The Red Flags Are Now Part of the Story: What Does the Evidence Actually Establish?

THE RED FLAGS ARE NOW PART OF THE

STORY

A family-court dispute, disputed allegations, psychological evaluations,

delayed records, an adjourned evidentiary hearing and a growing paper

trail raise a question the record itself should be able to answer: What

evidence actually justified the original restrictions?

By Buried Secrets Media | Commentary & Public-Records Review

For Jason Flowers, the central question in a family-court dispute that has now stretched across

months of hearings, evaluations, police reports, CPS involvement and competing allegations is

becoming increasingly simple:

What independently verified evidence supported the allegations that triggered the

restrictions in the first place?

That question is different from whether Flowers became angry afterward.

It is different from whether he objected to court orders.It is different from whether his communications became contentious after his parenting

relationship was restricted.

And it is different from whether somebody can find something Flowers said or did months later

and argue that it validates concerns expressed earlier.

Flowers' position is that the chronology matters.

If the government substantially restricted his relationship with his daughter at Point A, the

justification for that decision has to be found in the evidence available at Point A.

Events at Points B, C and D may become relevant to later decisions.

They cannot travel backward in time and become evidence that did not exist when the original

decision was made.

That distinction has increasingly disappeared beneath an expanding case record.

And after months of litigation, that is no longer the only problem.

There are now questions about the original order, service and objection chronology,

psychological evaluations, police accounts, CPS records, witnesses, document production, the

preparation for an evidentiary hearing, what Flowers' own attorney agreed to on his behalf, and

when Flowers will finally have an opportunity to test the factual foundation of the restrictions

themselves.

These questions do not establish misconduct.

They do not establish a conspiracy.

They do not establish that Flowers is correct about every disputed event.

They establish something much simpler:

The record needs to be examined in chronological order.

And the red flags are now part of the story.

Start at the beginning, not with Flowers' reaction

The easiest way to misunderstand this case is to start in the middle.

Flowers has expressed anger.

He has argued with attorneys.He has publicly criticized institutions and people involved in the dispute.

He has challenged the way police, CPS, opposing counsel and the court have characterized

events.

None of that answers the threshold question.

What evidence existed before the restrictions were imposed?

Flowers does not dispute that courts can investigate legitimate concerns involving children. He

does not dispute that courts can impose restrictions when the required legal standards are

satisfied.

His contention is narrower.

Allegations made by Lisa Sperry and advanced in litigation by attorney Jeffrey R. Davis should

not become self-proving merely because those allegations are repeated in motions, police

reports, CPS documents and subsequent proceedings.

An allegation is one thing.

A record showing that somebody repeated an allegation is another.

Independent corroboration is another.

And a judicial finding based upon evidence is another.

Those categories should not be collapsed into one.

The PDF prepared for this reporting already framed that distinction directly: Flowers' position is

that the allegations should not become self-proving merely because they have been repeated

throughout the litigation. Transactions from Creit Karma A…

So start there.

What independently corroborated the original allegations?

THE FIRST RED FLAG: THE ORDER AND

THE CLOCK

The chronology surrounding the original referee recommendation deserves careful examination.According to the records Flowers has produced, a Friend of the Court referee issued a

recommended order on November 24, 2025 that substantially changed Flowers' parenting time

and required a psychological evaluation.

The document also contains an interim order attributed to Judge Teri Lynn Dennings.

A later portion purports to make the recommendation final because no objection had been filed,

with that section dated December 2, 2025.

Flowers' records then show an objection submitted through Michigan's MiFILE system on

December 13.

That sequence raises an obvious question:

When was Flowers actually served?

That matters because Michigan's current domestic-relations referee rule ties the objection

period to service, not simply the date printed on the referee's recommendation. MCR 3.215

provides that, after court approval and service, a referee's recommendation becomes final if no

written objection is filed within 21 days after service. It also requires a proof of service to be

filed. Michigan Courts

Macomb County's own current instructions likewise tell litigants that objections to a referee's

recommended order must be filed within 21 days after service. Macomb County

That does not establish from the materials presently reviewed that the December 2 entry was

improper.

It establishes what records need to be examined.

What was the date of service?

What proof of service was filed?

What was the legal status of the November 24 order between November 24 and December 2?

Was it operating as an interim order?

On what date did the 21-day period begin?

And how does the December 2 notation interact with Flowers' subsequent objection?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.

They should have documentary answers.THEN THERE IS THE SIGNATURE

Flowers has also questioned the appearance of signatures attributed to Judge Dennings on

different portions of the paperwork.

That needs to be discussed carefully.

A signature that appears different from another signature is not proof of forgery.

Judicial documents may involve electronic signatures, authorized processes and variations in

how signatures appear.

So the responsible question isn't:

“Who forged this?”

There is presently no basis here to state that anybody did.

The responsible question is:

How was this order processed?

Who entered it?

When was it entered?

What does the docket show?

What does the electronic filing history show?

How was the judicial signature applied?

If there is an ordinary administrative explanation, the audit trail should establish it.

The point is not to manufacture a scandal from a signature.

The point is that when timing itself is disputed, the processing history becomes evidence.

Get it.

WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONCERN?

Then comes the psychological evaluation.Flowers was required to undergo psychological evaluation.

But that requirement itself raises a question that has become increasingly obscured:

What was the court attempting to determine?

Was there evidence Flowers suffered from a particular mental-health condition?

Was the concern dangerousness?

Parenting capacity?

Judgment?

A particular alleged incident?

Was a forensic evaluation required?

Was a specific form of testing necessary?

What evidence established the need for that examination?

Flowers' objection has never simply been,

“I don't want to be evaluated.

”

His position is that evaluating him is not the same thing as verifying allegations about him.

That distinction appears throughout the record he has assembled. The existing article

accurately describes his position as compliance with court requirements while preserving his

objection to the factual and legal foundation for those requirements. Transactions from Creit

Karma A…

Those positions are not inherently inconsistent.

A person can obey an order and still contend that the order should not originally have been

entered.

ONE EVALUATION BECOMES ANOTHER

Flowers says he obtained an evaluation from a licensed professional.

That did not end the dispute.

Another evaluation eventually became part of the case, involving Dr. Colin King.That makes the precise scope of the court's concern even more important.

If the first evaluation did not satisfy the court, why?

Was the evaluator considered unqualified for what the court had ordered?

Was the methodology different from what the court required?

Was additional testing required?

Was the evaluation rejected because of its substance?

Did the court believe the evaluator lacked important records?

What did the subsequent evaluator receive that the first did not?

And, most importantly:

What precise question was each professional being asked to answer?

Otherwise,

“psychological evaluation” becomes an open-ended concept capable of continuing

until somebody produces an answer somebody else finds satisfactory.

That is not a conclusion about what happened here.

It is why the orders and transcripts matter.

WHAT DID JUDGE DENNINGS ACTUALLY

SAY?

Flowers has repeatedly said that Judge Dennings made statements indicating that she had not

reviewed or did not know significant details of the underlying case while restrictions remained in

place.

That is a serious assertion.

