mkg4583

Archive for the ‘Maternal Deprivation’ Category

Children can get killed when the signs of Parental Alienation are missed

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody for fathers, Child Custody for Mothers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Freedom, Glenn Sacks, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, Maternal Deprivation, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Single Parenting, Sociopath on September 14, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Children can get killed when the signs of Parental Alienation are missed

(MMD Newswire) September 14, 2009 — Rekha Kumari-Baker stabs her teenage daughers Davina Baker and Jasmine Baker to death; Frances Elaine Campione drowns her daughters Sophia (1) and Serena (3); Nadine Bernard kills her 18 month old son Jayden Bernard; Claude Mubiangata kills his daughters Alpha and Cyndy and sons Kio and Aaron , aged 3-12; Brian Philcox murders his daughter Amy (7), and son Owen (3) by strapping them into the car and running the exhaust of his car in; James Gumm shoots his son Tyler Gumm (7) and daughter Kylie Gumm (6) at close range; Alysha Green douses her 3 daughters Alexandria Green (5), Adamiria Green (7) and Ariania Green (3) with gasoline and sets them on fire; Michele Sambriski kills daughter Gina (2); and the list continues.These seemingly random acts of insanity have a few commonalities, one of which is that there were signs. Signs of Parental Alienation, also called Hostile Aggressive Parenting. Signs which friends, family and/or professionals missed or ignored. Signs that if taken seriously may have saved some young, innocent lives.

Parental Alienation, also called Hostile Aggressive Parenting, is a set of behaviors that are very harmful to children’s emotional and mental health, and in extreme cases, to their lives. Mild Parental Alienation behaviors, such as bad-mouthing a parent, interfering with parenting time of a child and parent, can quickly escalate to obsessive alienation, such as refusing to give the child any gifts from the rejected parent, denying the existence of the other parent and forcing the child to take sides or risk being rejected by them. At the extreme end of the continuum, Parental Alienation can result in Parental Abduction and Parental Homocide.

These behaviors can occur in intact families, but occur most often in separated and divorced families. The courts and court professionals may then exacerbate the problem by not recognizing the signs of this type of abuse. Forcing a child to look down upon and/or hate another parent can be extremely harmful to children.

It’s time for public and professionals alike to stop ignoring the signs. Parents, and the children affected by these behaviors need quick and effective help, before the behaviors escalate; and before more children are abducted or murdered!

For every child murdered with signs of Parental Alienation, there are thousands more suffering mental and emotional trauma and abuse. How many more children need to suffer before Parental Alienation behaviors are recognized and stopped.

Join us in doing your part in your community to raise awareness of Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting, so that one day, these behaviors will become as socially unacceptable and recognizable as child battery.

“With education and awareness comes the power to stop the abuse of our most innocent-the children!” – Sarvy Emo, Founder of Parental Alienation Awareness Day, April 25th.

For more information on these behaviors and how to help raise awareness, visit www.paawareness.org

For further information contact:
Sarvy Emo
416-840-5657
info@paawareness.org
www.paawareness.org

###

Children can get killed when the signs of Parental Alienation are missed.

Parental Rights and Sexism in the UK – Tender Years Doctrine = Maternal Deprivation

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Marriage, Maternal Deprivation, Non-custodial fathers, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Tender Years Doctrine on August 3, 2009 at 6:05 pm
even Toddlers Need Fathers
Parenting
Homepage
Helping fathers sustain a parental relationship with their child or children through the family courts


Tender Years doctrine
How does this psychological theory influence court orders for contact and custody between mothers and fathers?


Making an Application to Court
Precedents, Case Laws and Court Authorities in family proceedings


‘Bonding’
Why fathers are so important to the development of children and the seminal contribution of Professor Sir Michael Rutter


CAFCASS
The welfare of the child and the Welfare Checklist. The role of CAFCASS and how they influence Court Orders


Shared or Joint Parenting
Overcoming barriers in UK family services and taking equal responsibility for your child or children


Parental Alienation
Most practitioners would consider PAS ’emotionally abusive’ so why don’t UK courts recognise parental alienation?


Winning ‘Frequent and Substantial’ Contact
Arguments and evidence a father may present to a family court judge to support his application for contact


//

Tender Years doctrine
Professor Sir Michael Rutter, 13th March 2002
“Very many thanks for sending me a copy of your interesting and informative guide on ‘even Toddlers Need Fathers’. I much appreciate your drawing my attention to it”

Most people who attend family proceedings for the first time expect the courts to be objective and impartial but according to Clare Dyer, the Guardian legal correspondent, ‘Under the present law, mothers who defy court orders can be jailed for contempt but the power is rarely used because judges are loath to deprive small children of their mothers.’  (‘New law may boost rights for fathers’, 29th October, 2001).

