Is there a way to take away the father's right to child custody and visitation

This is a general answer that appears to apply in the fifty states. You have to locate the one solo practitioner in your jurisdiction who has substantial experience within the local child protective apparatus. This means that the solo has had significant face time with the local family court judiciary and may have even gone so far as to have brought in substantial sums of money from the federal government into the local court system. His Martindale Hubble rating will be "AV". Also, the solo has had significant face time with the local court appointed mental health professionals. These are the psychological evaluators who make "recommendations" to the judge to remove a child from a parent, impose supervised visitation and other sardonic outcomes. Lastly, the solo has had significant face time with the pool of local childrens' attorneys. These are the lawyers who are appointed by the court and ordered to represent your child. The solo may have been a prior child's attorney, a child protective lawyer or may be a member of a judicial review or investigations panel. So, you are stacking a deck composed of the court, the court appointed child's lawyer and the court appointed mental health evaluator. The typical case unfolds with a sudden service of the papers. The solo coordinates the prepositioning of the child's attorney in advance of the first appearance. The child's attorney is next up on the list of appointees and steps in as the child's lawyer on your case. The child's attorney almost immediately recommends a certain evaluator. An adjournment is made for an initial evaluation of the losing parent. At that evaluation, the losing parent does not suspect that his every word will be twisted and used against him. A "report" is written that is mailed to the judge. The report cannot be distributed because of its very "confidential" nature. At the second appearance, temporary orders are entered by the court. The child's attorney asserts the child is scared of the losing parent and the "report" paints an atrocious picture of the loser. "Treatment" and "therapy" is ordered which ostensibly the losing parent will fail. By now, the case is being adjourned for appearance after appearance until "trial". Letters from the therapist are being mailed to the judge. At trial, the judge admits into evidence the "report" and precludes the loser's case. The resulting order will have three parts: custody to the winning parent with supervised visitation to the loser; supervision to be performed by the psychologist recommended by the court's evaluator; the fee will be $100 per hour paid in cash. By now, the loser is paying child support, paying the evaluator's bills and has to pay $100 per hour to see the child. After a short period of time, the visits will stop and the loser will abandon the child. This scenario violates several of the psychologist's ethical code promulgated by the APA, several judicial canons and several attorney ethical principles. However, the cloak of confidentiality afforded by privacy rules allows this scheme to survive and be repeated. The local appeals courts will always support their court appointed professionals so appeals all fail. This scheme unconstitutionally deprives the loser of his property on a fabricated allegation of unfitness and the seemingly harmless remedy of seeing a psych. This takes place in every state. Lastly, anyone with knowledge about these groupings of professionals from your jurisdiction is asked to report these to your local office of court administration.