mkg4583

Posts Tagged ‘mothers rights’

Parental Alienation – The Kidnapper’s Trick

In Activism, Best Interest of the Child, child abuse, Child Custody, child trafficking, Children and Domestic Violence, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, kidnapped children, Marriage, MMPI, MMPI 2, mothers rights, Obama, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Protective Dads on November 7, 2009 at 12:30 pm

by Nathan Thornburgh

Around the globe, millions have followed the story of Natascha Kampusch, the girl who was kidnapped at age 10 and held prisoner for eight years in a windowless basement near Vienna, Austria. They have clicked through snapshots of her dungeon posted on the Internet, speculated in chat rooms about why she had never been discovered, and marveled at her eloquence in her first television interview last week.

But in the U.S., one group is intently focused not on the physical layout of Kampusch’s captivity but on the mental landscape of a girl who grew up thinking her parents had abandoned her–counselors who work with children of divorced couples. Long-term abductions by strangers are thankfully rare, but psychologists say the trauma of Kampusch, 18, who was told for years that her parents had simply forgotten about her, echoes the fallout from the more common nightmare of a custody dispute in which a child is irrevocably poisoned against one parent. However composed she appears now, they warn, Kampusch has a long, treacherous road to recovering her relationship with her parents.

Convincing children that their parents don’t love them is a brutally effective way to secure children’s allegiance. Steven Stayner was kidnapped in Merced, Calif., in 1972, at age 7. For seven years, he lived with his abductor as a son, going to a public high school, often left alone but never escaping. According to Sharon Carr Griffin, a friend of Stayner’s who is writing a book about his life, Stayner’s kidnapper told him that his dad had died and his mother had signed custody of Stayner over to the kidnapper. “If you can convince a child that their parents don’t care, then you own them,” says J. Michael Bone, a mental health counselor in Winter Park, Fla.

Bone has counseled scores of victims of a phenomenon known as “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” in which one parent accuses the other of brainwashing their child and turning him or her against the parent. Parental alienation is a controversial legal theory. Some say it’s just a smoke screen for abusive or negligent parents who deserve to be hated by their children. But practitioners say that in extreme cases, parents can implant false memories of abuse or otherwise stir a child into a permanent and completely irrational rage against the targeted parent.

From the Magazine | Behavior The Kidnapper’s Trick An Austrian girl escapes her captor, but the lies he told about her parents may be harder to outrun By NATHAN THORNBURGH SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR Posted Thursday, Sep. 14, 2006 Around the globe, millions have followed the story of Natascha Kampusch, the girl who was kidnapped at age 10 and held prisoner for eight years in a windowless basement near Vienna, Austria. They have clicked through snapshots of her dungeon posted on the Internet, speculated in chat rooms about why she had never been discovered, and marveled at her eloquence in her first television interview last week.

But in the U.S., one group is intently focused not on the physical layout of Kampusch’s captivity but on the mental landscape of a girl who grew up thinking her parents had abandoned her–counselors who work with children of divorced couples. Long-term abductions by strangers are thankfully rare, but psychologists say the trauma of Kampusch, 18, who was told for years that her parents had simply forgotten about her, echoes the fallout from the more common nightmare of a custody dispute in which a child is irrevocably poisoned against one parent. However composed she appears now, they warn, Kampusch has a long, treacherous road to recovering her relationship with her parents.

Convincing children that their parents don’t love them is a brutally effective way to secure children’s allegiance. Steven Stayner was kidnapped in Merced, Calif., in 1972, at age 7. For seven years, he lived with his abductor as a son, going to a public high school, often left alone but never escaping. According to Sharon Carr Griffin, a friend of Stayner’s who is writing a book about his life, Stayner’s kidnapper told him that his dad had died and his mother had signed custody of Stayner over to the kidnapper. “If you can convince a child that their parents don’t care, then you own them,” says J. Michael Bone, a mental health counselor in Winter Park, Fla. Bone has counseled scores of victims of a phenomenon known as “parental alienation syndrome,” in which one parent accuses the other of brainwashing their child and turning him or her against the parent. Parental alienation is a controversial legal theory.

Some say it’s just a smoke screen for abusive or negligent parents who deserve to be hated by their children. But practitioners say that in extreme cases, parents can implant false memories of abuse or otherwise stir a child into a permanent and completely irrational rage against the targeted parent. Increasingly, family courts are ordering a treatment called reconciliation therapy. One technique is to have the child look through an album of photos of the alienated parent to humanize that person again. Another is to show studies about how easily the mind is tricked, to let children know it’s not their fault that they have come to believe falsehoods about their parent. But those first steps toward rebuilding the parent-child relationship can be wobbly.

That is why counselors are saluting the caution being shown in Natascha Kampusch’s case. At first blush, it seems counterintuitive: after eight years of wrenching separation, she hasn’t returned home to either of her parents (who divorced before the abduction). Instead, she has been living at Vienna General Hospital, where she is likely to stay for at least another month in the care of a cadre of social workers and psychologists. She has arranged brief, if frequent, visits with her mother but in the first week saw her father only once.

In fact, an odd custody battle for Kampusch’s allegiance appears to be playing out publicly between her father and the memory of her captor, who threw himself under a train hours after Kampusch escaped. Christoph Feurstein, the journalist who conducted her television interview, says Kampusch is angry at her father for speaking on her behalf to the media; he told an interviewer that she would celebrate her captor’s death. Kampusch, in fact, visited the morgue and saw her abductor before he was buried, and told the world she mourned his death.

When Stayner escaped 26 years ago, there was little idea that such ambivalent feelings could exist in a child. He was immediately returned to his childhood home, but by many accounts struggled to fit back in. Nine years later, he died in a motor- cycle crash.

Kampusch says she was fighting with her mother on the day she was abducted. “My mother always used to say that we should never part ways angry,” she said during her television interview, “because something could happen to her or me and we’d never see each other again.” But in the aftermath of such cruel captivity, seeing each other again comes with its own challenges.

The original article can be found here: http://www.jmichaelbone.com/jmb_site_files/jmb_site_files/jmb_site_files/page24.html

Advertisements

Lost Children: Parental Alienation Destroys Relationships

In Divorce, family court, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, mothers rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parents rights on November 6, 2009 at 6:45 pm

By: John Sedgwick, Photographs: Julia Fullerton-Batten
Feb 2, 2007 – 7:07:58 PM

How parental brainwashing can destroy the once-close relationships of kids and their divorced dads

Jeff Opperman, a 49-year-old corporate-communications officer in Seymour, Connecticut, got the first gut-churning clue of how ruinous his divorce was going to be to his relationship with his younger son the night it became clear he and his wife, Anne, had to part.

They’d been married for 17 years, but it hadn’t been going well. “We were fighting and drifting apart,” says Opperman, “and the more we fought, the more we drifted apart, and the more we drifted apart, the more we fought.” They decided to hold off telling their 11-year-old son until he’d finished camp that summer. But the marriage was so rocky that Jeff and Anne arrived in separate cars to take him home, leaving it to their son to choose which car to ride home in. He picked his mother’s—a fateful choice, as things turned out. “God knows what she said to him in that car for an hour and a half,” Opperman says.

The next night, when he and Anne “got into it” in their bedroom, she burst out the door and raced down to their son’s room, where she yelled, Opperman recalls, “the most horrid, disgraceful things, calling me a liar, a cheat, a son of a bitch, just everything.” Tears streamed down his son’s reddened face, but he didn’t try to defend his dad. Instead, to Opperman’s astonishment, he started to chime in, feebly parroting some of his mother’s charges, even though he’d always been close to his father. When Opperman tried to give the boy a reassuring hug, Anne abruptly stepped between them and, claiming that Jeff was going to hurt the boy, threatened to call the police if he came any closer. Opperman backed off, not wanting to risk a bigger scene in front of his son. “My son cried his eyes out,” Opperman recalls. “Just cried and cried.”