You may think if this is the situation what is the point in going to court in the first place? But there is also a psychological theory which supports the view of judges highlighted by the Guardian article. Dr John Bowlby (This symbol indicates there is also a YouTUBE video on this topic) working after the Second World War took the view that it was wrong to remove a small child from his or her mother. He called his theory ‘maternal deprivation’.  However it is rarely mentioned by name in court and it is more commonly referred to in legal proceedings as the Tender Years doctrine . The ‘Strange Situation’ procedure and Separation Anxiety
Link to YouTube Channel

The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, felt the same way as Dr John Bowlby when he made the following precedent  in 1992, which subsequently became a cornerstone of UK family law.

‘At the risk of being told by academics hereafter that my views are contrary to well-established authority, I think that there is a rebuttable presumption of fact that the best interests of a baby are best served by being with its mother, and I stress the word ‘baby’. When we are moving on to whatever age it may be appropriate to describe the baby as having become a child, different considerations may well apply. But as far as babies are concerned, the starting point is, I think, that it should be with its mother.’

Although Lord Donaldson specified ‘babies’ a judge may apply the principle that the child should be raised by their mother, at any age.In the same year as this precedent Professor Sir Michael Rutter was knighted for his contribution to children’s welfare which included the seminal work ‘Maternal Deprivation Reassessed’ (Penguin, 1972) that contradicted Bowlby’s research findings.

i. Investigations have demonstrated the importance of a child’s relationship with people other than his mother.
ii.  Most important of all there has been repeated findings that many children are not damaged by deprivation.
iii. The old issue of critical periods of development and the crucial importance of early years has been re-opened and re-examined. The evidence is unequivocal that experiences at all ages have an impact.
iv. It may be the first few years do have a special importance for bond formation and social development. (page 217)

‘ Psychology in Family Proceedings”
Link to YouTube Channel
According to ‘What the Family Courts expect from Parents’ issued by the Midland Region Family Judges and Magistrates ‘, “Denial of contact is very unusual and in most cases contact will be frequent and substantial”. Yet by adopting the Tender Years doctrine judges in family proceedings can effectively deny fathers a parental role thus deflecting them from actively participating in their child or children’s upbringing.

Baroness Richmond, the first female ‘Law Lord’, described the difference between Bowlby and Rutter’s approach in the following way;-

15.  Sir Michael qualified the original theory of ‘maternal deprivation’  which had been developed by John Bowlby and expressed for popular consumption in a book called  ‘Child Care and the Growth of Love’. That theory was that children were damaged by separation from their mother or mother figure. Sir Michael Rutter pointed out that children were not invariably so damaged and that, in any event, other people, including their fathers, are also very important to children.

Nevertheless, despite the words of Baroness Richmond judges are still loath to “deprive small children of their mothers” and whether it is called  maternal deprivation or the ‘Tender Years’  doctrine it is still this precedent set by the former Master of the Rolls, who is the most senior judge with civil responsibilities, that prevails.

Tender Years Doctrine.

Man Leading Nation in $10 Billion Suit on Behalf of America’s Fathers Speaks Out Again – Associated Content 1

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Teri C. Stoddard, Teri Stoddard on July 29, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Man Leading Nation in $10 Billion Suit on Behalf of America’s Fathers Speaks Out Again

Stakes Are Raised to $100 Billion Class Action on Behalf of All of America’s Fathers

Once again, the poor poverty stricken pennyless man who is pursuing a $10 Billion Civil Suit against the State of Oregon, the Federal Government and 49 other States on behalf of himself as lead plaintiff and hundreds of thousands of fathers across the nation has given this author permission to publish his account of his updated current circumstances for the public record.

He lived in a tent at Nickelsville in Seattle for a couple weeks and most recently has spent the past two months living under a bridge in Seattle in a pink tent! It is very cold in Seattle, Washington.

The Federal government will not give him food stamps any more and he lost his wallet with all his ID in it so the State of Washington will not give him a new drivers license, despite the fact that he worked in the state, contributing to the construction of thousands of houses over a 15 year period.