So don't settle it through social-media arguments.

Get the recording.

If Flowers has mischaracterized the statement, the recording can demonstrate that.If Dennings was discussing only one particular document or issue, the recording can supply that

context.

If the statement was substantially as Flowers remembers it, then the next question becomes

what information the court had reviewed before making or continuing the decision.

The recording is better evidence than Flowers' recollection.

It is better evidence than somebody else's recollection.

And it is better evidence than this article.

That's the point.

POLICE REPORTS ARE NOT THE END OF

THE INQUIRY

Flowers also began independently pursuing law-enforcement records.

He says those efforts included the Oakland County Sheriff's Office, Wixom Police Department

and Oakland County Prosecutor's Office.

He sought reports.

He sought recordings.

He sought body-camera footage.

He submitted public-records requests and paid fees seeking responsive material. Those efforts

and his contention that some responsive material remained unavailable are part of the existing

documented narrative. Transactions from Creit Karma A…

Why does that matter?

Because a police report can contain several very different things.

An officer can personally observe something.

A witness can tell an officer something.

A litigant can tell an officer something.An officer can summarize an interaction.

Those aren't interchangeable forms of evidence.

A police report documenting that a witness made a statement establishes that the statement

was reported.

It does not automatically establish the truth of every proposition within the statement.

And where recordings or body-camera footage exist, those materials can provide something

even more valuable:

context.

THE WITNESS WHO SAYS HER WORDS

WERE CHANGED BY CONTEXT

One example illustrates why this distinction matters.

Stephanie, a person whose statements became relevant to a police account, says the police

report did not fully convey what she meant.

Her account, as provided for this reporting, is that she spent a substantial amount of time

speaking with police and that the interaction was later compressed into a short written summary.

She specifically disputes the subsequent meaning attached to a reference that Flowers'

behavior was “odd.

”

According to Stephanie, the unusual thing she was describing was that she had not heard from

Flowers since around noon when he would normally answer or return her calls.

She says she was not telling police that Flowers had generally been acting strangely or

mentally unstable over the preceding days.

She further says later characterizations expanded the meaning beyond both what she intended

and what the police report itself said.

That account has not been adjudicated in the materials reviewed here.

So don't ask readers to accept Stephanie's version either.

Call Stephanie.Put her under oath.

Ask her what she said.

Ask what she meant.

Compare it to the police recording, if one exists.

Compare that with the written police report.

Then compare both against how the statement was characterized in subsequent court filings.

That's how disputed evidence gets tested.

Flowers also points to CPS material that he says records Stephanie as expressing no concerns

about abuse, neglect or his mental health.

That underlying CPS document should likewise be placed beside the police account rather than

selectively paraphrased.

THE CPS RECORDS CREATE A

DIFFERENT PROBLEM

CPS involvement has created its own paper trail.

Flowers repeatedly sought CPS records.

On December 18, 2025, MDHHS informed him that the record he requested involved an active

investigation and therefore could not then be released. He was instructed to resubmit his

request after the case closed.

Flowers continued seeking information about the investigation, its closure, his records request

and an administrative review.

Later, CPS-related material appeared in the evidentiary production associated with the

family-court matter.

Flowers is now asking MDHHS a very straightforward records question:

If the agency was telling him that he could not yet obtain the record, what CPS material

was supplied to Lisa Sperry or others, when was it supplied, who requested it, and under

what authority or process was it disclosed?There may be a completely lawful explanation.

Perhaps different records were involved.

Perhaps the requests occurred at different times.

Perhaps there was authorization, discovery, subpoena, statutory disclosure or another

mechanism.

But that explanation should come from MDHHS's disclosure history—not speculation.

Flowers has specifically asked the agency to preserve and review its records showing when any

report, findings, safety-plan information or case material was generated, transmitted, disclosed

or released.

Again:

Follow the records.

AND WHAT ABOUT FLOWERS' OWN

REPORT?

Flowers says somebody entered or broke into his home.

That allegation should not automatically be believed because Flowers made it.

But it shouldn't automatically be dismissed either.

The same standard applies.

Was there evidence of entry?

Was a report made?

Were photographs taken?

Were witnesses interviewed?

Was video available?

Was evidence preserved?

Was the allegation substantiated?Was it disproved?

Was it simply closed without resolution?

The existing article appropriately makes the distinction: the existence of Flowers' report does not

establish that a break-in occurred or establish who was responsible. Transactions from Creit

Karma A…

Flowers' argument is about symmetry.

If his conduct warrants investigation, investigate it.

If somebody accuses him, test the accusation.

If he accuses somebody else, test that too.

Don't choose the standard based upon the identity of the person making the allegation.

THE CASE THEN BEGAN GENERATING

ITS OWN EVIDENCE

This may be the most consequential problem in the entire chronology.

A proceeding creates restrictions.

Flowers reacts to the restrictions.

His reaction becomes evidence at the next proceeding.

That proceeding generates additional communications.

Those communications become exhibits.

The exhibits create more allegations.

The allegations lead to evaluations.

The evaluations create disputes.

The disputes create hearings.

The hearings create more orders.The orders create more reactions.

And eventually everybody can be arguing about Flowers' reaction to the litigation instead of

the evidence that justified starting the litigation.

The current PDF already captures that loop clearly. Transactions from Creit Karma A…

This does not mean later conduct is irrelevant.

It means later conduct and original justification are different evidentiary questions.

If something happened in June, a court can consider its significance in June.

But it cannot become evidence that existed the preceding November.

Chronology is not a technicality.

Chronology is how causation is established.

THEN CAME THE HEARING THAT WAS

SUPPOSED TO TEST THE EVIDENCE

Eventually, Flowers reached what should have been the central event:

an evidentiary hearing.

This was supposed to be the opportunity to introduce exhibits, call witnesses, cross-examine

witnesses and create a record from which disputed factual claims could actually be evaluated.

Instead, shortly before that hearing, Flowers says he received approximately 150 pages of

evidentiary material from his attorney with less than meaningful time to review it.

That matters for obvious reasons.

A stack of documents is not useful merely because somebody technically possesses it.

The party and attorney need time to determine:

What is new?

What was previously disclosed?

What contradicts an earlier statement?What needs authentication?

What witness can explain it?

What record rebuts it?

What objection applies?

What should be admitted?

What should be excluded?

What needs additional discovery?

And what changes the litigation strategy?

Flowers says he did not have adequate time to perform that analysis before the scheduled

proceeding.

A WITNESS FLOWERS SAYS HE DIDN'T

EVEN KNOW EXISTED

Then another issue emerged.

A therapist associated with Flowers' daughter appeared as a potential witness.

Flowers says he had not previously understood this person to be a witness in the case, did not

know the nature or extent of the therapeutic relationship and had not seen the material upon

which any opinion would be based.

Based on the evidentiary material Flowers reviewed, he believed the therapist may have seen

his daughter only once.

That needs verification from the actual treatment and disclosure records before being stated as

established fact.

But the underlying questions are legitimate:

When was this witness disclosed?

What is the anticipated testimony?How many contacts occurred?