That was 6 years ago, but it established the dynamic by which Jeff became the designated ogre parent and his son became Anne’s exclusive possession. Jeff acknowledges that he hadn’t been a perfect husband. “When a marriage breaks down, both parties are at fault, and ours was no different,” he says. But regardless of who was responsible for the divorce, Jeff feels his ex should have protected their son from the negative aspects of the relationship. Instead, he claims, she burdened their son with her pain and sense of betrayal—and his son responded by aligning himself fully with his mother and emotionally cutting off his dad.

Although Opperman was granted joint custody and lives just 10 minutes away, he has since seen his son only for the briefest intervals—despite repeatedly taking his ex to court over custody violations. “The court adopts this tough-talking John Wayne attitude,” Opperman recounts. “‘You will take the child to counseling. You will allow the child to maintain relations with the father. You will, you will, you will.’ But my ex doesn’t do any of it—and nothing happens.” Despite all Opperman’s efforts, the court has been both reluctant to force their son to spend time with a father he wants nothing to do with and unwilling to compel his ex-wife by threat of jail time.

All this leaves Opperman out in the cold. His Christmas and birthday presents to his son go unacknowledged. When Opperman calls, his son will occasionally pick up, but when he hears that it’s his father on the line, he won’t speak. All Jeff hears is his son’s breath in the receiver before he sets the phone down. Last summer, Opperman came to the house to pick up his older son. There were lights on in his younger son’s bedroom, and Opperman could see the back of his son’s head as he stared at a computer screen. Jeff honked the horn, hoping to get his attention. “I was sure he could hear me,” Jeff recalls. “But my son never even turned his head.”

Opperman’s desperation is hardly unique. About 40 percent of children living with their mothers don’t see their fathers so much as once a year. Even allowing for fathers who are at war, in prison, or otherwise unavailable, statistics like that force the question: Are there really that many men out there who simply don’t care about their kids and vice versa? Or is something more sinister at work?

The rest of the original article can be found here: http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/publish/family-fatherhood/Lost_Children.shtml

Parental Alienation Syndrome: How to Detect It and What to Do About It

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, mothers rights, Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights, Protective Dads, Protective Parents, Restraining Orders on November 6, 2009 at 1:45 am

by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh
THE FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL, VOL. 73, No. 3, MARCH 1999, p 44-48

Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 “high conflict” divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses.

Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly.

Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.

For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3) There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow. Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS.

In most instances, these criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the concept of “attempted” PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not be viewed as neutral by the court.

Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.

The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their examination in court.

Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking

Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent’s parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse.

This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is “unsettling” to the child, and that they need time “to adjust.” The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child’s relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is “inconvenient,” thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or “target” parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.

The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child’s life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.

Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations

The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5)

This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.

Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.

A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as “abusive” by the absent parent.

For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being “abusive” or “detrimental” to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new “significant other” to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called “abusive” to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.

Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent’s responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.

Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation

The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative “success.” By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent. Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past.

Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.

If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.

In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional’s investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.

Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children

The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, “My way or the highway.” If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the alienating parent’s “agent” and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child’s emotional well being.

In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a “fear based” environment. It is the installation of fear by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature–the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.

The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child’s feelings about the visit. In fact, the alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent’s wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the door for that child’s being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)

As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the alienating parent’s perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the “fear-based” core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child’s protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the “no visitation” plan.

Conclusion

All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child’s age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.

The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding “No!” It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL’s report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.

It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.

1 PAS syndrome applies and relates equally to the nonresidential, as well as the residential parent. D.C. Rand, The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome. 15 Am. J. Forensic Psychol. No. 3 (1997).

2 S.S. Clawar and B.V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, A.B.A. (1991).

3 M. Walsh and J.M. Bone. Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody Problem, 71 Fla. B.J. 93 (June 1997).

4 N. Theonnee and P.G. Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Visitation Disputes, 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 151-63 (1990).

5 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 2998, Contract 105-85-1702.

6 The appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment of an expert to conduct a psychological evaluation of the child and the parents, the employment of make-up or substitute access and contact, or an enlargement of same to the nonresidential parent, and as previously suggested by the authors in their last article, a consideration for entry of a multidirectional order. Walsh and Bone, supra note .3

J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is a sole practice psychotherapist and certified family law mediator in Maitland. He concentrates in divorce and post-divorce issues involving minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has served as on expert witness on these and related topics and has been appointed by the court to make recommendations involving PAS and families.

Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is a board certified marital and family law lawyer, certified mediator and arbitrator, and a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years, he has been a frequent lecturer and author for The Florida Bar.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Jane L. Estreicher, chair, and Sharon O. Taylor, editor.

The original article can be found here: http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/walsh99.htm

Children are better off with both parents there

In Activism, 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, custody, deadbeat dads, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on August 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Children are better off with both parents there

The Daily News

Published: Thursday, August 20, 2009

Re: ‘Children’s interests first priority in divorce, says justice minister’ (Daily News, Aug. 18)

I read your article about our federal justice minister making comments to the Canadian Bar Association meeting in Dublin, Ireland.

Rob Nicholson is either being misquoted or appears to have little understanding of the legal effects of the divorce process.

It is not about the best interests of children versus fathering rights. It is in the best interests of children to have both parents in their lives, both father and mother. This fact has been adequately researched and documented for years.

Children perform better in all areas of their lives when they have a mother and father present in their upbringing. This is not to say that single-parent families are deficient, simply a statement about the ideal situation.

MP Maurice Vellacott’s Bill C-422 to entrench equal parenting in the Divorce Act is simply to make changes that Canadian society has overwhelmingly supported by 80-90% in numerous opinion polls since the early 1990s.

This bill does not reduce protection for children, but clarifies what the best interests of children are and that equal parenting needs to be the starting point unless other factors are existing. These other factors could be practical considerations such as work schedules, or the necessity of protecting “the child from physical and psychological harm through abuse, neglect or alienation of parental affection.”

This bill specifically directs judges to take these considerations into account. Kelowna lawyer Meg Shaw was way off the mark when she suggested that this bill would somehow diminish the protection children might receive when required. In fact, it would have the opposite effect.

Federal justice ministers for many years have been quoted as dismissing parental rights as either nonexistent or minimal (re: Martin Cauchon’s oft repeated 2002 statement of “Parents have responsibilities, they don’t have rights”). Putting the best interests of the child is not in any way in conflict with parents having rights and responsibilities. We all know that having responsibilities entails having the power to perform them, thus the necessity for parental rights.

Theo J. Boere

Nanaimo Men’s Resource Centre

Children are better off with both parents there.

Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on August 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm

SUPPORT THE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT OF 2009

Obama-Change-500

Many poor fathers are shut out of the lives of their children because the family court system puts profits over children and parents.  The majority of these fathers are homeless, but the public has this skewed perception that these fathers are taking five vacation trips per year, driving fast cars, have a trophy girl friend, and could care less about their children who are straving and momma is trying to scrape every penny together to feed them.

In 2006, then Senator Barrack Obama sponsored the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act which failed miserably.  The contributions of fathers are grossly ignored by the media unless it is someone like Michael Jackson.  We seriously need change in putting fathers at an equal level as mothers when it comes to raising children.

We need to make serious changes and get rid of bad laws that hurt families and children.

