Note: This page will be continuously updated as new documents and evidence are compiled.
Overview
As with any custody and welfare case, there are serious and immediate concerns regarding the safety, emotional wellbeing, and rights of Lauriston Crockett IV. Based on documented evidence, depositions, and firsthand statements, significant issues have emerged relating to the conduct of both Nikki Ngo and Rob Cottingham. Their behaviors, false allegations, and manipulation of legal and medical systems appear aimed at unjustly removing Lauriston Crockett III from his son’s life.
Rob Cottingham should not be allowed around children: Stinky PeePee
Concerning Conduct: Nikki Ngo
False Allegations and Contradictions
- Emergency Motion Misuse: Nikki filed an “emergency motion” to block the father’s access to his son, despite no existing emergency or credible justification.
- Unsubstantiated Medical Diagnoses (Page 27): Made medical claims about Lauriston III without any professional medical backing.
- False Abuse Claims (Page 83): Attempted to document false accusations of abuse with no supporting evidence.
- Inconsistent Statements:
- Initially denies biting incident, then calls it “play biting” (Page 63).
- Admits to never checking for bite marks (Page 66).
- Accuses Lauriston IV of lying when he expresses love for his father (Page 68).
- Denies ever witnessing abuse herself (Page 84), while still labeling the father a danger (Page 86).
Manipulating Access and Custody
- Bed Sharing and Emotional Disturbance (Page 32): Continues to sleep in Lauriston IV’s bed—a pattern confirmed by recent records.
- Obstructing Visitation:
- Refused holiday visitation (Page 51).
- Stated explicitly that the father should be removed from the child’s life “by any means possible” (Pages 91–92).
- Expresses desire to monitor all father-son contact until the child turns 15 (Page 87).
- Denied the child’s right to return to his father despite his clear wishes (Page 90).
- Acknowledged goal to prevent the child from ever returning to his father’s home (Page 91).
Harmful Rhetoric and Behavior
- Racial and Homophobic Slander (Page 31).
- Disregards Child’s Affection for Father (Page 94): Minimizes child’s affection as lack of understanding: “He doesn’t know any better.”
- Endorses Punishing the Child (Page 98): Confirms agreement with Cottingham that the child should be punished for “lying” when expressing affection for his father.
Concerning Conduct: Rob Cottingham
Active Participation in False Claims
- Joint Fabrication of Abuse Claims:
- Accompanied Nikki to police departments and hospitals in attempts to manufacture child abuse allegations (Pages 74–78).
- Admitted lack of awareness or denial of clear medical reports stating the child’s injuries were due to hockey (Pages 19–20).
- When pressed, acknowledged the report was available to him but claimed to have not seen it until the deposition.
Contradictions and Shifting Narratives
- False Professional Claims: Claims to have an MBA (Pages 26, 55, 134), then shifts blame to office staff (Page 135).
- Contradictory Statements on Supervised Visitation: Originally stated Crockett didn’t need to be supervised, then claimed supervision was necessary indefinitely (Page 126).
- Baseless Accusations: Made repeated unsubstantiated claims of racism, homophobia, and violence (Pages 35–52). No evidence has been produced.
Emotional Manipulation and Denial of Child's Wishes
- Dismisses Child’s Emotional Needs:
- Denied child’s preference to live with his father as “fun and games” (Pages 95–97).
- Confirmed the child repeatedly states he wants to live with his father, yet continues efforts to sever the relationship.
Page 125:
Q: “Do you acknowledge, Mr. Cottingham, that Lauriston Crockett IV loves his dad and wants to be with him?”
A: “I acknowledge he loves his dad.”
Key Patterns of Concern
- No Evidence Provided: Despite years of accusations and investigations, neither Nikki Ngo nor Rob Cottingham has provided consistent, verifiable evidence supporting their claims against Lauriston Crockett III.
- Contradictions in Depositions: Repeated inconsistencies suggest a coordinated effort to alienate the child from his father.
- Ignored Professional Evaluations: Violence assessment and polygraph tests clear Mr. Crockett of abuse or aggression.
- Deliberate Alienation: Both parties have made statements and taken actions that reveal a clear agenda to permanently remove the father from the child’s life—contrary to the child’s expressed desires and best interests.
Summary
The depositions and legal documents presented here raise grave concerns about the behavior, intentions, and credibility of both Nikki Ngo and Rob Cottingham. Their actions not only violate the spirit of family law but also risk causing lasting emotional harm to Lauriston Crockett IV.
The community, legal system, and all responsible parties must take these concerns seriously and ensure that the best interests and rights of the child are preserved through transparency, truth, and fairness.