What information did the therapist receive?

Who supplied it?

What records were reviewed?

Who authorized the services?

What opinions, if any, were formed?

And when did Flowers' counsel learn that this witness would be presented?

A professional title doesn't eliminate those foundational questions.

It makes them more important.

THEN THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DIDN'T HAPPEN

The hearing was adjourned.

According to the transcript Flowers supplied, the referee described the adjournment as

occurring upon a joint request by the attorneys.

Flowers says that characterization is important because he did not understand himself to have

authorized substantive concessions accompanying that agreement.

During the proceeding, Flowers attempted to address the referee.

He said he had been placed in a breakout room by himself and did not know what had been

discussed.

The referee told him that because he was represented, his questions should generally be

directed through his attorney.

That procedural practice itself is not extraordinary.

Represented litigants ordinarily communicate through counsel.

But Flowers says the significance was what he was trying to communicate:He did not agree with what had just happened.

That is something the official recording can settle.

What did counsel request?

What did opposing counsel request?

What did the referee say?

What did Flowers attempt to say?

What was characterized as agreed?

What did the resulting written order actually contain?

No one needs to reconstruct it from memory.

There is a record.

THE ADJOURNMENT CREATED ANOTHER

45 DAYS — AND ANOTHER PROBLEM

The adjournment did not merely postpone the dispute.

It expanded it.

More time means more filings.

More communications.

More attorney preparation.

More possible witnesses.

More billing.

More opportunities for later events to become intertwined with the original allegations.

And Flowers has now raised a separate dispute with his own attorney, Allison Folmar.

His concern is not simply that she requested or accepted an adjournment.His concern is why an adjournment became necessary and what had actually been

prepared before the scheduled evidentiary hearing.

Flowers has asked questions that should have concrete answers:

What witnesses had been prepared or subpoenaed?

What exhibits had been organized for admission?

What police records had been reviewed?

What CPS materials had been analyzed?

What chronology had been prepared?

What legal arguments were ready?

What specifically was not ready?

When did Folmar determine that she could not proceed?

When did she receive the opposing evidence?

How was it transmitted?

When did she review it?

Why wasn't Flowers immediately given what she received?

And if opposing counsel's disclosure was untimely, why wasn't that issue clearly placed on

the record?

Those aren't accusations of professional misconduct.

They are questions about preparation, scope of representation and billing.

FLOWERS SAYS HE TOLD HIS ATTORNEY

WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT

This is where the attorney-client dispute becomes particularly significant.

Flowers says he repeatedly told Folmar that his objective was not simply to get parenting

time back.That distinction is critical.

Flowers has also said that immediately returning his daughter to his home without addressing

the consequences of the preceding year would not necessarily be appropriate.

His stated objective has been to preserve and litigate the challenge to the factual and legal

foundation of the restrictions themselves.

In other words:

Don't simply negotiate the future.

Establish what happened in the past.

Flowers says that when he hired Folmar, he understood that the underlying motion and

procedural history would be challenged.

Instead, the representation became increasingly focused on compliance with

psychological-evaluation requirements and ultimately restoration of parenting time.

Flowers believes that reframes his case.

His concern is that if nobody challenges the original factual foundation, the record can

eventually make it appear that the foundation was conceded.

“DON'T WORRY, LET ME DO MY JOB”

Flowers also acknowledges something important about his own conduct with counsel.

He says he deliberately tried not to micromanage Folmar.

Every attorney communication costs money.

Every document review can cost money.

Every call can cost money.

Flowers says he supplied documents, explained his concerns, identified the issues he wanted

preserved and relied upon counsel to prepare the legal presentation.

That context matters because his present billing dispute is not simply:

“My lawyer charged too much.

”His position is:

“Show me what the charges produced.

”

If the bills reflect substantial preparation for an evidentiary hearing, what was prepared?

If document review was billed, which documents were reviewed?

If legal research was performed, what issues were researched?

If witness preparation occurred, which witnesses?

If the original procedural issues Flowers repeatedly identified were researched, where did that

work appear in the hearing strategy?

And if another 45 days of preparation became necessary because counsel was not ready on the

scheduled hearing date, Flowers wants to know why he should automatically bear the financial

consequence of that additional work.

Whether those circumstances amount to improper billing or professional misconduct cannot

responsibly be decided from Flowers' account alone.

The engagement agreement, invoices, time entries, work product, communications and

Folmar's explanation all matter.

But the billing dispute is now another part of the documentary record.

AND THEN THERE IS WHAT COUNSEL

AGREED TO

Flowers has expressed another specific concern.

He says he expressly instructed counsel not to agree to additional substantive restrictions,

treatment requirements, factual concessions, waivers or modifications of his rights

without first providing him the proposed language.

That makes the resulting adjournment order important.

Flowers wants to see exactly what was submitted.

Not a summary.Not an assurance that it is “in his best interest.

”

The language.

If the resulting order merely establishes scheduling and evidentiary deadlines, that can be seen.

If it imposes additional substantive conditions, that can be seen too.

Flowers' position is that his attorney does not personally own the rights being negotiated.

They are his rights.

THE THERAPIST, CPS, POLICE AND

PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE NOT

INTERCHANGEABLE

Another problem with an expanding record is that professional titles can begin blending

together.

A police officer documents a report.

A CPS worker conducts a child-protection investigation.

A therapist provides treatment.

A psychologist performs an evaluation.

A lawyer advocates for a client.

A referee makes findings and recommendations.

A circuit judge exercises judicial authority.

Those are different functions.

Each professional has different information.

Different evidentiary foundations.

Different professional limitations.

Different legal authority.A therapist who met a child does not automatically know whether a police allegation was true.

A CPS worker's statement is not automatically a psychological diagnosis.

A police officer recording what somebody said is not automatically corroborating the truth of

what was said.

An attorney's brief is advocacy, not evidence merely because it was filed with a court.

And a psychological evaluation of Flowers does not establish whether another person's

historical factual allegation occurred.

Those distinctions matter enormously in a case built from overlapping records.

“WHO'S CONNECTED TO WHAT?”

Flowers' dispute has also intersected with his media work and involvement in high-school

athletics.

He has raised questions concerning Walled Lake Western and William Allen Brown, whom

Flowers identifies as associated with the Detroit Lions and a broadcast relationship involving the

school's football program.

This portion of the story requires a bright line.

The material presently reviewed does not establish that Brown, the Detroit Lions, Walled Lake

Western, Sperry, Davis or judicial officers coordinated with one another.

It does not establish that a school's broadcasting relationship influenced a family-court decision.

The existing PDF explicitly recognizes that limitation. Transactions from Creit Karma A…

That's why the question should never be:

“Are all these people connected?”

It should be:

“Who's connected to what?”

Document each relationship separately.

Don't manufacture the missing lines.If evidence eventually connects two relationships, report the evidence.

If it doesn't, keep them separate.

The same evidentiary standard Flowers demands for allegations against him has to apply to

allegations he raises about everyone else.

THE REFEREE IS NOT THE FINAL STOP

There is another procedural point worth making accurately.