Attorney Andrew J. Thompson writes about what we need in order to have true responsible fatherhood:

https://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/responsible-fatherhood-and-healthy-families-family-law-and-fathers/

Equality in Parenting: while parents’ roles will always differ, both parents matter deeply to every child, and on the whole, their roles should be valued equally and with an equality of balance. When parents separate, divorce, and act as single parents, each parent should be responsible for roughly equal shares of financial and parenting time responsibilities.  This equality should be recognized under the law.  The father who is willing to bear his share of each of these responsibilities should be honored and acknowledged, and his role and time with the children should not be inhibited by the family courts.

Support Enforcement: while covering a relatively equal share of his children’s financial support is part and parcel to fatherhood and will always be expected of fathers, current child support standards are far too onerous and unfairly burdensome to fathers.  The federal government plays a role in support regulation today and productive reforms can be made in the law as follows:

  1. Repeal the Bradley Amendment: Fathers who have been alienated from their children, perhaps have not seen them for 5,10 or 20 years, should not be forced to pay support to the mother.  The Bradley Amendment has created a situation where we have billions of dollars of uncollectible child support over the past 20 years, and it is time for its repeal.
  2. Title IV-D Funding: Under current law, states are rewarded with federal funds based on the amount of support they collect.  This creates an incentive in the system to create unreasonably high support guidelines and calculations, set inappropriately high support awards, and deploy draconian enforcement methods that force many, good fathers to live in poverty or near poverty conditions.  States should receive federal funding focusing directly and solely on those cases where collection is achievable (actual resources are shown to be available), and there is a history of continuing dereliction and lack of cooperation on the part of the parent obligated for support.
  3. Imputation of Income: Not even the IRS can arbitrarily impute an income against which it may levy charges, yet nearly every state permits this practice in determining the amount of support a father will have to pay.  This practice defies the principles underlying many of our Constitutional rights.  No state should be allowed to receive any federal funding as long as it allows for this practice.
  4. Sanctions/Imprisonment: There are many jurisdictions nationally where more than 10% of the prison/jail population is made up of fathers who are unable to pay support.  This runs contrary to the purpose of the laws themselves, as it prevents from earning the income necessary to do what the law is expecting of him.  The law should prohibit any parent who is willing to work and pay support from being jailed for non-payment of support, and parents responsible for support should be given a preference in professional and other licensing that may be necessary in order to earn the income to pay support.
  5. Garnishments: While other creditors are limited to garnishing 25% of an individual’s income, child support agencies can collect up to 65% – 65% of a low or mid-income wage, leaves the person completely unable to meet any other obligations, even the most basic.  Garnishments for support should be limited to 25%, consistent with otehr creditors.

Domestic Violence Issues: domestic violence is a very serious crime and should always be treated as such.  Allegations of domestic violence should result in appropriate protection for the victim with appropriate sanctions.  Children should not suffer alienation from a parent, they should not be punished for the actions of the parent.

Here is some info on the Act:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1309/show

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070801-76

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • De.lirio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Blogosphere News
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • StumbleUpon

Posted on by Semper Fi

Children’s Rights Initiative for Sharing Parents Equally.

Parental Rights Amendment Reaches 110 Co-Sponsors

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, California Parental Rights Amendment, Child Custody, Child Support, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, CPS, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, HIPAA Law, Homeschool, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment on July 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm

New CoSponsors in the House – and Senate!

This morning, in conjunction with Representative Hoekstra’s office, we proudly sent out the following press release:

Parental Rights Amendment Reaches 110 Co-Sponsors

Grassroots Movement behind Effort to Ensure Parents’ Rights to Raise their Children

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE / July 27, 2009 / Washington, D.C. – A Constitutional Amendment to protect the parent-child relationship introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, has reached 110 co-sponsors in the House.

“More and more members of Congress are recognizing the threat from government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship,” Hoekstra said. “I encourage my colleagues to support the initiative by co-sponsoring the Parents’ Rights Amendment.”

The Parental Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the erosion of fundamental parental rights in our federal courts.

“Just about every member of Congress agrees with the legal principle that parents have the fundamental right to make decisions for the upbringing of their children,” said Michael Farris, J.D., president of Parentalrights.org. “Because of international law and shifting judicial philosophies, the right is being steadily undermined. We now have 110 members of Congress with the foresight to say that we need to protect this long-standing right before the erosion goes too far. We appreciate the leadership of Pete Hoekstra and the 109 other members of Congress who believe that it is important to secure the rights of American families for generations to come.”

More information on the Parental Rights Amendment can be viewed at http://www.parentalrights.org.

More Good News

In addition, we also received word that Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has signed on as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 16, the Parental Rights Amendment in the Senate. This brings our total in the Senate to three (3) – a slow but important start.

While there is no way to track the direct effects of your calls and emails and our visits last week, it is safe to assume that at least some of these cosponsors would not have signed on before the summer break without this contact. When we visited Congress last week, everyone we spoke to was already aware of the Amendment – a major change from just four months ago! Our thanks and congratulations to you for your efforts to bring this vital issue to the attention of your Senators and Congressmen. With help like yours, we will win!

Domestic Violence Against Men, Women and Children

In due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fathers rights, Feminism, Freedom, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parentectomy, Parents rights on July 25, 2009 at 12:00 pm

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights is adamant in its belief that Domestic Violence cannot be tolerated. The NFRC and FER also demands that the society acknowledge that Domestic Violence is an equal problem for both genders.

FACT: 50% or more of domestic violence (spouse or “significant other” assaults) are perpetrated by women. This is confirmed by hundreds of valid studies, the authors of which are sometimes threatened with discontinuation of funding for being politically incorrect (this means saying what powerful people don’t want to hear). Part of the poison that the women’s groups spew is the blatantly false allegation that 95% of DV is perpetrated by men against women. The women’s groups have promoted this lie for so long now, many people, including men, actually believe it. Even the Office of Violence Against Women has shown 34% of DV is against men.

Nevertheless, the radical feminist groups have been working overtime for many years to promote the libelous propaganda that men are violent towards women and children and can’t be trusted. If a lie is repeated often enough, people start believing it. And in fact, most of the policy makers in American society have bought into the lie. One result is millions of dollars of our tax money funneled to domestic violence shelters (read: women’s shelters) and other related programs. Another result of this pernicious libel is seen in domestic violence laws that presume that men are the primary aggressors. We all know that if mom calls 911, dad will be arrested. If dad calls 911, dad will be arrested. Fathers, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, are all portrayed by shelter spokespersons as being untrustworthy (unless of course they need to be sent to war.)

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights demands that society acknowledge that false claims of Domestic Violence is used to gain unfair advantage in custody and divorce cases.

Fathers’ organizations now estimate that up to 80% of domestic violence allegations against men are false allegations. Since society offers women so many perks for claiming that they are victims of DV (we call these perks “warm milk and cookies”), false or staged DV allegations now appear to be even more frequent in family court cases than false sex abuse allegations. And they are much easier to fabricate. Mom can simply scratch her arm with her fingernail and claim that dad did it to her! Many men plead “no contest” to these allegations, often because they cannot afford good legal representation. What father, who has been kicked out of his house, estranged from his children, paying exorbitant child support and spousal support, and may lose his job if convicted of domestic violence, can afford good legal representation, both in family court and in criminal court? So, he rolls over and pleads “no contest,” which of course is the kiss of death in his custody case. It may also keep him from owning a gun, including a rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, and in many cases it has resulted in good police officers losing their jobs (because they can’t carry a gun) or even soldiers being dismissed from the military, because they too are often prohibited from using firearms.