Fortunately for America, the man is not violent, for he has confessed to me in private of all the ways that he would love to destroy the legal professionals, the judges, the bankers, the ignorant and errant government workers who have prevented him from seeing his 7 year old and 13 year old sons, who still live on welfare in Eugene, Oregon.

His first wife, Aerial Long, now married to Micheal E. Long, a real estate hustler and scam artist who sells the same pieces of land over and over to people who cannot afford to live where he sells them fictional pieces of wealth through his web site, left him in 1993 and basically forced him to live on the streets, a common occurance for younger men who are perceived as unwilling yet able to work, especially in the midst of emotional upheaval and turmoil. He didn’t pay child support for 8 years, racking up a bill of over $50,000 which includes penalties and interest. He cannot discharge this debt in bankruptcy so has not filed. He has simply dropped out of the system completely and refuses to contribute to an economy that strips humanity of all sensibility and morality.

He got married again in 1994, divorced his second wife after their first child and was then convinced to marry her again in 2002, only to be divorced at the cost of $3,500 in California Superior Court in Los Angeles in 2005. He left her and the children in Reno, Nevada in April of 2004. His ex, known for her chronic lying and psychotic episodes of infinite personality disorders, swore to him during a heated argument on more than one occaision that if he left her, he would never see his children again. To that end, she has won a temporary vindictive victory at the expense of two minor children who will probably grow up gay and feminized by their mother and grandmother who are “taking care of the children”.


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

After only seeing his two more minor children once in five years, he has come to the conclusion that marraige in America is an insane institution that is sugar coated with religion. After ten years of not paying child support for his first child, and more than five years of not seeing his two minor children in Eugene but once, which during the visit which was well announced months before his arrival, his second ex-wife threatened to have him arrested for trespassing if he ever showed up at her house again!


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

He now owes more than $75,000 in back child support to Oregon, Washington and California but because the banking industry has collapsed, his former profession has become functionally obsolete. No one wants to hire a mortgage banker, not now, not ever again!

In an article originally published at the American Chronicle, it was written how the man got shafted by his second wife. This then is an update of the progress on that case which has been increased to a sum of $100 billion being sought in damages and triple damages in a Class Action that if successful will totally change the way divorces and child support and custody issues are handled in America.


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

Since publishing of that article more than two dozen men, fathers all across America have contacted the author, seeking the name of the man and his legal case numbers and files and unfortunately for those less informed, this author does not reveal his sources, especially on a highly sensitive case such as this one, nor will he share the case files which are locked up in a storage vault in Los Angeles, California.


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

It is now estimated that at least 100,000 fathers in America have been abused by the legal profession, the Court system, and an unjust set of laws and procedures laid down by lawyers, and are entitled to monetary relief damages from the Federal Government, the respective states who get paid by the Federal Government to break up families and keep fathers away from their childen in one circumstantial way or another.

There are currently 5 million children living with their father only, nearly triple the number since 1998.


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

With the global economy in a total state of economic depression, the issue of Fathers Rights, and Children’s Rights, and Parental Rights have taken a back stage to the events being bandied about in the mainstream media. Unfortunately for our children, more and more of them are going to find themselves out in the streets, selling whatever they can to get food, just to get to the free food, and to survive.

The number of single fathers in the United States has grown in recent years: there were 2.0 million in 1997, 50 percent more than in 1990 and triple the number in 1980. These families comprised 5 percent of all parent-child families in 1997, up from 2 percent in 1980. Single fathers are the fastest growing population in America today with more than ten million men engaged in a “Dad’s War”.


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

If you Google Search or Yahoo Search “Fathers Rights” you will find all kinds of resources online, but the father who I wrote about back in 2007 is now convinced that the only way to deal with the legal and financial issues surrounding his children is to “kidnap” them, but he has been advised against this by many of his friends including on former special prosecutor who now works for the Federal Court System as a public defender.

Recently he was convinced by me during our second interview in as many years, that he should take up the banner and continue to fight for his right to see his children, after all, he does want to be a good father, even if he is unemployed, unemployable, and houseless in Seattle.

To that end, the amount being sought in the class action has been increased from $10 billion to $100 billion, which if awarded by the court would amount to approximately a million dollars in settlement funds for every father in America who has lost contact with and been cut off from their children because of a system in America that values greed, capitalism, business, finance, and money more than the sanity of their offspring.


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

This is a recipe of extinction and the American establishment is now the most hated organization in the world.

One father says, “I love America, but I don’t trust the people running it!”

Do you?