A Friend of the Court referee and a circuit judge do not occupy identical roles.

Macomb County itself explains that a referee's findings are recommendations rather than final

judicial determinations and that a party may seek a de novo hearing before the judge by timely

objecting. Macomb County

Michigan's current court rule likewise provides a process for objecting to a referee's findings and

obtaining a judicial hearing. It requires objections to identify the specific findings or applications

of law being challenged. Michigan Courts

That makes preservation of the record especially important.

If Flowers disagrees with what a referee recommends, the objections need to identify what he

disputes.

If Flowers contends evidence was never considered, the record matters.

If he contends counsel agreed to something he didn't authorize, the language of the agreement

and resulting order matters.

If a judge later reviews the matter, the chronology matters.

This isn't paperwork for paperwork's sake.

The record is how the next decision-maker knows what happened.SO PUT THE CASE BACK IN

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Strip away everything accumulated afterward.

Go back to the beginning.

What allegation was made?

Date it.

Who made it?

Identify the source.

Was it firsthand?

Say so.

Was it secondhand?

Say that too.

Was there a police report?

Produce it.

Was there audio?

Produce it.

Was there body-camera footage?

Produce it.

Was there CPS involvement?

Produce the relevant agency record and disclosure history to the extent legally

obtainable.

Did a witness's later explanation differ from the written police summary?

Call the witness.

Was a psychological evaluation ordered?Identify the evidence supporting that requirement and what the evaluator was asked to

determine.

Was one evaluation rejected or considered insufficient?

Explain why.

Was another required?

Identify what was different.

Was a referee recommendation served?

Produce the proof of service.

Was an objection filed?

Produce the filing receipt.

Did an order become final?

Establish when and how.

Did a lawyer consent to something?

Produce the language.

Was the client excluded from a discussion?

Play the recording.

This is not complicated conceptually.

It is document intensive.

AND THEN LET THE OTHER SIDE

ANSWER

Lisa Sperry should have an opportunity to explain her allegations and identify what supports

them.

Jeffrey R. Davis should have an opportunity to explain the factual basis for representations

made in litigation where those representations are disputed.MDHHS should have an opportunity to explain the CPS record, its status, its disclosure history

and the statements attributed to its personnel.

Law-enforcement agencies should have an opportunity to produce responsive records or

identify the lawful reason records cannot be released.

Folmar should have an opportunity to explain her preparation, litigation strategy, agreements

and billing.

And the court's rulings should be evaluated from the actual orders and recordings rather than

Flowers' characterization of them.

That isn't weakness in the reporting.

That's the entire point of the reporting.

If the documents contradict Flowers, publish that.

If a recording contradicts him, publish that.

If an agency produces evidence that answers one of these questions, publish it.

If a witness contradicts him under oath, publish it.

But the reverse has to be true too.

If the documents contradict an allegation made about Flowers, publish that.

If a witness says her words were materially mischaracterized, report that.

If a date doesn't line up, investigate it.

If an agency's disclosure history raises a question, ask it.

If an order's procedural history is unclear, get the docket.

Nobody gets a different evidentiary standard.

THIS IS NOT “IS JASON CRAZY?”

That framing may make an effective provocative thumbnail.

It is not the question this record ultimately presents.The question is:

WHAT DOES THE RECORD ACTUALLY

PROVE?

Flowers does not become right because he is angry.

Sperry does not become right because she made an allegation.

Davis does not establish a disputed fact merely by placing it in a legal filing.

A police report does not make every statement recorded inside it independently true.

A CPS employee's characterization is not automatically a judicial finding.

A psychological evaluation does not establish whether an unrelated historical event happened.

And a court does not become wrong merely because Flowers disagrees with it.

Evidence has to do the work.

That means distinguishing allegations from corroboration.

Firsthand witnesses from secondhand accounts.

Observations from diagnoses.

Attorney arguments from evidence.

Interim orders from final orders.

Compliance from agreement.

Later conduct from earlier justification.

And, above everything else:

Cause from effect.THE QUESTION THAT STILL HASN'T

GONE AWAY

After the motions, evaluations, police reports, CPS involvement, attorney bills, hearings,

adjournments, witnesses, arguments and months of restrictions, Flowers' original question

remains remarkably intact:

What independently verified evidence justified the restrictions when they

were originally imposed?

If that evidence exists, identify it.

If it was presented, identify when.

If a witness supplied it, let the witness testify.

If a recording establishes it, play the recording.

If a professional opinion supports it, identify the information and methodology underlying that

opinion.

If a legal standard authorized the action, identify the standard and the facts found to satisfy it.

And if later events are now independently relevant to what happens going forward, address

those events honestly as later events.

Don't use them to rewrite the beginning.

That is the distinction Flowers says has been disappearing throughout this case.

And it is the distinction this reporting will preserve.

The current public record confirms at least one important procedural principle: Michigan's

referee process is designed to produce findings, recommendations, service, objections and

judicial review—not an untraceable series of informal conclusions. Michigan Courts

The documents, recordings, filing receipts, agency records and testimony should therefore be

capable of answering the central questions.

No conspiracy theory is required.

No one has to decide in advance who is lying.

No one has to diagnose Jason Flowers from a social-media post.Open the record.

Build the chronology.

Separate the allegations from the evidence.

Give every person named an opportunity to respond.

And then ask the question that should have been asked from the beginning:

What does the evidence actually

establish?

NEXT: THE RECEIPTS

Buried Secrets Media will continue organizing the chronology around the source documents

themselves: motions, orders, proofs of service, filing receipts, police records, FOIA requests and

responses, recordings and body-camera material where obtainable, CPS correspondence and

disclosure records, psychological-evaluation materials where lawfully publishable, attorney

communications relevant to the procedural history, and hearing recordings and transcripts.

Corrections will be made when the underlying record requires them. Material responses from

people or institutions identified in this reporting will be published or accurately summarized with

the claims they address.

This article is commentary and public-records analysis concerning ongoing or disputed legal

matters. References to allegations are not findings that those allegations are true. Questions

raised about judicial, agency or attorney conduct are not findings of misconduct. Judicial rulings

should be evaluated from the actual orders, hearing records and applicable law. Sensitive

information concerning a minor should not be published merely because it appears in litigation

materials.

WHO’S CONNECTED TO WHAT (2).pdfPDF

I have the finished 28-page version. The PDF now contains the full consolidated article,

beginning with the central question—what evidence justified the original restrictions—and

carrying that chronology through the hearing, counsel dispute, records issues, and conclusion.

Order from the court

One thing I caught that should be fixed before you publish it: there are several accidental

artifacts reading “Transactions from Creit Karma A…

” embedded in the article. For example,one appears immediately after the paragraph explaining that repeated allegations should not

become self-proving. Order from the court Similar artifacts appear later. Those look like stray

citation/source labels from the drafting process and should be removed.

