Special advocate for children of divorce wins $1.45M defamation suit

For years, Marlene Bizub has worked for the courts of El Paso County, trying to help children whose parents are going through a divorce.

So when a Colorado Springs psychologist went on a multiyear campaign to destroy Bizub's reputation in the legal community, she turned to the court.

And the court didn't disappoint.

This month, 4th Judicial District Judge David Prince ordered psychologist Elizabeth Paterson to pay Bizub $1.455 million for "maliciously" saying and publishing "false and misleading" things about Bizub, his ruling states. Prince also ordered Paterson to stop savaging Bizub's reputation.

Bizub sued Paterson for defamation because Paterson "engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct" by sending letters with lies about Bizub to "judges, lawyers, employers, authorities, (educational) institutions," according to the lawsuit.

After a weeklong trial, Prince entered his order April 11, dubbing Paterson's conduct "atrocious, going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Paterson's attorney, Maria Sinel, said they might appeal Prince's ruling, so Paterson would not answer questions or make a statement.

Bizub's nightmare began in 2003.

As a private, unlicensed therapist, Bizub was doing quite a bit of work as special advocate for children of divorce. Basically, she would investigate the family's situation and make recommendations to the judge about things such as visitation time.

"My career was growing," Bizub said. "Attorneys said they liked my work because they believed I was thorough and did a good job."

In a 2003 divorce case in which Bizub was a special advocate, Paterson was the mother's therapist. Bizub recommended to the court that Paterson not be allowed to also serve as the child's therapist.

"I didn't feel it was appropriate," Bizub said.

After that, Paterson sent letters to people, including attorneys Bizub worked for, alleging Bizub "failed to report incidents of child abuse known to her," according to Bizub's lawsuit.

Failure of a person working with children to report child abuse is a crime.

"I was never told about abuse that I didn't report. Ever," Bizub said.

Paterson's letters included allegations that Bizub was "incompetent," had been removed from cases and that Bizub made "inaccurate claims . . . with regard to her qualifications and education," the lawsuit states.

Paterson made four complaints to the state Department of Regulatory Agencies and had "proxies" file three more, all of which were deemed unfounded, Prince said in his ruling.

When Paterson told people the state board was investigating Bizub, she knew the board had deemed the allegations unfounded. Paterson "acted knowingly in making such false and misleading statements," Price said.

Paterson wrote to Bizub's college, Wichita State University, in "a fraudulent attempt to obtain information . . . concerning the educational credentials of" Bizub, the lawsuit states.

Attorneys told Bizub they didn't believe the allegations, but they hesitated to hire her.

"As a lawyer, in general, the last thing you want to do is inject controversy into a case," said Bizub's attorney, Arthur Porter.

She was pretty much out of work. "My income took a big decline," she said. "I was devastated and didn't know how to fix it."

But what drove Bizub "over the brink" was when Paterson complained to the District Attorney's Office, alleging Bizub knew about but didn't report child abuse.

"I got a call from the DA's office, and at that point they said it was a close call if they would file charges," Bizub said.

No charges were filed, but Bizub had had enough. She filed the lawsuit in April 2007.

Paterson, through her attorney Sinel, filed a response and counterclaim within weeks stating: "Bizub's claims are barred because the alleged statements were true statements."

As the trial date approached, Judge Prince grew frustrated with Paterson's refusal to tell Bizub what witnesses and evidence she would bring at trial - as required by Colorado's rules of evidence.

Finally, Prince issued an order stating that if Paterson wouldn't provide that information she would not be allowed to use it at trial. She never did.

"No defense witnesses or exhibits have been properly endorsed and none will be admissible at trial," Prince wrote.

After the trial, Prince awarded Bizub money not only for business she lost, but money she will continue to lose while rebuilding her practice.

"Plaintiff has predicted that her business can recover in three years," Prince said. "To the court this seems optimistic."

More important to Bizub than the money, she said, was Prince ordering Paterson to stop by slapping a permanent injunction on her.

"The defendant has made clear that her current intent, which hopefully will change after this ruling, is to continue this pursuit of the plaintiff," Prince said.

He warned Paterson that if she makes "false, defamatory statements" about Bizub again she likely would go to jail.

Bizub said she went through the inheritance her deceased mother left her to pay for the legal proceedings.

"I do feel vindicated completely by the court system," Bizub said. "I'm glad to have my life back."

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0110 or dennis.huspeni@gazette.com