True criminals who create scarcity in this world – the Bankers and the Lawyers – are the ones who are now losing control of the global economy, so is it any wonder that well over $50 billion is now owed in back child support by more than a million hard working fathers from the 50 states?


teri stoddard
I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…
Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

After all, 99.99% of Congress is composed of lawyers and the only good lawyer is a dead one according to one man who says “when the banks are all done with their deflation, it will be the lawyers who get publicly murdered for the violence they have foisted upon the families of America!”

A lawyers favorite pastime is driving people insane with false evidence, arbitrary rules, restrictive slave inducing regulations, paronoid induced procedures, jailish judgements, damning decrees, outlandish orders and perverted proclamations that only an idiot or a moron could possibly figure out. The first requirement of being a lawyer is you have to be certified as an idiot or a moron!

I have never met a lawyer who is all about justice rather than money, have you?

Man Leading Nation in $10 Billion Suit on Behalf of America’s Fathers Speaks Out Again – Associated Content.
—————————————————————-

Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Hi Kylie, I love your face, thanks for advertizing with me!

Posted on 05/28/2009 at 7:05:44 PM

I absolutely agree with you 100%, my husband did “kidnap” his kid, even though he had an order, then they dropped the charges but made a no contact order. Convenient eh!?

Posted on 04/17/2009 at 4:04:32 PM

I was hoping you were a writer I could promote. Then you said that being fatherless can lead to being gay. I’ve read enough…

Posted on 03/16/2009 at 3:03:36 PM

Being a father is an unexplainable feeling of love and concern for your child’s welfare. I can only guess about the stress and anger this man must feel about being forced from his children’s lives. We need a one on one compassion for our fellow man or woman from government officials not a hardy, “next” while standing in a long line of disrespect. I understand this only too well having worked in the legal system for many years.

Posted on 01/03/2009 at 1:01:51 AM

;-);-)

Posted on 11/30/2008 at 7:11:13 AM

wow. ill have to let that one digest a bit before i can say anything else.

Posted on 11/29/2008 at 6:11:54 PM

Comments 1 – 6 of 6

ParentsFirst – UK Organization for Parents and Children

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, Liberty, Marriage, Maternal Deprivation, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation on June 28, 2009 at 4:21 pm

Parents First is a British non-governmental voluntary organisation which aims through advice, support and referrals to help ALL parents (especially single parents) affected by family breakdown – in its various forms – to overcome their problems and to reunite with their child/ren safely wherever possible. We aim to help parents help themselves! Specifically, we aim to help aggrieved parents by mounting challenges in the UK courts using the Human Rights Act 1998 together with the Children Act 1989!

Parents First strongly believes in the integrity of the nuclear family as the building block of society. We see the right of the child to give and receive unconditional love and parental upbringing as non-negotiable and inextricably tied up with a meaningful definition of child welfare, which is paramount unless demonstrably proven impossible to achieve. Therefore, Family Life deserves respect.

Parents First endorses precise risk identification, its quantification and its effective management as the modern, enlightened approach, and hence categorically objects to crude over-simplifications in this sensitive area over a child/ren’s future within its/their birth family.

In the private law domain, we see ongoing inter-parental conflict post-relationship breakdown as incompatible with the continuing roles as parents and discourage perpetuating any inter-parental hostility as distinctly unhelpful to the child/rens welfare.

Hence we encourage separating couples to consider their child/ren’s welfare needs above their own, despite the acrimonies involved.

In the public law arena we view state intervention as the lesser of two evils and only to be used sparingly. We promote due and requisite statutory support for families with child/ren in need to minimise family disruption in order to keep families together and not to split them up needlessly.

There is not one single recorded case where a birth parent has taken on the system to win back his/her child from state care, and then gone on to harm or kill it – because this is simply improbable!

Yet, on the basis of little more than public hysteria and hyperbole over systematic failings by social service departments up and down the British Isles, (in the wake of their spectacular disasters in genuinely tragic cases, eg, Baby Peter, Khyra Ishaq, Victoria Climbie and many others,) over-zealous practice is rife causing unnecessary family breakdown by depriving capable parents of vital opportunities to demonstrate their parenting abilities. This practice is clearly disproportional and must be stopped. Yet that abuse in care continues unabated and is virtually unchallenged is outrageous!

via ParentsFirst – HOME.

Mediation – Allow the Child to Love the Other Parent

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes on June 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm

The message is: allow the child to love the other parent.