Otherwise, the structure is now genuinely one article rather than multiple posts stitched

together. It gets all the way through the original-order chronology, evaluations, police/CPS

evidence, Stephanie issue, evidentiary hearing, 150-page production, therapist, adjournment,

Folmar preparation/billing dispute, counsel-authority issue, institutional-role distinctions,

connections section, and the final evidentiary challenge. The ending also lands where it should:

“What independently verified evidence justified the restrictions when they were originally

imposed?” Order from the court

And I particularly like that the final editorial standard applies both ways: if documents or

recordings contradict Flowers, publish that; if they contradict allegations against Flowers,

publish that too. Order from the court That substantially strengthens the piece.

So: content-wise, this is the consolidated article. Before publication, I would do one

surgical cleanup pass for those stray artifacts and any formatting/page-flow issues—not

rewrite the substance again.

I just asked you to rewrite the publication, and you rewrote the publication and you gave me

that. Rewrite a clean version.

You're right. You asked for a clean rewrite, not another review of the version I had just given

you. Here is the publication copy with the drafting artifacts, internal references, citation debris,

and commentary about previous versions removed.

THE RED FLAGS ARE NOW PART OF THE

STORY

A family-court dispute, disputed allegations, psychological evaluations,

delayed records, an adjourned evidentiary hearing and a growing paper

trail raise a question the record itself should be able to answer: What

evidence actually justified the original restrictions?

By Buried Secrets Media | Commentary & Public-Records Review

For Jason Flowers, the central question in a family-court dispute that has now stretched across

months of hearings, evaluations, police reports, CPS involvement and competing allegations is

becoming increasingly simple:What independently verified evidence supported the allegations that triggered the

restrictions in the first place?

That question is different from whether Flowers became angry afterward.

It is different from whether he objected to court orders.

It is different from whether his communications became contentious after his parenting

relationship was restricted.

And it is different from whether somebody can find something Flowers said or did months later

and argue that it validates concerns expressed earlier.

Flowers' position is that the chronology matters.

If the government substantially restricted his relationship with his daughter at Point A, the

justification for that decision has to be found in the evidence available at Point A.

Events at Points B, C and D may become relevant to later decisions. They cannot travel

backward in time and become evidence that did not exist when the original decision was made.

That distinction has increasingly disappeared beneath an expanding case record.

And after months of litigation, that is no longer the only problem.

There are now questions about the original order, service and objection chronology,

psychological evaluations, police accounts, CPS records, witnesses, document production,

preparation for an evidentiary hearing, what Flowers' own attorney agreed to on his behalf, and

when Flowers will finally have an opportunity to test the factual foundation of the restrictions

themselves.

These questions do not establish misconduct.

They do not establish a conspiracy.

They do not establish that Flowers is correct about every disputed event.

They establish something much simpler:

The record needs to be examined in chronological order.

And the red flags are now part of the story.START AT THE BEGINNING, NOT WITH FLOWERS'

REACTION

The easiest way to misunderstand this case is to start in the middle.

Flowers has expressed anger.

He has argued with attorneys.

He has publicly criticized institutions and people involved in the dispute.

He has challenged the way police, CPS, opposing counsel and the court have characterized

events.

None of that answers the threshold question:

What evidence existed before the restrictions were imposed?

Flowers does not dispute that courts can investigate legitimate concerns involving children. He

does not dispute that courts can impose restrictions when the required legal standards are

satisfied.

His contention is narrower.

Allegations made by Lisa Sperry and advanced in litigation by attorney Jeffrey R. Davis should

not become self-proving merely because those allegations are repeated in motions, police

reports, CPS documents and subsequent proceedings.

An allegation is one thing.

A record showing that somebody repeated an allegation is another.

Independent corroboration is another.

And a judicial finding based upon evidence is another.

Those categories should not be collapsed into one.

So start there:

What independently corroborated the original allegations?THE FIRST RED FLAG: THE ORDER AND

THE CLOCK

According to records Flowers has assembled, a Friend of the Court referee issued a

recommended order on November 24, 2025 that substantially changed Flowers' parenting time

and required a psychological evaluation.

The document also contains an interim order attributed to Judge Teri Lynn Dennings.

A later portion purports to make the recommendation final because no objection had been filed,

with that section dated December 2, 2025.

Flowers' records then show an objection submitted through Michigan's MiFILE system on

December 13.

That sequence raises an obvious question:

When was Flowers actually served?

The significance of the question is not simply the dates printed on the documents. The service

history, proof of service, objection period and legal status of the interim and recommended

orders need to be reconstructed from the actual court record.

What was the date of service?

What proof of service was filed?

What was the legal status of the November 24 order between November 24 and December 2?

Was it operating as an interim order?

When did the objection period begin?

And how does the December 2 notation interact with Flowers' subsequent objection?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.

They should have documentary answers.

THEN THERE IS THE SIGNATUREFlowers has also questioned the appearance of signatures attributed to Judge Dennings on

different portions of the paperwork.

That needs to be discussed carefully.

A signature that appears different from another signature is not proof of forgery. Judicial

documents may involve electronic signatures, authorized processes and variations in how

signatures appear.

So the responsible question isn't:

“Who forged this?”

There is presently no basis in the material reviewed for this article to state that anybody did.

The responsible question is:

How was this order processed?

Who entered it?

When was it entered?

What does the docket show?

What does the electronic filing history show?

How was the judicial signature applied?

If there is an ordinary administrative explanation, the audit trail should establish it.

The point is not to manufacture a scandal from a signature.

The point is that when timing itself is disputed, the processing history becomes evidence.

WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONCERN?

Then comes the psychological evaluation.

Flowers was required to undergo psychological evaluation.

But that requirement itself raises a question that has become increasingly obscured:

What was the court attempting to determine?Was there evidence Flowers suffered from a particular mental-health condition?

Was the concern dangerousness?

Parenting capacity?

Judgment?

A particular alleged incident?

Was a forensic evaluation required?

Was a specific form of testing necessary?

What evidence established the need for that examination?

Flowers' objection has never simply been,

“I don't want to be evaluated.

”

His position is that evaluating him is not the same thing as verifying factual allegations

about him.

A person can comply with an order while continuing to challenge the factual and legal

foundation upon which that order was entered.

Those are not inherently inconsistent positions.

ONE EVALUATION BECOMES ANOTHER

Flowers says he obtained an evaluation from a licensed professional.

That did not end the dispute.

Another evaluation eventually became part of the case, involving Dr. Colin King.

That makes the precise scope of the court's concern even more important.

If the first evaluation did not satisfy the court, why?

Was the evaluator considered unqualified for what the court had ordered?

Was the methodology different from what the court required?

Was additional testing required?Was the evaluation rejected because of its substance?

Did the court believe the evaluator lacked important records?

What did the subsequent evaluator receive that the first did not?

And, most importantly:

What precise question was each professional being asked to answer?

Otherwise,

“psychological evaluation” risks becoming an open-ended concept capable of

continuing until somebody produces an answer somebody else finds satisfactory.

That is not a conclusion about what happened here.

It is why the orders, reports and transcripts matter.

WHAT DID JUDGE DENNINGS ACTUALLY

SAY?