The domestic violence industry was hijacked by the feminists around 30 years ago, however perhaps the most damaging process took place some 15 years ago, namely the “fusing” of the domestic violence industry with the divorce industry. Simply stated, women know, and are often advised by their attorneys, that if they want to get custody of the children, they had better try to nail dad with some sort of domestic violence accusation. In many states, that alone will nail the coffin. Dad will be labeled a perpetrator, will lose custody of his children, will be placed under supervised visitation with his children, will often pay mom’s attorney fees and court costs, will be ordered to pay alimony, will be forced to pay for and attend “anger management” or “batterers” classes often lasting 36 weeks, and will be required by the court to send financial contributions to the local women’s shelter. (This reminds one of the Nazi practices of forcing Jews to purchase tickets for their own “train rides” to death camps.) Keep in mind, the domestic violence allegation against dad does not have to be true, it only has to sound plausible for it to stick, and we see the devastating success of the poisonous propaganda. Goebbels couldn’t have orchestrated it better.

Texas Fathers for Equal Rights is adamant in its belief that child abuse in general cannot be tolerated; and child sexual abuse, in particular, is among the most heinous of deeds. Sexual abusers of children must be exposed for their criminal acts. The guilty must be punished, and children must be protected from their aggressors.

FACT: According to nationwide CPS statistics, the largest percentage of child abuse/neglect is perpetrated by the mother, acting alone. Remember Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier? Fathers are far less likely to be child abuse/neglect perpetrators. In other words, children are safer from child abuse/neglect with their fathers than with their mothers.

A college study asked male and female students if they had a sexual experience before age 15 with a person 5 or more years older. The results were that 59% of the students were molested by a female. Of male college students surveyed, 43 – 60% report being sexually victimized by females.

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights demands that state and federal laws that severely punish those who make false claims of Domestic Violence.

The guilty must be punished-that is those who commit the act and those who falsely accuse spouses to gain advantage in divorce.

The National Fathers’ Resource Center and Fathers for Equal Rights wants to share information and remove stereo types connected with Domestic Violence.

Knowledge is power. And that is the purpose this section on domestic violence. Learn how the domestic violence industry thinks and works. Learn how they deceive the lawmakers and the public, and study the techniques they use. Learn about their collaborators in the police departments, the prosecutors’ offices, the federally funded legal services programs, and in the courtrooms. Follow the money trail, and discover who is enriched by the mass demonization and criminalization of men and fathers. Prevention is best, but if you are facing a false domestic violence accusation, we want you to have the knowledge and tools to fight it most effectively and to protect the right of your children to have a positive, healthy, and meaningful relationship with you, their nurturing and protective father.

Domestic Violence

Tories want parental rights bill scrapped

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children criminals, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment on July 24, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Tories want parental rights bill scrapped

‘Party resolution’ downplayed

Some grassroots Conservatives want the government to scrap its controversial new protection for parental rights in the Human Rights Act.

At an annual general meeting Thursday night for Progressive Conservatives in Education Minister Dave Hancock’s riding, Edmonton-Whitemud, members passed a motion to put Bill 44 back on the agenda when the party meets in Red Deer in November.

The government voted in changes to the Human Rights Act earlier this month which recognize gay rights and create new protection for parents to pull their kids from classroom lessons dealing with religion, human sexuality or sexual orientation.

Critics fear teachers and school boards could be brought before human rights commissions if they misstep under the new rules.

While Hancock said early in the spring debate he believed such parental rights belonged in the School Act, he defended the new law alongside Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett.

Hancock was not present for the final vote in the legislature. He said Friday his association’s resolution came as no surprise because some members had long been passionate about the bill.

The Bill 44 resolution may not make it to the party’s official agenda in November, depending on what items are brought forward by other constituencies.

If the resolution to scrap parental rights were ultimately passed, the onus is only on the government to respond to the motion, not act on it.

“The government is a government for all Alberta, so it’s not dictated to by party resolution,” Hancock said.

Tory Ken Chapman said the resolution could send an important message from the party to the government.

But “if it doesn’t pass it will be a very important message to progressives.”

Tories want parental rights bill scrapped.

Severe Sociopaths Oppose Parental Alienation Syndrome – Sick People Not In Touch With Reality

In child trafficking, children criminals, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, kidnapped children, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parentectomy, Sociopath on July 22, 2009 at 12:30 am

Sometimes I wonder why such dysfunctional adults can be allowed to make decisions regarding children, but the secret to success for those who are parental abusers, (also known as “alienating parents”) is their appearance of being absolutely normal on the surface.

However, bubbling below the surface and now quite so well hidden is their true psychological profile, which psychological testing reveals. Often times they call themselves “protective parents” or “survivors” or “battered” and viciously blame the courts for turning children over to “abusers.” But when asked why the “abusive” parent is not in jail, the sociopath quickly describes “payoffs“, “bribes” and “court corruption” with “collusion” thrown in to save the “abuser” and to “ignore” the evidence. Also they are big into playing the “victim” role and believe that all men commit “domestic violence” just by looking at them.

Parental alienators will deliberately make up falsehoods, deceive, delay, and play the “victim” in custody proceedings and do so with a sly and manipulative cunning that is best described as sociopath behavior. Like Hitler and the Nazis, these sick individuals enjoy controlling others and “winning,” and creating an environment of hostility and bitterness. Although outwardly they may be seen as successful, charming and winning in the careers, “these ordinary people who have no conscience–no capacity to feel shame, guilt, or remorse–can do absolutely anything to other people without ever feeling guilty . . . These sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are cold as a snake and live to dominate and win.” from “The Sociopath Next Door” by Dr. Martha Stout. Dr. Stout estimates that 4% of our population can be described as sociopaths. And, she says that may be a conservative estimate.

Which means between 16 to 40 million Americans are seriously ill and can be classified Sociopaths..

I am reprinting Dr. Richard A. Garnder article here, which partially describes some of the sociopathic behavior of Parental Alienators. The complete original article can be found here: http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gard02e.htm

by Richard A. Gardner. M.D.
Department of Child Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons
Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

Child custody evaluators commonly find themselves confronted with resistance when they attempt to use the term parental alienation syndrome (PAS) in courts of law. Although convinced that the patient being evaluated suffers with the disorder, they often find that the attorneys who represent alienated parents, although agreeing with the diagnosis, will discourage use of the term in the evaluators’ reports and testimony. Most often, they will request that the evaluator merely use the term parental alienation (PA). On occasion they will ask whether other DSM-IV diagnoses may be applicable. The purpose of this article is to elucidate the reasons for the reluctance to use the PAS diagnosis and the applicability of PA as well as current DSM-IV substitute diagnoses.

Diagnoses Applicable to Alienating Parents

297.71 Delusional Disorder

1. Nonbizarre delusions (i.e., involving situations that occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, infected, loved at a distance, or deceived by spouse or lover, or having a disease) of at least 1 month’s duration.

Of the various subtypes of delusional disorder, the one that is most applicable to the PAS:

Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way

This diagnosis is generally applicable to the PAS indoctrinator who may initially recognize that the complaints about the behavior of the alienated parent are conscious and deliberate fabrications. However, over time, the fabrications may become delusions, actually believed by the programming parent. And the same process may ultimately be applicable to the child. Specifically, at first the child may recognize that the professions of hatred are feigned and serve to ingratiate the child to the programmer. However, over time the child may come to actually believe what were originally conscious and deliberate fabrications. When that point is reached the delusional disorder diagnosis is applicable to the child. Generally, this diagnosis is applicable to relentless programmers who are obsessed with their hatred of the victim parent, by which time the child will have probably entered the severe level of PAS. It is to be noted that when the PAS is present, most often one observes a circumscribed delusional system, confined almost exclusively to the alienated parent. This diagnosis may also be applicable to the PAS child, especially the child who is in the severe category.

