Indiana siblings say their father abused them – but a family court is ordering them into a controversial therapy to “fix” their relationship with the man they call a monster.
By Richard Luthmann
Kids Cry for Help, Court Forces Them Back to Abuser Dad
Three Marion County children insist their father, Nicolas Shaffer, is dangerous – yet the court is deaf to their pleas.
“You’re not doing anything… no one is listening… We all collectively refuse to move forward,” 15-year-old Keegan Shaffer told a court-appointed therapist, begging not to see his dad.
His sisters are equally terrified. One daughter broke down crying for an hour after a therapy call and then “slept the rest of the day” from despair.
“I hate him… he’s ruined my life… I’m scared of him,” she told her mother, Shannon (Shaffer) Boone.
The kids say their father hit them, spoke to them in graphic sexual ways, and even forced them to shower with the door open – crossing every boundary.
Instead of protecting these children, Judge Alicia Gooden has mandated “reunification therapy” with their estranged dad over their loud objections. In an August 19 order, Judge Gooden faulted Boone “solely” for the kids’ reluctance and warned that her court’s prior reunification plan “shall be followed without exception.”
The court’s hand-picked therapist, Lauren Glanders, has even imposed a draconian “Behavior Expectation Plan”. If the kids refuse visits or show anger, they must write apology essays and lose phone and social privileges for days.
Under this court order, the children have effectively been grounded for resisting contact with the man they accuse of abuse. It’s a living nightmare for the Boone kids – one unfolding by court decree.
Experts Slam ‘Reunification’ as Junk Science and Torture
Child advocates and medical experts are blasting the forced reunification therapy as junk science fueled by discredited theories.
“The so-called ‘therapy’ employed by Ms. Glanders is not recognized by legitimate authorities and aligns with discredited practices associated with Richard Gardner’s debunked… Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS),” Jill Jones Soderman, Executive Director of the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts (fcvfc.org), wrote in a scathing advisory.
PAS – a pseudo-scientific theory from the 1980s – paints protective parents as “alienators” and has been widely discredited as a ploy to defend abusive parents.
Critics say Judge Gooden’s court is parroting this junk theory by ignoring “irrefutable evidence” that the Shaffer kids suffered physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and instead treating their trauma as mere “alienation.”
Jones-Soderman didn’t mince words. She likened the court-ordered reunification to “sanctioned torture” under international law and demanded it cease immediately. In a public cease-and-desist notice, Jones-Soderman condemned the court’s actions for inflicting “severe mental injury, emotional trauma, and long-lasting psychological harm” on the children.
Medical professionals agree that the therapy is doing grievous harm. Dr. S. Gregory Hipskind, a neurobehavioral expert reviewing the case, issued a “STRONG MEDICAL ORDER” forbidding any further forced contact between the children and their father.
Dr. S. Gregory Hipskind, M.D., Ph.D, is a nuclear-qualified behavioral neurologist and certified brain injury specialist with decades of experience in clinical neurophysiology. He is a forensic consultant to the Amen Clinics and has worked extensively with brain SPECT imaging to document trauma in children and adults.
Importantly, he serves as a member of the White House National Brain Health Initiative Committee, lending his expertise to national policy discussions on brain health and trauma.
After evaluating the family, Dr. Hipskind found the kids are already suffering significant trauma from exposure to their dad and warned that more mandatory visits could cause “further, significant emotional trauma.” He even noted the United Nations considers this form of “family reunification” a form of torture, backing what advocates have been screaming from the rooftops.
In short, every independent expert is saying the same thing: this forced reunification experiment is traumatizing the children, not healing them.
Torture in Indiana: Questions for the Reunification Therapist
We asked court-appointed Reunification Therapist Lauren Glanders for comment.
She has not responded as of press time. Here is what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Friday, August 22nd, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Reunification Therapy: Boone–Shaffer custody case in Marion County, Indiana
To: lauren@lgcounseling.org <lauren@lgcounseling.org>
CC: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, juliemholburn@yahoo.com <juliemholburn@yahoo.com>, Michael Phillips <mikethunderphillips@gmail.com>Dear Ms. Glanders,
We are journalists reporting on the Boone–Shaffer custody case in Marion County, Indiana, and the broader controversy surrounding court-ordered reunification therapy. Given your central role as the court-appointed reunification therapist, I am seeking your response to the following questions for publication:
Clinical and Ethical Basis
1. What clinical evidence or peer-reviewed studies do you rely on to justify reunification therapy as a valid treatment modality?