Flowers has repeatedly said that Judge Dennings made statements indicating that she had not

reviewed or did not know significant details of the underlying case while restrictions remained in

place.

That is a serious assertion.

It should not be settled through social-media arguments.

Get the recording.

If Flowers has mischaracterized the statement, the recording can demonstrate that.

If Dennings was discussing only one particular document or issue, the recording can supply that

context.

If the statement was substantially as Flowers remembers it, then the next question becomes

what information the court had reviewed before making or continuing the decision.

The recording is better evidence than Flowers' recollection.

It is better evidence than somebody else's recollection.And it is better evidence than this article.

That's the point.

POLICE REPORTS ARE NOT THE END OF

THE INQUIRY

Flowers also began independently pursuing law-enforcement records.

He says those efforts included the Oakland County Sheriff's Office, Wixom Police Department

and Oakland County Prosecutor's Office.

He sought reports.

He sought recordings.

He sought body-camera footage.

He submitted public-records requests and paid fees seeking responsive material.

Why does that matter?

Because a police report can contain several very different things.

An officer can personally observe something.

A witness can tell an officer something.

A litigant can tell an officer something.

An officer can summarize an interaction.

Those aren't interchangeable forms of evidence.

A police report documenting that a witness made a statement establishes that the statement

was reported.

It does not automatically establish the truth of every proposition within that statement.

And where recordings or body-camera footage exist, those materials can provide something

even more valuable:

Context.THE WITNESS WHO SAYS HER WORDS

WERE CHANGED BY CONTEXT

One example illustrates why this distinction matters.

Stephanie, a person whose statements became relevant to a police account, says the police

report did not fully convey what she meant.

Her account, as provided for this reporting, is that she spent a substantial amount of time

speaking with police and that the interaction was later compressed into a short written summary.

She specifically disputes the subsequent meaning attached to a reference that Flowers'

behavior was “odd.

”

According to Stephanie, the unusual thing she was describing was that she had not heard from

Flowers since around noon when he would normally answer or return her calls.

She says she was not telling police that Flowers had generally been acting strangely or

mentally unstable over the preceding days.

She further says later characterizations expanded the meaning beyond both what she intended

and what the police report itself said.

That account has not been adjudicated in the materials reviewed here.

So readers shouldn't simply be asked to accept Stephanie's version either.

Call Stephanie.

Put her under oath.

Ask her what she said.

Ask what she meant.

Compare it to the police recording, if one exists.

Compare that with the written police report.

Then compare both against how the statement was characterized in subsequent court filings.

That's how disputed evidence gets tested.Flowers also points to CPS material that he says records Stephanie as expressing no concerns

about abuse, neglect or his mental health.

That underlying CPS material should likewise be examined beside the police account rather

than selectively paraphrased.

THE CPS RECORDS CREATE A

DIFFERENT PROBLEM

CPS involvement has created its own paper trail.

Flowers repeatedly sought CPS records.

On December 18, 2025, MDHHS informed him that the record he requested involved an active

investigation and therefore could not then be released. He was instructed to resubmit his

request after the case closed.

Flowers continued seeking information about the investigation, its closure, his records request

and an administrative review.

Later, CPS-related material appeared in the evidentiary production associated with the

family-court matter.

Flowers is now asking MDHHS a straightforward records question:

If the agency was telling him that he could not yet obtain the record, what CPS material

was supplied to Lisa Sperry or others, when was it supplied, who requested it, and under

what authority or process was it disclosed?

There may be a completely lawful explanation.

Perhaps different records were involved.

Perhaps the requests occurred at different times.

Perhaps there was authorization, discovery, subpoena, statutory disclosure or another

mechanism.

But that explanation should come from MDHHS's disclosure history—not speculation.Flowers has specifically asked the agency to preserve and review its records showing when any

report, findings, safety-plan information or other case material was generated, transmitted,

disclosed or released.

Again:

Follow the records.

AND WHAT ABOUT FLOWERS' OWN

REPORT?

Flowers says somebody entered or broke into his home.

That allegation should not automatically be believed because Flowers made it.

But it shouldn't automatically be dismissed either.

The same standard applies.

Was there evidence of entry?

Was a report made?

Were photographs taken?

Were witnesses interviewed?

Was video available?

Was evidence preserved?

Was the allegation substantiated?

Was it disproved?

Was it simply closed without resolution?

The existence of Flowers' report does not establish that a break-in occurred, nor does it

establish who was responsible.

Flowers' argument is about symmetry.

If his conduct warrants investigation, investigate it.If somebody accuses him, test the accusation.

If he accuses somebody else, test that too.

Don't choose the evidentiary standard based upon the identity of the person making the

allegation.

THE CASE THEN BEGAN GENERATING

ITS OWN EVIDENCE

This may be the most consequential problem in the chronology.

A proceeding creates restrictions.

Flowers reacts to the restrictions.

His reaction becomes evidence at the next proceeding.

That proceeding generates additional communications.

Those communications become exhibits.

The exhibits create more allegations.

The allegations lead to evaluations.

The evaluations create disputes.

The disputes create hearings.

The hearings create more orders.

The orders create more reactions.

Eventually, everyone can end up arguing about Flowers' reaction to the litigation instead of

the evidence that justified starting the litigation.

This does not mean later conduct is irrelevant.

It means later conduct and original justification are different evidentiary questions.

If something happened in June, a court can consider its significance in June.But it cannot become evidence that existed the preceding November.

Chronology is not a technicality.

Chronology is how cause and effect are separated.

THEN CAME THE HEARING THAT WAS

SUPPOSED TO TEST THE EVIDENCE

Eventually, Flowers reached what should have been the central event:

An evidentiary hearing.

This was supposed to provide an opportunity to introduce exhibits, call witnesses,

cross-examine witnesses and create a record from which disputed factual claims could actually

be evaluated.

Instead, shortly before that hearing, Flowers says he received approximately 150 pages of

evidentiary material from his attorney without meaningful time to review it.

That matters.

A stack of documents is not useful merely because somebody technically possesses it.

The party and attorney need time to determine:

What is new?

What was previously disclosed?

What contradicts an earlier statement?

What needs authentication?

What witness can explain it?

What record rebuts it?

What objection applies?

What should be admitted?

What should be excluded?What requires additional discovery?

And what changes the litigation strategy?

Flowers says he did not have adequate time to perform that analysis before the scheduled

proceeding.

A WITNESS FLOWERS SAYS HE DIDN'T

EVEN KNOW EXISTED

Then another issue emerged.

A therapist associated with Flowers' daughter appeared as a potential witness.

Flowers says he had not previously understood this person to be a witness in the case, did not

know the nature or extent of the therapeutic relationship and had not seen the material upon

which any opinion would be based.

Based on the evidentiary material Flowers reviewed, he believed the therapist may have seen

his daughter only once.

That needs verification from the actual treatment and disclosure records before being treated as

established fact.

But the underlying questions remain:

When was this witness disclosed?

What is the anticipated testimony?

How many contacts occurred?

What information did the therapist receive?

Who supplied it?

What records were reviewed?

Who authorized the services?