301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder

1. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her

2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates

3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her

4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events

5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights

6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

7. has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner

PAS programmers who warrant this diagnosis would often satisfy these criteria before the marital separation. A detailed history from the victim parent as well as collaterals may be important because the programming parent is not likely to directly reveal such symptoms. They may, however, reveal them in the course of the evaluation, because they are such deep-seated traits, and are so deeply embedded in their personality structure, that they cannot be hidden. Most people involved in protracted child-custody litigation become “a little paranoid,” and this is often revealed by elevations on the paranoid scale of the MMPI. After all, there are indeed people who are speaking behind the patient’s back, are plotting against them, and are developing schemes and strategies with opposing lawyers. This reality results in an elevation of the paranoid scale in people who would not have manifested such elevations prior to the onset of the litigation. We see here how adversarial proceedings intensify psychopathology in general (Gardner, 1986), and in this case, paranoid psychopathology especially. The PAS child is less likely to warrant this diagnosis. When the severe level is reached PAS children may warrant the aforementioned Shared Psychotic Disorder diagnosis. On occasion, the diagnosis Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type (295.30) is warranted for the programming parent, but such patients generally exhibited other manifestations of schizophrenia, especially prior to the separation. It goes beyond the purposes of this paper to detail the marital symptoms of schizophrenia which should be investigated if the examiner has reason to believe that this diagnosis may be applicable.

It is important for the examiner to appreciate that there is a continuum from delusional disorder, to paranoid personality disorder, to paranoid schizophrenia. Furthermore, in the course of protracted litigation, a patient may move along the track from the milder to a more severe disorder on this continuum.

301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.
Note:Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation

3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self

4. impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).
Note Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior

6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g. intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)

7. chronic feelings of emptiness

8. inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

Some alienators may exhibit some of these symptoms prior to the separation. However, as a result of the stresses of the separation, the symptoms may progress to the point where the diagnosis is applicable. Criterion (1) is likely to be exhibited soon after the separation because the marital dissolution is generally associated with real feelings of abandonment. Criterion (2) is often seen when there is a dramatic shift from idealization of the spouse to extreme devaluation. The campaign of denigration is the best example of this manifestation of BPD.

Criterion (4) may manifest itself by excessive spending, especially when such spending causes significant stress and grief to the alienated parent. Following the separation, alienating parents may satisfy Criterion (6) with affect instability, irritability, and intense episodic dysphoria. Although such reactions are common among most people involved in a divorce, especially when litigating the divorce, patients with BPD exhibit these symptoms to an even greater degree. Chronic feelings of emptiness (Criterion [7]) go beyond those that are generally felt by people following a separation. Criterion (8) is extremely common among PAS programmers. The tirades of anger against the alienated parent serve as a model for the child and contribute to the development of the campaign of denigration. The stress-related paranoia, an intensification of the usual suspiciousness exhibited by people involved in litigation, may reach the point that Criterion (9) is satisfied.

The examiner should note which of the symptoms are present and comment: “Five criteria need to be satisfied for the BPD diagnosis. Ms. X satisfies four. Although she does not qualify for the diagnosis at this point, she is at high risk for its development. Furthermore, when one lists diagnoses at the end of the report one might note the DSM-IV diagnosis and add in parenthesis “incipient.”

301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. requires excessive admiration

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

My experience has been that most PAS indoctrinators do not satisfy enough criteria (five) to warrant this diagnosis. However, many do exhibit three or four of them, which is worthy of the examiner’s attention and should be noted in the report.

Criterion (5) is especially common in PAS indoctrinators. They act as if court orders have absolutely nothing to do with them, even though their names may be specifically spelled out in the ruling. Unfortunately, they often violate these orders with impunity because courts are typically lax with regard to implementing punitive measures for PAS contemnors. As mentioned in other publications of mine (Gardner, 1998; 2001), the failure of courts to take action against PAS programmers is one of the most common reasons why the symptoms become entrenched in the children.

Criterion (6) is often frequently satisfied by the programmer’s ongoing attempts to extract ever more money from the victim parent, but feels little need to allow access to the children. There is no sense of shame or guilt over this common form of exploitation. The programmer’s lack of empathy and sympathy for the victim parent is quite common and easily satisfies Criterion (7). The PAS, by definition, is a disorder in which a programmer tries to destroy the bond between the children and a good, loving parent. In order to accomplish the goal, the alienator must have a serious deficiency in the ability to empathize with the target parent. Criterion (9) is often seen in that PAS indoctrinators are often haughty and arrogant and this symptom goes along with their sense of entitlement. Again, if warranted, the diagnosis can be listed as “incipient.”

DSM-IV Diagnoses Applicable to PAS Children

312.8 Conduct Disorder

1. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three (or more) of the following criteria in the past 12 months, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months:

This diagnosis is often applicable to the PAS child, especially in situations when the conduct disturbances are the most salient manifestation. Under such circumstances, an examiner who is not familiar with the PAS may erroneously conclude that this is the only diagnosis. Such a conclusion necessitates selective inattention to the programming process, which is the hallmark of the PAS. Once again, we see here how a diagnosis, although in DSM-IV, cannot be used as a substitute for the PAS, but may be used as an additional diagnosis. I will not list here all 15 of the DSM-IV criteria, but only those that are most applicable to the PAS:

Aggression to people and animals

1. often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others

2. often initiates physical fights

3. has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)

4. has been physically cruel to animals

5. has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery)

Destruction of property

6. has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage

7. has deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting)

Deceitfulness or theft

8. often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., “cons” others)

9. has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g., shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery)

Serious violations of rules

10. has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in parental or parental surrogate home (or once without returning for a lengthy period

As can be seen, most of the 15 criteria for the conduct disorder diagnosis can be satisfied by PAS children, especially those in the severe category. The target parent is very much scapegoated and victimized by PAS children. In severe cases they are screamed at, intimidated, and sometimes physically assaulted with objects such as bats, bottles, and knives. The child may perpetrate acts of sabotage in the home of the victim parent. Destruction of property in that person’s home is common and, on rare occasion, even fire setting. Deceitfulness is common, especially fabrications facilitated and supported by the alienator. Stealing things, such as legal documents and important records, and bringing them to the home of the alienator is common. Running away from the home of the target parent and returning to the home of the alienator is common, especially in moderate and severe cases.

309.21 Separation Anxiety Disorder

1. Developmentally inappropriate and excessive anxiety concerning separation from home or from those to whom the individual is attached, as evidenced by three (or more) of the following:

I reproduce here those of the eight criteria that are applicable to the PAS:

1) recurrent excessive distress when separation from home or major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated

4) persistent reluctance or refusal to go to school or elsewhere because of fear of separation

3) repeated complaints of physical symptoms (such as headaches, stomachaches, nausea, or vomiting) when separation from major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated

It is important for the reader to appreciate that the original diagnosis for separation anxiety disorder was school phobia. The term separation anxiety disorder is a relatively recent development emerging from the recognition that the child’s fear was less that of the school per se and much more related to the fear of separation from a parent, commonly an overprotective mother (Gardner, 1985b). DSM-IV recognizes this and doesn’t necessarily require the school to be the object of fear, but rather separation from the home, especially from someone with whom the child is pathologically attached.