How and Why the UK Ministry of Justice ‘Monitoring Publicly Funded Mediation. Summary Report to the Legal Services Commission’ showed failure in mediation programs and why mothers, the “primary parents” were allowed to continue to keep the children away from the father:

She tells the class: “If parents are cordial and businesslike in taking care of the children’s needs, the children will do fine. But if there’s conflict, using the children as pawns, putting them in the middle, no communication or inappropriate communication, what you’re doing is beating on the children’s wounds. You’re not allowing the child any opportunity to heal.”

Armed with that information, parents go on to a mandatory session with a mediator, usually one and a half hours, to try to reach agreement on a parenting plan.

The mediator sees both parents together, then each separately, and finally together again to try to hammer out a final parenting-time schedule. They have a 10-day cooling off period to change their minds before the agreement is turned into an enforceable court order.

There is a presumption that the children will spend substantial time with each parent, although the final plan will depend on the children’s ages, how close their homes are to each other, and their parents’ work patterns. A “normal” plan for school age children would have them with their father for alternate weekends – Friday to Monday morning – an after-school meeting once a week and half the school holidays.

Programmes for early intervention to divert parents from the court process have been common throughout the US for more than 20 years. Legislation in California and Florida was introduced in the early 1980s in response to research showing that children from broken homes need both parents to go on playing a significant part in their lives.

Unlike in Britain, the right of children to have access to both their parents until 18 is written into statute. In both states, mediation is mandatory and in Florida no parents, including those who have been models of parental cooperation from the beginning, can divorce without taking a four-hour parent education course.

Gap in law

As in England and Wales, about 90% of parents manage the difficult transition to post-separation parenting without involving the courts. But where cases do go to court, the English experience is radically different.

The resident parent, usually the mother, holds all the cards. There is a presumption that the other parent will spend time with the child, but no presumption written into statute that contact will be “frequent and continuous”.

Absent parents, usually fathers, are left to apply to the court if the resident parent denies contact. Fathers can spend years making dozens of court applications, with many months between them, to little effect.

Last year a high court family division judge, Mr Justice Munby, delivered a blistering attack on the system when a father left his court in tears after being driven to abandon a five-year battle to see his daughter, which had involved 43 court hearings.

He called for sweeping changes and suggested that the way the English courts dealt with contact applications might even breach the European convention on human rights, which guarantees the right to respect for family life, the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and the enforcement of court orders.

The judge said he could understand why there was disappointment that the family resolutions pilot scheme, then just announced, only encouraged mediation rather than making it mandatory.

Nine months after the pilot started in three English courts last September, the latest figures – showing that only 47 couples entered it, against an estimate of 1,000, and that only 23 completed the programme – seem to fulfil the prophecy by fathers’ groups that making it optional would doom it to failure.

Although ministers estimate that 90% of separating parents work out their own arrangements for the children without involving the courts, some 40,000 took cases to court in England and Wales in 2003-04. Half were repeat applications and 7,000 applications were for enforcement of contact orders which were flouted by the resident parent.

In Florida, by contrast, very few cases now go to court, according to Judge John Lenderman, a circuit judge on the state’s sixth circuit. He said: “I’m totally con vinced mediation should be mandatory. Every judge that I’ve talked to around the United States says mandatory mediation is the way to go.”

Nor is there anything peculiar to the US about the mandatory schemes: disputes over contact in Norway are dealt with a similar way. “There are distinct cultural differences but people in western civilisation are the same,” said Judge Lenderman. “[Parents] love their children worldwide.”

Senior judges in Britain agree that parents need more support to resolve their cases outside the courts if possible. The retired high court family division judge Dame Margaret Booth told a conference which was trying to get a Florida-type scheme off the ground three years ago: “It is a shame that our country does not easily learn from what other jurisdictions have done successfully for so long.

“In this matter we are years behind. I believe profoundly that the time has come to remove our blinkers.”

Two couples, two sessions with the mediator

Juan and Kelly

At the superior court in downtown LA, Juan, a plumber, and Kelly, an underwriter, have come to court for their mediation session. After an 18-month marriage, they separated six years ago, before the birth of their second daughter, now five (her sister is seven).

Both work long hours. For years after their separation they shared parenting time, with Juan having the girls on alternate weekends and a big input from Kelly’s mother.

Now Juan has filed an application with the court, triggering the compulsory mediation session. “The whole reason we’re here today is the situation where she left the girls with me for three months,” he says.