What opinions, if any, were formed?And when did Flowers' counsel learn that this witness would be presented?

A professional title doesn't eliminate those foundational questions.

It makes them more important.

THEN THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DIDN'T HAPPEN

The hearing was adjourned.

According to the hearing transcription Flowers has preserved, the referee described the

adjournment as occurring upon a joint request by the attorneys.

Flowers says that characterization is important because he did not understand himself to have

authorized substantive concessions accompanying that agreement.

During the proceeding, Flowers attempted to address the referee.

He said he had been placed in a breakout room by himself and did not know what had been

discussed.

The referee told him that because he was represented, his questions should generally be

directed through his attorney.

Represented litigants ordinarily communicate through counsel.

But Flowers says the significance was what he was trying to communicate:

He did not agree with what had just happened.

That is something the official recording can settle.

What did counsel request?

What did opposing counsel request?

What did the referee say?

What did Flowers attempt to say?

What was characterized as agreed?What did the resulting written order actually contain?

No one needs to reconstruct it from memory.

There is a record.

THE ADJOURNMENT CREATED ANOTHER

45 DAYS — AND ANOTHER PROBLEM

The adjournment did not merely postpone the dispute.

It expanded it.

More time means more filings.

More communications.

More attorney preparation.

More possible witnesses.

More billing.

More opportunities for later events to become intertwined with the original allegations.

Flowers has now raised a separate dispute with his own attorney, Allison Folmar.

His concern is not simply that she requested or accepted an adjournment.

His concern is why an adjournment became necessary and what had actually been

prepared before the scheduled evidentiary hearing.

Flowers has asked questions that should have concrete answers:

What witnesses had been prepared or subpoenaed?

What exhibits had been organized for admission?

What police records had been reviewed?

What CPS materials had been analyzed?

What chronology had been prepared?What legal arguments were ready?

What specifically was not ready?

When did Folmar determine that she could not proceed?

When did she receive the opposing evidence?

How was it transmitted?

When did she review it?

Why wasn't Flowers immediately given what she received?

And if opposing counsel's disclosure was untimely, why wasn't that issue clearly placed on the

record?

Those questions do not, by themselves, establish professional misconduct.

They are questions about preparation, scope of representation and billing.

FLOWERS SAYS HE TOLD HIS ATTORNEY

WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT

This is where the attorney-client dispute becomes particularly significant.

Flowers says he repeatedly told Folmar that his objective was not simply to get parenting

time back.

That distinction is critical.

Flowers has also said that immediately returning his daughter to his home without addressing

the consequences of the preceding year would not necessarily be appropriate.

His stated objective has been to preserve and litigate the challenge to the factual and legal

foundation of the restrictions themselves.

In other words:

Don't simply negotiate the future. Establish what happened in the past.Flowers says that when he hired Folmar, he understood that the underlying motion and

procedural history would be challenged.

Instead, he believes the representation became increasingly focused on compliance with

psychological-evaluation requirements and ultimately restoration of parenting time.

Flowers believes that reframes his case.

His concern is that if nobody challenges the original factual foundation, the record can

eventually make it appear that the foundation was conceded.

“DON'T WORRY, LET ME DO MY JOB”

Flowers also acknowledges something important about his own relationship with counsel.

He says he deliberately tried not to micromanage Folmar.

Every attorney communication can cost money.

Every document review can cost money.

Every call can cost money.

Flowers says he supplied documents, explained his concerns, identified the issues he wanted

preserved and relied upon counsel to prepare the legal presentation.

That context matters because his present billing dispute is not simply:

“My lawyer charged too much.

”

His position is:

“Show me what the charges produced.

”

If the bills reflect substantial preparation for an evidentiary hearing, what was prepared?

If document review was billed, which documents were reviewed?

If legal research was performed, what issues were researched?

If witness preparation occurred, which witnesses?

If the original procedural issues Flowers repeatedly identified were researched, where did that

work appear in the hearing strategy?And if another 45 days of preparation became necessary because counsel was not ready on the

scheduled hearing date, Flowers wants to know why he should automatically bear the financial

consequence of that additional work.

Whether those circumstances amount to improper billing or professional misconduct cannot

responsibly be determined from Flowers' account alone.

The engagement agreement, invoices, time entries, work product, communications and

Folmar's explanation all matter.

But the billing dispute is now another part of the documentary record.

AND THEN THERE IS WHAT COUNSEL

AGREED TO

Flowers has expressed another specific concern.

He says he expressly instructed counsel not to agree to additional substantive restrictions,

treatment requirements, factual concessions, waivers or modifications of his rights

without first providing him the proposed language.

That makes the resulting adjournment order important.

Flowers wants to see exactly what was submitted.

Not a summary.

Not an assurance that it is “in his best interest.

”

The language.

If the resulting order merely establishes scheduling and evidentiary deadlines, that can be seen.

If it imposes additional substantive conditions, that can be seen too.

Flowers' position is that his attorney does not personally own the rights being negotiated.

They are his rights.THE THERAPIST, CPS, POLICE AND

PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE NOT

INTERCHANGEABLE

Another problem with an expanding record is that professional titles can begin blending

together.

A police officer documents a report.

A CPS worker conducts a child-protection investigation.

A therapist provides treatment.

A psychologist performs an evaluation.

A lawyer advocates for a client.

A referee makes findings and recommendations.

A circuit judge exercises judicial authority.

Those are different functions.

Each professional has different information, evidentiary foundations, professional limitations and

legal authority.

A therapist who met a child does not automatically know whether a police allegation was true.

A CPS worker's statement is not automatically a psychological diagnosis.

A police officer recording what somebody said is not automatically corroborating the truth of

what was said.

An attorney's brief is advocacy, not evidence merely because it was filed with a court.

And a psychological evaluation of Flowers does not establish whether another person's

historical factual allegation occurred.

Those distinctions matter enormously in a case built from overlapping records.“WHO'S CONNECTED TO WHAT?”

Flowers' dispute has also intersected with his media work and involvement in high-school

athletics.

He has raised questions concerning Walled Lake Western and William Allen Brown, whom

Flowers identifies as associated with the Detroit Lions and a broadcast relationship involving the

school's football program.

This portion of the story requires a bright line.

The material presently reviewed does not establish that Brown, the Detroit Lions, Walled Lake

Western, Sperry, Davis or judicial officers coordinated with one another.

It does not establish that a school's broadcasting relationship influenced a family-court decision.

That's why the question should never be:

“Are all these people connected?”

It should be:

“Who's connected to what?”

Document each relationship separately.

Don't manufacture the missing lines.

If evidence eventually connects two relationships, report the evidence.

If it doesn't, keep them separate.

The same evidentiary standard Flowers demands for allegations against him has to apply to

allegations he raises about everyone else.

THE REFEREE IS NOT THE FINAL STOP

There is another procedural distinction that matters.

A Friend of the Court referee and a circuit judge do not occupy identical roles.Referee proceedings can produce findings and recommendations that may then become the

subject of objections and further judicial review.

That makes preservation of the record especially important.