It is important to note that the PAS child’s hatred of the victim parent has less to do with actual dislike of that parent and has much more to do with fear that if affection is displayed toward the target parent, the alienating parent will be angry at and rejecting of the child. At the prospect of going with the victim parent, the child may exhibit a wide variety of psychosomatic symptoms, all manifestations of the tension associated with the visit. The distress may be especially apparent when the alienating parent is at the site of the transfer. The child recognizes that expression of willingness or happiness to go off with the alienated parent might result in rejection by the alienator. The separation anxiety disorder diagnosis is most often applicable to the mild and moderate cases of PAS. In the severe cases, the anxiety element is less operative than the anger element.

When applying these criteria to the PAS child, one does well to substitute the PAS indoctrinating parent for the parent with whom the child is pathologically attached. At the same time one should substitute the alienated parent for the school or other place outside the child’s home. When one does this, one can see how most of the aforementioned criteria apply. When the child with a separation anxiety disorder is fearful of leaving the home to go to many destinations, the school is the destination the child most fears. It is there that the child feels imprisoned. In contrast, PAS children generally fear only the target parent and are not afraid to leave the programming parent and go elsewhere, such as to the homes of friends and relatives. In short, the PAS child’s fear is focused on the alienated parent. In contrast, the child with a separation anxiety disorder has fears that focus on school but which have spread to many other situations and destinations.

300.15 Dissociative Disorder

Not Otherwise Specified

This category is included for disorders in which the predominant feature is a dissociative symptom (i.e., a disruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment) that does not meet the criteria for any specific Dissociative Disorder. Examples include:

States of dissociation that occur in individuals who have been subjected to periods of prolonged and coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, or indoctrination while captive).

Of the four categories of dissociative disorder (NOS), only Category 3 is applicable to the PAS. This criterion was designed for people who have been subjected to cult indoctrinations or for military prisoners subjected to brainwashing designed to convert their loyalty from their homeland to the enemy that has imprisoned them. It is very applicable to PAS children, especially those in the severe category.

Such children have been programmed to convert their loyalty from a loving parent to the brainwashing parent exclusively. Cult victims and those subjected to prisoner indoctrinations often appear to be in a trance-like state in which they profess their indoctrinations in litany-like fashion. PAS children as well (especially those in the severe category) are often like robots or automatons in the way in which they profess the campaign of denigration in litany-like fashion. They seem to be in an altered state of consciousness when doing so.

Adjustment Disorders

The following subtypes of adjustment disorders are sometimes applicable to PAS children:

309.0 With Depressed Mood.

309.24 With Anxiety.

309.28 With Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.

309.3 With Disturbance of Conduct.

309.4 With Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct

Each of these types of adjustment disorders may be applicable to the PAS child. The child is indeed adjusting to a situation in which one parent is trying to convince the youngster that a previously loving, dedicated, and loyal parent has really been noxious, loathsome, and dangerous. The programmed data does not seem to coincide with what the child has experienced. This produces confusion. The child fears that any expression of affection for the target parent will result in rejection by the alienator. Under such circumstances, the child may respond with anxiety, depression, and disturbances of conduct.

313.9 Disorder of Infancy, Childhood or Adolescence Not Otherwise Specified

This category is a residual category for disorders with onset in infancy, childhood, or adolescence that do not meet criteria for any specific order in the Classification.

This would be a “last resort” diagnosis for the PAS child, the child who, although suffering with a PAS, does not have symptoms that warrant other DSM-IV childhood diagnoses. However, if one still feels the need to use a DSM-IV diagnosis, especially if the report will be compromised without one, then this last-resort diagnosis can justifiably be utilized. However, it is so vague that it says absolutely nothing other than that the person who is suffering with this disorder is a child. I do not recommend its utilization because of its weakness and because it provides practically no new information to the court.

The complete original article can be found here: http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gard02e.htm

California Appeals Court Reverses Termination of Mother’s Rights

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children legal status, Civil Rights, CPS, cps fraud, Department of Social Servies, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, Family Court Reform, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, kidnapped children, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights on July 21, 2009 at 10:49 pm

In re T.M., No. C059898

| No TrackBacks

Juvenile court order terminating parental rights is reversed where no opportunity to reunify was ever afforded to the child’s mother, nor did she have an opportunity to challenge a request to deny her services.

Read In re T.M., No. C059898 in PDF

Read In re T.M., No. C059898 in HTML

In re T. M. (2009) , Cal.App.4th

[No. C059898. Third Dist. Jul. 17, 2009.]

In re T. M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C. M., Defendant and Appellant.

(Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. JD226226, Dean L. Petersen, Juvenile Court Referee., Judge.)

(Opinion by Cantil-Sakauye, J., with Blease, Acting P. J., and Robie, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Robert A. Ryan, Jr. County Counsel, Lilly C. Frawley, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.-

C.M., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. {Slip Opn. Page 2} Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) fn. 1 Appellant contends the court could not terminate her parental rights because it found that no reunification services were provided to her. We reverse.

FACTS

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) removed the newborn minor from appellant’s custody in August 2007 following appellant’s detention on a psychiatric hold pursuant to section 5150. The social worker was unable to contact appellant at the mental health facility and appellant did not contact the social worker prior to the detention hearing in the juvenile court.

According to the jurisdiction/disposition report, appellant called the social worker several times but did not leave any contact information and appellant’s whereabouts were unknown. Appellant had ongoing mental health problems and it became apparent during the social worker’s investigation that appellant was also abusing drugs. DHHS recommended denial of services to appellant pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1), because her whereabouts were unknown and she had failed to come forward to be assessed for services. If appellant did come forward during the next six months, the social worker intended to assess her needs and develop a plan at that time. A declaration of due {Slip Opn. Page 3} diligence in the search for appellant was attached to the report.

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, there was discussion about whether to make the findings to support denial of services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) because the DHHS intended to offer appellant services if she contacted the social worker. However, the court did adopt the previously recommended findings which supported denial of services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) and no case plan was developed. The court set a six-month review hearing.

The report for the six-month review hearing stated that a therapist from a psychiatric facility in Fresno contacted the social worker in October 2007 and told the social worker appellant had been a patient there but had been discharged. The therapist was unable to provide contact information for appellant. In November 2007, a public defender from Fresno called and told the social worker appellant was in a locked psychiatric facility. A conservator had been appointed for appellant because she was unable to care for her own basic needs. Prior to establishment of the conservatorship, appellant was placed on multiple psychiatric holds during September and October of 2007.

Because appellant was receiving a broad range of services in the psychiatric facility, no case plan was developed and the {Slip Opn. Page 4} social worker simply instructed appellant to comply with her treatment goals. Appellant’s counselor reported that appellant had made no progress in treatment since she refused to participate and address her treatment goals. Appellant had been approved for a year of treatment in the locked facility. Appellant also called the social worker and provided the name of her conservator. The six-month review hearing report recommended termination of services.

Counsel was appointed to represent appellant. At the six-month review hearing, appellant’s counsel observed that services were not offered to appellant pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) because appellant’s whereabouts were initially unknown. Counsel further stated that no plan was developed when appellant was located because she resided in a facility which provided appropriate services to her. According to counsel, appellant’s conservator’s assessment was that appellant could not meaningfully participate in services and counsel requested the court to amend the recommended findings and orders to reflect that no services were previously ordered. The court granted the request and made the appropriate changes to eliminate any findings to the contrary. fn. 2 The court set a {Slip Opn. Page 5} section 366.26 hearing over appellant’s objection. Notice of her right to review the order by writ was mailed to appellant, her conservator, and her guardian ad litem. fn. 3

The report for the selection and implementation hearing stated there had been no contact between appellant and the minor since the minor was placed in protective custody. Appellant had a new conservator who told the social worker appellant was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, visitation with the minor would not be constructive and appellant’s anger issues might make visits harmful for the minor.