Kelly says she was “overwhelmed with bills and responsibility” and asked her ex-husband to look after the girls for a time. He had just moved in with a new girlfriend who “didn’t really agree to it but had no choice”.

She agrees to go back to the alternate weekends schedule. But the mediator proposes that the girls also see him one night a week for dinner, drawing on psychological research suggesting the gap between alternate weekends is too long at their age.

He resists, saying he can’t guarantee his boss would let him leave the job early enough. That one issue will go to the judge to decide. “If the judge says I have to do it, I can give it to my boss,” he says.

Marie and Jack

Marie, from France, and her English-born former husband, Jack, have their mediation session by telephone conferencing because Jack, a record producer, is working in Australia. He is due to return to LA the following month after three months away.

This is a “high-conflict” case and the couple, separated for a year but not yet divorced, have been ordered to take the basic parenting class – which should happen before mediation, but which they have not yet taken – and an extra “parenting without conflict” course.

Marie, who gets $5,000 a month child support, and Jack are arguing over whether she should take their daughters, aged six and three, on a previously agreed month-long holiday in France.

He was upset when he came back to LA on a visit and his younger daughter did not recognise him. He had the girls with him for four days then and “could see some serious problems.” He accuses Marie of arguing in front of the children.

Marie and Jack reach an agreement that she will allow the girls to talk to him on the phone every day at 7pm while he is away, but the other issues will be left for the judge.

· Clare Dyer sat in on several mediations at the LA superior court at the downtown and Santa Monica locations. The couples’ names have been changed.

For the original article:

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/contents.html

Does Family Preservation Work? – Parental Rights

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Orphan Trains, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Title Iv-D, Torts on June 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm

From the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Va., 22314 / info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org

Family preservation is one of the most intensively-scrutinized programs in all of child welfare. Several studies — and real world experience — show that family preservation programs that follow the Homebuilders model safely prevent placement in foster care.

Michigan’s Families First program sticks rigorously to the Homebuilders model. The Michigan program was evaluated by comparing children who received family preservation services to a “control group” that did not. After one year, among children who were referred because of abuse or neglect, the control group children were nearly twice as likely to be placed in foster care, as the Families First children. Thirty-six percent of children in the control group were placed, compared to only 19.4 percent of the Families First children. [1]

Another Michigan study went further. In this study, judges actually gave permission to researchers to “take back” some children they had just ordered into foster care and place them in Families First instead. One year later, 93 percent of these children still were in their own homes. [2] And Michigan’s State Auditor concluded that the Families First program “has generally been effective in providing a safe alternative to the out-of-home placement of children who are at imminent risk of being removed from the home The program places a high priority on the safety of children.” [3]

An experiment in Utah and Washington State also used a comparison group. After one year, 85.2 percent of the children in the comparison group were placed in foster care, compared to only 44.4 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services.[4]

A study in California found that 55 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 26 percent of the children who received intensive family preservation services. [5]

A North Carolina study comparing 1,254 families receiving Intensive Family Preservation Services to more than 100,000 families who didn’t found that “IFPS consistently resulted in fewer placements…”[6]

And still another study, in Minnesota, found that, in dealing with troubled adolescents, fully 90 percent of the control group children were placed, compared to only 56 percent of those who received intensive family preservation services.[7]

Some agencies are now using IFPS to help make sure children are safe when they are returned home after foster care. Here again, researchers are beginning to see impressive results. In a Utah study, 77.2 percent of children whose families received IFPS help after reunification were still safely with their birth parents after one year, compared with 49.1 percent in a control group.[8]

Critics ignore all of this evidence, preferring to cite a study done for the federal government which purports to find that IFPS is no better than conventional services. But though critics of family preservation claim that this study evaluated programs that followed the Homebuilders model, that’s not true. In a rigorous critique of the study, Prof. Ray Kirk of the University of North Carolina School of Social Work notes that the so-called IFPS programs in this study actually diluted the Homebuilders model, providing service that was less intensive and less timely. At the same time, the “conventional” services sometimes were better than average. In at least one case, they may well have been just as intensive as the IFPS program – so it’s hardly surprising that the researchers would find little difference between the two.

Furthermore, efforts to truly assign families at random to experimental and control groups sometimes were thwarted by workers in the field who felt this was unethical. Workers resisted assigning what they considered to be “high risk” families to control groups that would not receive help from IFPS programs. In addition, the study failed to target children who actually were at imminent risk of placement.