2. The American Psychological Association does not recognize reunification therapy as a standardized treatment. How do you reconcile this?
3. Why do your informed consent documents state that reunification therapy is not medically necessary and not billable to insurance?Handling of the Boone–Shaffer Children
4. The Boone–Shaffer children have reported physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by their father. Why are their disclosures not being prioritized in your therapy model?
5. In transcripts, you told the children that their “feelings aren’t facts.” How do you defend dismissing trauma-related fear as irrational feelings?
6. One child said, “I hate him… he’s ruined my life… I’m scared of him.” Why are such statements not enough to pause or halt reunification?Punitive Measures
7. You implemented a Behavior Expectation Plan that requires children to write essays or lose their phones if they resist visits. How is punishing traumatized children therapeutic?
8. Isn’t this coercion more akin to behavioral conditioning than therapy?
9. Do you acknowledge that these tactics can reinforce trauma rather than resolve it?Financial Incentives
10. Your rate is $250 per 50-minute session, plus $500 per hour for court testimony. How do you respond to critics who say reunification therapy is financially driven rather than clinically sound?
11. Jill Jones Soderman of the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts has described reunification therapy as a “fraudulent industry” designed to extract money from families. What is your response?Contradictions with Medical Expertise
12. Dr. S. Gregory Hipskind, a neurologist and member of the White House National Brain Health Initiative Committee, has issued a medical order prohibiting further forced contact between the Shaffer children and their father, citing risk of severe trauma. Why is your therapy plan moving in direct opposition to this medical directive?
13. Do you consider yourself qualified to override medical recommendations from brain trauma specialists?Accountability
14. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has recognized practices that retraumatize children as forms of psychological torture. How do you respond to comparisons between forced reunification therapy and torture?
15. What safeguards, if any, exist in your process to protect children when their disclosures point to ongoing abuse?
16. If further harm occurs, what responsibility do you accept as the court-appointed professional overseeing their forced contact with their alleged abuser?Ms. Glanders, you are at the center of a national debate. This case could set a precedent for how American family courts handle allegations of abuse and forced reunification. I invite you to provide your answers so that your perspective can be fairly represented.
Please respond so that we may give our readership a fair and balanced perspective. We are about to go to press shortly. If we receive your response after press time, we will incorporate your statements into a follow-up.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
If we hear back from Lauren Glanders, we will provide details in a follow-up.
Torture in Indiana: Judge Gooden’s Team Under Fire for Cruel Tactics
The case of Boone vs. Shaffer is exposing what critics call a cruel cottage industry in family court. Judge Gooden and the court-appointed professionals – reunification therapist Lauren Glanders and parenting coordinator, attorney Kimberly Dean Mattingly, a failed magistrate judge – are under fire for prolonging the children’s ordeal, allegedly to line their own pockets.
“The financial incentives… are transparent,” Jones-Soderman’s group wrote, pledging to expose how federal funds reward keeping families in conflict.
Glanders, who is paid to “fix” the parent-child relationship, has shown zero sympathy for the kids’ trauma. She dismissed their panic and ordered Boone to drag them to visits regardless of their fear, insisting “their reported discomfort does not guide the process.”
Emails show Glanders directing Boone to confiscate 15-year-old Keegan’s phone for a week as punishment when he refused a visit.
Meanwhile, attorney Rebecca M. Eimerman – representing the father – has aggressively pushed to punish Boone.
In an emergency filing this month, Eimerman portrayed the mother as “brazen” and claimed “Mother’s actions… are endangering the mental health” of the kids.
Judge Gooden echoed those attacks, voicing “genuine concerns” about Boone’s mental stability and blaming her alone for the stalled reunification. The judge even hauled the entire family into a mandatory session with Glanders “within 24 hours” to force a reset and “strictly” enforce the reunification plan.
To the family and their supporters, it feels like the court is ganging up on a protective mother and traumatized kids – and doing Dad a favor.
Advocates are now calling for accountability. Jones-Soderman’s organization vows to file complaints against Judge Gooden, Glanders, Mattingly, and anyone responsible for this “deliberate infliction of harm,” declaring that such cruelty “will not be tolerated.”
The Boone children’s nightmare is fueling a growing outcry – and shining a harsh light on an Indiana family court system seemingly gone off the rails.