At the hearing, appellant’s counsel entered a general objection to termination of parental rights. The court adopted the recommended findings and orders, terminated parental rights, and freed the minor for adoption.

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues the order terminating parental rights must be reversed because it violated the provisions of section {Slip Opn. Page 6} 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A). (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(f).) fn. 4 We agree.

Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A) provides: “The court shall not terminate parental rights if . . . [a]t each hearing at which the court was required to consider reasonable efforts or services, the court has found that reasonable efforts were not made or that reasonable services were not offered or provided.” fn. 5 The juvenile court is required to consider whether the agency has made reasonable efforts at each six-month status review hearing. (§ 366.)

The only such hearing in this case was the six-month review hearing following disposition. At that hearing, “[i]f the child is not returned to his or her parent . . . the court shall determine whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent . . . in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent . . . .” (§§ 366.21, subd. (e); see also 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(c); 366.22, subd. (a).) {Slip Opn. Page 7} Here, reasonable services were not offered because no services were offered pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1). Appellant’s counsel expressly requested the juvenile court correct the record to so reflect. We view counsel’s request and the juvenile court’s response as justified and appropriate within the context of the record as a whole. This factual setting does not, however, end the inquiry.

As we have said, section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A) applies when “reasonable services were not offered or provided.” On the other hand, dependency law permits the juvenile court to decline to order reunification services under the specific circumstances detailed in section 361.5, subdivisions (b) and (e). The circumstances, with the exception of subdivision (b)(1), describe situations where provision of services is futile or detrimental to the minor, generally where the parent is unable or unwilling to participate in services or where offering services would place the minor at risk of harm or other detriment. The question is whether the Legislature intended to prevent adoption when any of those circumstances were found to exist and services were not offered. (See Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1018.) To fully understand the interplay of these two statutes, it is necessary to review the legislative history of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A).

As originally enacted, section 366.26 did not include the language now found in subdivision (c)(2)(A). (Stats. 1987, {Slip Opn. Page 8} ch. 1485, § 47.) The language was added in 1991 as part of a bill making various technical changes to the dependency statutes and adding new provisions regarding services for incarcerated women. (Sen. Bill No. 475 (1991 Reg. Sess.); Stats. 1991, ch. 820, § 5.) At that time, section 366.22, which describes the procedures for 18-month review hearings, included a provision that required the juvenile court to determine that reasonable services were provided to the parent before the court developed a permanent plan for the minor. (Stats. 1989, ch. 913, § 14.) The 1991 amendments deleted that provision of section 366.22 and added subdivision (c)(2)(A) to section 366.26, which barred termination of parental rights, but not other permanent plans, when reasonable efforts were not made or reasonable services were not offered. (Stats. 1991, ch. 820, § 5.)

Section 361.5, which permits denial of services under subdivisions (b) and (e), states that “[i]f the court, pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), or (15) of subdivision (b) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) does not order reunification services, it shall . . . determine if a hearing under Section 366.26 shall be set in order to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child . . . .” (§ 361.5, subd. (f).) This subdivision of section 361.5 has not significantly changed (see Stats 1990, {Slip Opn. Page 9} ch. 1530, § 6) since before subdivision (c)(2)(A) was added to section 366.26, and the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of it when amending section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A). (Estate of McDill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 831, 837-838.) In interpreting the dependency scheme as a whole (DuBois v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 382, 388), and reading the parts to avoid an absurdity (People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59, 69), section 366.26, subdivision (c)(2)(A) cannot be read to bar adoption when services are denied pursuant to the subdivisions specified in section 361.5, subdivision (f). The Legislature could not have intended to abrogate the earlier provisions in section 361.5 which contemplated adoption of a minor when services were not offered to the parent as either being futile or detrimental to the minor.

However, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1), the basis for the denial of services to appellant, is not listed in section 361.5, subdivision (f) as one of the circumstances which can directly lead to setting a section 366.26 hearing at which adoption may be considered. This does not mean the minor must remain in limbo. Even if reunification is not to occur, permanency is an important consideration for a dependent child. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Subdivision (c)(2)(A) of section 366.26 simply bars termination of parental rights when the parent has never been offered services because the parent’s whereabouts were unknown or when the agency has not {Slip Opn. Page 10} developed a plan or offered reasonable services even though the parent was available. Before termination of parental rights can occur, the law requires the court to find either that services would have been futile or detrimental to the minor under any of the relevant subdivisions of section 361.5, with the obvious exception of subdivision (b)(1), or that the agency at least tried to reunite the family by making reasonable efforts or offering services to the parents. (§§ 366.21, subds. (e) and (f); 366.22.)

Here, appellant’s counsel insisted the record reflect the true state of affairs, i.e., that services were not offered pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1). When appellant’s whereabouts became known, three months after the minor’s out-of-home placement, the fact should have been brought to the juvenile court’s attention so that services could be ordered. (§ 361.5, subd. (d).) This did not occur. The posture of the case at the six-month review hearing was that no services were ordered or offered and no plan was developed. DHHS, in possession of information which might have justified denial of services under several subdivisions of section 361.5, did not raise the issue or seek an order denying services. fn. 6 Because the {Slip Opn. Page 11} court neither terminated services, after finding reasonable services had been provided, nor denied them pursuant to a subdivision of section 361.5 which would permit termination of parental rights, it should have limited the scope of the section 366.26 hearing to consideration of only guardianship or long-term foster care. It did not. The error in proceeding to terminate parental rights in the circumstances of this case is not harmless. No opportunity to reunify was ever afforded appellant nor did she have an opportunity to challenge a request to deny her services under any subdivision of section 361.5 which would have supported termination of parental rights. Reversal is required.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is reversed. The case is remanded for a new selection and implementation hearing.

Blease, Acting P. J., and Robie, J., concurred.

­FN 1. Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

­FN 2. There is some lack of clarity in the record. The recommended findings attached to the report show the sections relating to efforts by DHHS to provide services and appellant’s efforts to comply with services were stricken because services were not ordered and the report itself was corrected to show there was no case plan for the same reason. However, the findings attached to the minute orders show only a modification to the proposed order to show that services were not ordered at the disposition hearing. The court’s specific statements in the reporter’s transcript make it clear that the efforts findings should also have been stricken in the attachment to the minute order. (People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599.)

­FN 3. No petition for extraordinary writ was filed by the guardian ad litem or conservator. Accordingly, the orders entered at the six-month review hearing are final and cannot be challenged in this appeal. (John F. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 400, 404-405.)

­FN 4. Respondent, apparently in an abundance of caution, views appellant’s claim, in part, as one of error at the review hearing. It is not. Thus, we need not address respondent’s arguments regarding writ review, petitions for modification, or substantial evidence to support denial of services.

­FN 5. The subdivision was formerly designated as (c)(2) (Stats. 1991, ch. 820, § 5), however, recent amendments have renamed it (c)(2)(A) (Stats. 2006, ch. 838, § 52). We use the current formulation for clarity.

­FN 6. Respondent’s contention that such findings and orders could be inferred from the information made available in the report and from appellant’s counsel at the hearing fails since the issues were not properly before the court or considered by it.

In re T. M. (2009) [ Cal.App.4th ].

NCCPR – Child Welfare Blog: Assessing the Michigan “Needs Assessment”

In 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, custody, Department of Social Servies, due process rights, family court, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy on July 21, 2009 at 10:41 pm

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Assessing the Michigan “Needs Assessment”

As the previous post to this Blog explains, a requirement of the consent decree between the Michigan Department of Human Services and the group that so arrogantly calls itself Children’s Rights (CR) is a “Needs Assessment.” As the name suggests this means lots of people spending lots of time creating one more document telling us what we already know: Michigan should be doing far more to keep families together.