Given all these problems, writes Prof. Kirk, “a finding of ‘no difference between treatment and experimental groups’ is simply a non-finding from a failed study.”[9]

Prof. Kirk’s findings mirror those of an evaluation of earlier studies purporting to show that IFPS was ineffective. The evaluation found that these studies “did not adhere to rigorous methodological criteria.”[10]

In contrast, according to Prof. Kirk, “there is a growing body of evidence that IFPS works, in that it is more effective than traditional services in preventing out-of-home placements of children in high-risk families.”[11]

Prof. Kirk’s assessment was confirmed by a detailed review of IFPS studies conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. According to this review:

“IFPS programs that adhere closely to the Homebuilders model significantly reduce out-of-home placements and subsequent abuse and neglect. We estimate that such programs produce $2.54 of benefits for each dollar of cost. Non-Homebuilders programs produce no significant effect on either outcome.”[12]

Some critics argue that evaluations of family preservation programs are inherently flawed because they allegedly focus on placement prevention instead of child safety. But a placement can only be prevented if a child is believed to be safe. Placement prevention is a measure of safety.

Of course, the key words here are “believed to be.” Children who have been through intensive family preservation programs are generally among the most closely monitored. But there are cases in which children are reabused and nobody finds out. And there are cases — like Joseph Wallace — in which the warnings of family preservation workers are ignored. No one can be absolutely certain that the child left at home is safe — but no one can be absolutely certain that the child placed in foster care is safe either — and family preservation has the better track record.

And, as discussed in Issue Paper 1, with safe, proven strategies to keep families together now widely used in Alabama, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere, the result is fewer foster care placements and safer children.

Indeed, the whole idea that family preservation — and only family preservation — should be required to prove itself over and over again reflects a double standard. After more than a century of experience, isn’t it time that the advocates of foster care be held to account for the failure of their program?

Updated, April 24, 2006

1. Carol Berquist, et. al., Evaluation of Michigan’s Families First Program (Lansing Mich: University Associates, March, 1993). Back to Text.

2. Betty J. Blythe, Ph.D., Srinika Jayaratne, Ph.D, Michigan Families First Effectiveness Study: A Summary of Findings, Sept. 28, 1999, p.18. Back to Text.

3. State of Michigan, Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit of the Families First of Michigan Program, July, 1998, pp. 2-4. Back to Text.

4. Mark W. Fraser, et. al., Families in Crisis: The Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991), p.168. Back to Text.

5. S. Wood, S., K. Barton, C. Schroeder, “In-Home Treatment of Abusive Families: Cost and Placement at One Year.” Psychotherapy Vol. 25 (1988) pp. 409-14, cited in Howard Bath and David Haapala, “Family Preservation Services: What Does the Outcome Research Really Tell Us,” Social Services Review, September, 1994, Table A1, p.400. Back to Text.

6. R.S. Kirk, Tailoring Intensive Family Preservation Services for Family Reunification Cases: Research, Evaluation and Assessment, (www.nfpn.org/resourcess/articles/tailoring.html). Back to Text.

7. I.M. Schwartz, et. al., “Family Preservation Services as an Alternative to Out-of-Home Placement of Adolescents,” in K. Wells and D.E. Biegel, eds., Family Preservation Services: Research and Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991) pp.33-46, cited in Bath and Happala, note 3, supra.Back to Text.

8. R.E. Lewis, et. al., “Examining family reunification services: A process analysis of a successful experiment,” Research on Social Work Practice, 5, (3), 259-282, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.

9. R.S. Kirk, A Critique of the “Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report,” May, 2001. Back to Text.

10. A. Heneghan, et. al., Evaluating intensive family preservation services: A methodological review. Pediatrics, 97(4), 535-542, cited in Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.

11. Kirk, note 6, supra.Back to Text.

12. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Intensive Family Preservation Programs: Program Fidelity Influences Effectiveness. February, 2006, available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-02-3901.pdf

The original article can be found here: http://www.nccpr.org/newissues/11.html

Parental Mediation Does Not Work, Wake Up U.S. Courts

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, DSM-IV, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Homeschool, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Title Iv-D, Torts on June 8, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Introduction

One of the government’s most exhaustive research reports ever commissioned called ‘Monitoring Publicly Funded Family Mediation’ found that ‘mediation‘ in this country did not ‘meet the objectives of saving marriages or helping divorcing couples to resolve problems with a minimum of acrimony’ and as a result was forced to scrap the idea of making mediation compulsory – see the statement from the former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine, 16th.January 2000. However it is is still used as a method for deflecting fathers from receiving reasonable contact with their child or children. This section is intended to help fathers by highlighting some of the pitfalls of mediation with reference to the government’s own research report. If you have a query regarding any aspect of the mediation process, for example, Section 10, ‘The Parties Attitudes to Negotiation’, you can consult the government’s own research by clicking alongside!

