Sherman Kramer Commits "Legal" Child Abduction

In January of 2014 Nicole Rene Sherman Kramer committed what is becoming known as “legal” child abduction. Nicole Rene Sherman Kramer took her minor child (then nine year old boy) to the state of Texas without notifying his Father, Nema Saadaie, or the California Family Court.

Nema Saadaie and his son enjoyed frequent and continuous contact since birth. Nicole Sherman has relentlessly objected to her son’s relationship with his Father. Mr. Saadaie’s only concern is his child’s overall well being and reasonable visitation.

When Mr. Saadaie learned of Nicole Sherman’s move to Texas – he filed for an immediate hearing to reinstate visitation. At the initial hearing, Nema Saadaie learned of a frivolous letter notifying him of the move, which was sent to his old address. Instead of battling Nicole Sherman’s attempt the flee the state of California, and losing more time with his son, Nema Saadaie’s primary concern was reinstating visitation with his son as soon as possible. A visitation agreement was set in place and Mr. Saadaie promptly flew to Texas to visit with his son.

Despite agreeing to terms just 12 days earlier, Nema Saadaie was denied visitation in April 2014. To complicate the matter – while he was in Texas, Nema Saadaie learned of erroneous abuse allegations on behalf of the mother and child. No mention of such abuse was ever brought before the Court or Nema Saadaie. No police officer ever called Nema Saadaie, furthermore indicating the frivolous nature of the allegation (child abuse is a very, very, serious offence in any jurisdiction). Nema Saadaie returned to California without seeing his son.

Nema Saadaie continued weekly phone conversations with his son after the trip to Texas. The nine year old has become increasingly defiant, disrespectful, now uses profanity, and behaves completely uncharacteristic of his former self. Nema Saadaie emailed Nicole Sherman and her council (Joseph D Castagno) on seven occasions between April 2014 and June 2014 stating that their son’s behavior was completely out of line on the telephone. Mr. Saadaie insisted cooperation and healthy communication.

As a result of the denied visitation in April 2014, Nema Saadaie successfully argued for an immediate Child Custody Investigation on July 11, 2014, to better determine the facts of the case, and provide a visitation plan to the Court. Nema Saadaie successfully argued that the cost of the investigation be split between both parents. Nema Saadaie also argued for counseling to commence for their son, and was told by the presiding Judge to try to reach an agreement with Nicole Sherman or her council.

On July 11, 2014, Nema Saadaie requested that Nicole Sherman enroll their son in counseling to better assist him with the issues that he was experiencing since his move. A high degree of parental alienation appeared to be present, and the signs of such were becoming rather clinical. Between July 11, 2014 and August 1, 2014, Nema Saadaie sent a half dozen emails to Nicole Sherman and her council requesting that everyone move forward with counseling. All such attempts were met with excuses and refusal to contribute one cent towards counseling for the child. The primary issue in the disagreement was cost and who would pay for the counseling.

On August 14, 2014, Nema Saadaie moved for an immediate ex-parte hearing to provide relief for the child in the form of a therapist/counselor. Nema Saadaie provided five therapists to pick from, all of which had a PhD and are experts with children. Nema Saadaie requested a 50/50 split sharing the costs. During this hearing – Nema Saadaie was informed by Nicole Sherman’s council in their official response that Ms. Sherman had in fact already enrolled their son in counseling.

The ex-parte request to provide the child with Court ordered therapy/counseling was DENIED PENDING HEARING, as an active Child Custody Investigation takes place. The matter will be revisited on November 6, 2014, when the Child Custody Investigation is complete.

Enrolling a child into therapy or counseling without notifying the other parent is one of the fundamental indicators of clinical parental alienation. This is especially alarming when one parent is actively seeking such relief for a child, and the other parent goes “behind their back” to seek their own independent therapist. Nicole Sherman avoided every opportunity to include an objective and mutually agreeable therapist. Nicole Sherman avoided every opportunity to contribute to a mutually agreeable therapist and refused to contribute to any extent.

One can only ask… what in God’s name is a person like this thinking? Or are they even thinking at all?


Close Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>