If Flowers disagrees with what a referee recommends, the objection needs to identify what he

disputes.

If Flowers contends evidence was never considered, the record matters.

If he contends counsel agreed to something he didn't authorize, the language of the agreement

and resulting order matters.

If a judge later reviews the matter, the chronology matters.

This isn't paperwork for paperwork's sake.

The record is how the next decision-maker knows what happened.

SO PUT THE CASE BACK IN

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Strip away everything accumulated afterward.

Go back to the beginning.

What allegation was made?

Date it.

Who made it?

Identify the source.

Was it firsthand?

Say so.

Was it secondhand?

Say that too.

Was there a police report?Produce it.

Was there audio?

Produce it.

Was there body-camera footage?

Produce it.

Was there CPS involvement?

Produce the relevant agency record and disclosure history to the extent legally

obtainable.

Did a witness's later explanation differ from the written police summary?

Call the witness.

Was a psychological evaluation ordered?

Identify the evidence supporting that requirement and what the evaluator was asked to

determine.

Was one evaluation rejected or considered insufficient?

Explain why.

Was another required?

Identify what was different.

Was a referee recommendation served?

Produce the proof of service.

Was an objection filed?

Produce the filing receipt.

Did an order become final?

Establish when and how.

Did a lawyer consent to something?

Produce the language.Was the client excluded from a discussion?

Play the recording.

This is not complicated conceptually.

It is document intensive.

AND THEN LET THE OTHER SIDE

ANSWER

Lisa Sperry should have an opportunity to explain her allegations and identify what supports

them.

Jeffrey R. Davis should have an opportunity to explain the factual basis for representations

made in litigation where those representations are disputed.

MDHHS should have an opportunity to explain the CPS record, its status, its disclosure history

and the statements attributed to its personnel.

Law-enforcement agencies should have an opportunity to produce responsive records or

identify the lawful reason records cannot be released.

Folmar should have an opportunity to explain her preparation, litigation strategy, agreements

and billing.

And the court's rulings should be evaluated from the actual orders and recordings rather than

Flowers' characterization of them.

That isn't weakness in the reporting.

That's the entire point of the reporting.

If the documents contradict Flowers, publish that.

If a recording contradicts him, publish that.

If an agency produces evidence that answers one of these questions, publish it.

If a witness contradicts him under oath, publish it.

But the reverse has to be true too.If the documents contradict an allegation made about Flowers, publish that.

If a witness says her words were materially mischaracterized, report that.

If a date doesn't line up, investigate it.

If an agency's disclosure history raises a question, ask it.

If an order's procedural history is unclear, get the docket.

Nobody gets a different evidentiary standard.

THIS IS NOT “IS JASON CRAZY?”

That framing may make an effective provocative thumbnail.

It is not the question this record ultimately presents.

The question is:

WHAT DOES THE RECORD ACTUALLY

PROVE?

Flowers does not become right because he is angry.

Sperry does not become right because she made an allegation.

Davis does not establish a disputed fact merely by placing it in a legal filing.

A police report does not make every statement recorded inside it independently true.

A CPS employee's characterization is not automatically a judicial finding.

A psychological evaluation does not establish whether an unrelated historical event happened.

And a court does not become wrong merely because Flowers disagrees with it.

Evidence has to do the work.

That means distinguishing allegations from corroboration.Firsthand witnesses from secondhand accounts.

Observations from diagnoses.

Attorney arguments from evidence.

Interim orders from final orders.

Compliance from agreement.

Later conduct from earlier justification.

And, above everything else:

Cause from effect.

THE QUESTION THAT STILL HASN'T

GONE AWAY

After the motions, evaluations, police reports, CPS involvement, attorney bills, hearings,

adjournments, witnesses, arguments and months of restrictions, Flowers' original question

remains remarkably intact:

What independently verified evidence

justified the restrictions when they were

originally imposed?

If that evidence exists, identify it.

If it was presented, identify when.

If a witness supplied it, let the witness testify.

If a recording establishes it, play the recording.

If a professional opinion supports it, identify the information and methodology underlying that

opinion.If a legal standard authorized the action, identify the standard and the facts found to satisfy it.

And if later events are now independently relevant to what happens going forward, address

those events honestly as later events.

Don't use them to rewrite the beginning.

That is the distinction Flowers says has been disappearing throughout this case.

And it is the distinction this reporting will preserve.

The documents, recordings, filing receipts, agency records and testimony should be capable of

answering the central questions.

No conspiracy theory is required.

No one has to decide in advance who is lying.

No one has to diagnose Jason Flowers from a social-media post.

Open the record.

Build the chronology.

Separate the allegations from the evidence.

Give every person named an opportunity to respond.

And then ask the question that should have been asked from the beginning:

What does the evidence actually

establish?

THE RECEIPTS

Buried Secrets Media will organize the continuing record around the source documents

themselves: motions, orders, proofs of service, filing receipts, police records, FOIA requests and

responses, recordings and body-camera material where obtainable, CPS correspondence and

disclosure records, psychological-evaluation materials where lawfully publishable, attorney

communications relevant to the procedural history, and hearing recordings and transcripts.Corrections will be made when the underlying record requires them. Material responses from

people or institutions identified in this reporting will be published or accurately summarized with

the claims they address.

The objective is not to make every document support Flowers.

The objective is to determine what the documents support.

That standard applies to everyone.

This article is commentary and records-based analysis concerning ongoing or disputed legal

matters. References to allegations are not findings that those allegations are true. Questions

raised about judicial, agency or attorney conduct are not findings of misconduct. Judicial rulings

should be evaluated from the actual orders, hearing records and applicable law. Sensitive

information concerning a minor should not be published merely because it appears in litigation

materials.

This clean version preserves the central framing and chronology of the uploaded publication,

including its opening evidentiary question.

Affiliate Disclosure

Value Savings Club participates in affiliate marketing programs with various brands and merchants. Some links, buttons, images, banners, product listings, and other clickable elements on this website may contain affiliate tracking. If you click or interact with one of these elements and make a purchase or complete a qualifying transaction, Value Savings Club may receive a commission or other compensation at no additional cost to you.

Our affiliate relationships do not increase the price you pay. Offers, prices, discounts, availability, and terms are determined by the individual merchant and may change at any time.

Value Savings Club does not process or fulfill purchases made through affiliate promotions. When you select an offer, button, image, or other promotional element, you may be redirected to a third-party website where that merchant's terms, privacy policy, return policy, and other conditions apply.

We may receive compensation from companies featured on this website. Compensation does not guarantee a positive review, recommendation, or placement.

Value Savings Club believes in transparency. Always review the merchant's complete offer and terms before making a purchase.

One important distinction: this sitewide disclosure is useful, but it shouldn't be your only disclosure. For individual posts/pages where someone could click an affiliate button or image, a short disclosure near the promotion—such as “Affiliate link — we may earn a commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you”—is the safer approach. The fact that the tracking URL is hidden behind an image or button doesn't eliminate the need for the relationship to be clear to the visitor.

Contact

admin@valuesavingsclub.com

© 2025. All rights reserved.