“The government is committed to supporting marriage and to supporting families when relationships fail, especially when there are children involved. But this very comprehensive research, together with other recent valuable research in the field, has shown that Part II of the Family Law Act (i.e. Mediation) is not the best way of achieving those aims. The government is not therefore satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of Part II and proposes to ask Parliament to repeal it once suitable legislative opportunity occurs.”

Former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine,
16th.January 2000

NB For all legal aid certificates ‘mediation’ has to take place before the certificate (or funding) can be issued. However it can be deemed unnecessary if the mother makes an allegation of domestic abuse.

The original article can be found here: http://www.eventoddlersneedfathers.com/

Maternal Deprivation? Monkeys, Yes; Mommies, No…

In adoption abuse, Alienation of Affection, Autism, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Christian, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, Indians, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Maternal Deprivation, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Orphan Trains, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Sociopath, state crimes, Torts on June 7, 2009 at 5:00 am

Do children do best with one parent over another? Or does biology determine who is the better parent?

If you ask the feminists of the 70s who wanted to be free of restrictive child-rearing and assume an equal station in the workplace and politics, the answer to the first question would be no. Why would feminists give up their biologically superior position of motherhood, in which a mother is the primary caregiver, in favor of a job? What narcissists mother would do that?

And yet, today, if you ask the very self-same feminists who are leading the charge to narrow sole-custody of children in divorce proceedings to a woman based on some “biological advantage” the answer to the second question would be yes.

Upon this, you have the creation of a legally untenable position given to women based on gender. To get around “having your cake and eating it, too,” state family law has created the “imaginary world” of the “primary parent” dictum, which guides family law today, which is just a primary rehashing of “tender years doctrine”, both of which do not have the legal merit whatsover, nor the empirical research to support either.

But if you go back to the Maternal Deprivation nonsense, you quickly find the empirical research that throws this theory back into the area of “junk science” where it belongs. Maternal Deprivation is both empirically wrong and a sexist theory.

The junk science theory and refutation can be found here:
http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bowlby.html

“Although Bowlby may not dispute that young children form multiple attachments, he still contends that the attachment to the mother is unique in that it is the first to appear and remains the strongest of all. However, on both of these counts, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

* Schaffer & Emerson (1964) noted that specific attachments started at about 8 months and, very shortly thereafter, the infants became attached to other people. By 18 months very few (13%) were attached to only one person; some had five or more attachments.

* Rutter (1981) points out that several indicators of attachment (such as protest or distress when attached person leaves) has been shown for a variety of attachment figures – fathers, siblings, peers and even inanimate objects.

Critics such as Rutter have also accused Bowlby of not distinguishing between deprivation and privation – the complete lack of an attachment bond, rather than its loss. Rutter stresses that the quality of the attachment bond is the most important factor, rather than just deprivation in the critical period.

Another criticism of 44 Thieves Study as that it concluded that affectionless psychopathy was caused by maternal deprivation. This is correlational data and as such only shows a relationship between these two variables. Indeed, other external variables, such as diet, parental income, education etc. may have affected the behaviour of the 44 thieves, and not, as concluded, the disruption of the attachment bond.”

There are implications arising from Bowlby’s work. As he believed the mother to be the most central care giver and that this care should be given on a continuous basis an obvious implication is that mothers should not go out to work. There have been many attacks on this claim:

* Mothers are the exclusive carers in only a very small percentage of human societies; often there are a number of people involved in the care of children, such as relations and friends (Weisner & Gallimore, 1977).

* Ijzendoorn & Tavecchio (1987) argue that a stable network of adults can provide adequate care and that this care may even have advantages over a system where a mother has to meet all a child’s needs.

* There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990).

There are many articles relating to this nonsense, and how it has been refuted. The original theory was promulgated by John Bowlby. Bowlby grew up mother-fixated because he did not have a relationship with his father. See why here.

Psychological research includes a shocking history and continuation of maternal deprivation experiments on animals. While maternal deprivation experiments have been conducted far more frequently on rhesus macaques and other monkeys, chimpanzees were not spared as victims of this unnecessary research.
Maternal Deprivation applies to monkeys only.