The settlement calls for spending $4 million on needs found by the Needs Assessment. But in a true masterstroke of legal strategy, CR managed to forget to include anything in its settlement that would stop DHS from cutting ten times more than they now are required to add. Brilliant. So What DHS giveth with one hand, DHS taketh ten-fold with the other.

As for what the document actually tells us:

The Needs Assessment is a 221-page rebuke of the shortsighted approach of both DHS and CR.

Everything the assessment says Michigan’s vulnerable children need more of, DHS is providing less of. The list of what Michigan’s vulnerable children need and the list of children’s services budget cuts are nearly identical.

And that is not because of the state budget crisis. The biggest fraud in Michigan right now is the notion that the cuts in safe proven programs to keep families together are needed to balance the budget. On the contrary, the money saved from these cuts is going into more money for institutionalization and a wasteful hiring binge.

For that, the blame rests both with Ismael Ahmed’s apparent obsession with giving private agencies that warehouse children in “residential treatment” whatever they want (that’s why he’s so beloved by these agencies) and with CR, which allowed that giant loophole in the settlement mentioned above.

Though the spirit of the settlement and its legally binding guiding principles (not to mention common sense) make clear that DHS was not supposed to fund the settlement by cutting other help to vulnerable children, the settlement has no explicit provision saying this. So DHS has plowed through that loophole. DHS is using slash-and-burn budget cuts for prevention and family preservation to finance rate increases for residential treatment and a foster care worker hiring binge.

And the hiring binge is not actually required by the settlement. The settlement requires a reduction in caseloads – it doesn’t say this has to be done by hiring child abuse investigators and foster care workers. Caseloads would be far more likely to go down if DHS put more money into the very programs it now is cutting. As it stands now, all those new workers are likely to chase down all the new cases of children needlessly removed from their homes because of the budget cuts, leaving Michigan with the same lousy system only bigger.

And I’m not the only one saying this. Look at what the Needs Assessment itself says about how to reduce caseloads (Page 23):

The settlement agreement assumes that Michigan’s system reform efforts … will decrease the number of children entering the foster care system. The reduced entries will result from improvements in intake services, prevention services and in-home preservation services. These efforts will also decrease the caseload ratio for public and private agency workers, permitting MDHS to reduce caseloads to the specified levels.” [Emphasis added].

The most important part of the Needs Assessment

What may be most important about the needs assessment is what’s *not* in its recommendations:

There is no call for more “residential treatment” or other institutional care of children.

There is no call for big rate increases for providers of institutional care.

On the contrary, the Needs Assessment specifically cites the harm of institutionalization (Page 69) and examples of better alternatives (Pages 114, 115) – in other words, exactly what NCCPR said in our second report on Michigan child welfare.

There is no call for a giant hiring binge of child abuse investigators and foster care workers.

So why is DHS spending more money on all of these things while cutting the very programs the Needs Assessment says are really needed?

Are caseloads really excessive?

A key premise of the hiring binge is that it’s needed to lower excessive caseloads. But the chart on Page 56 shows that caseloads actually are surprisingly reasonable. These numbers would be suspect if they came from management; but they’re estimates from a survey of caseworkers themselves. So that raises further questions about cutting prevention to hire more investigators and foster care workers.

Other Key Findings

A repeated theme is the urgent need for concrete services, particularly transportation and housing assistance, yet these services are among those least available. (Pages 14, 15, 21, 78, 84, 111, chart p. 113). The Assessment states flat out that time in placement often is extended needlessly for lack of this kind of help. (Page 14.)

The unappreciated shining star of Michigan child welfare, the Families First Intensive Family Preservation Services program, is praised repeatedly in almost every section of the needs assessment – seen as enormously beneficial not only for preventing separation of families in the first place but also for making reunification work and for preserving adoptive families. (Pages 10, 44, 82, other references.) Yet this program is being cut yet again by Ismael Ahmed.

On Page 41, the Needs Assessment lists seven vital programs for keeping families together. Most, if not all, have been cut repeatedly in the past and are or will be cut again in the two rounds of slash-and-burn budget cuts inflicted by Ahmed and Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

The Assessment devotes two-thirds of a page to listing all the things wrong with the settlement’s former demand that all grandparents and other relatives providing kinship care be formally licensed (Page 86). And then, on Page 90, it says that unlicensed homes are absolutely essential in order to have enough places for children. Fortunately, partly as a result of pressure from NCCPR, CR and DHS backed off from their war against grandparents and changed that part of the settlement. But NCCPR and many others saw these problems right from the start – why didn’t CR and DHS?

Page 75: Most families can’t get the services they need.

Page 41: Workers admit to resorting to foster care in cases where children could remain home if the right kinds of help were available.

Page 116: There is a significant need for inpatient drug treatment programs in which parents can live with their children.

Page 62: The Needs Assessment notes what NCCPR reported in March: There are enormous, and disturbing, variations in rates of child removal in different Michigan counties.

Page 54: In the one focus group for birth parents, in Ingham County, which has one of the highest rates of removal in the state, every birth parent, no matter what the actual circumstances of her or his case, said he or she was asked to agree to termination of parental rights; an outrageous indication that the “Binsfeld mentality” – a legacy of a former lieutenant governor who trampled over the state’s impoverished families in the name of adoption-at-all-costs (discussed in detail in NCCPR’s first report on Michigan child welfare) – still is alive and well in Michigan.

None of the birth parents said they were involved in developing and implementing the “case plan” explaining what hoops they would have to jump through to get their children back.

Page 55: All of the birth parents said their case records contained inaccuracies.

NCCPR Child Welfare Blog: Assessing the Michigan “Needs Assessment”.

Equal physical custody? You try it. | thegrownupchild.ca

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, custody, deadbeat dads, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Sociopath, state crimes on July 21, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Equal physical custody? You try it.

by Carolyn on July 21, 2009

Everyone wants to hold on tight

Everyone wants to hold on tight

I started a bit of a kerfuffle on another site the other day and I decided to write an opinion piece to reflect it.  I didn’t think I would be writing these, but the topic is interesting and I’d love to hear other people’s perspectives:

Child custody.  There aren’t many topics as polarizing as this one.  Really.  It ranks right up with politics and religion.  And debating it is not for the meek or faint hearted.  I knew that, but it’s not what I was thinking about as I wrote my comment.  I had just finished reading an interesting blog post over here and it really caught my interest.  The piece highlighted the author’s belief in equal physical custody of children after divorce.  She relayed a bit of her own personal experience as a divorced mom.  She stated that her ex husband chose not to have a role in her children’s life and that it of course was damaging to them.  She then listed a smattering of studies, detailing the detriments to children from absent fathers.

Now I don’t think anyone can dispute the importance of fathers for all children.  Children of divorce are no different.  But equal physical custody?  You know what that means, right?  It means three nights at mom’s house this week and four nights the next.  Or maybe it means this week at mom’s, next week at dad’s.  Having all your time split evenly down the middle.  Living precisely one half of your life in one residence and one half in another.  Sound like fun?  Would you want to do it?

So I wrote my comment.  I simply questioned the need for a 50/50 split and stated that although I had extenuating circumstances that made my paternal visitation less than most, I was glad not to have had to endure that.  And boy, the father’s came out swinging!  It shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did.  I hadn’t paid close enough attention to my wording.  And in a polarizing argument, wording of course is everything.

I thought I was being misunderstood.  It seemed the father’s were mostly angry that the courts tend to automatically choose the mother as the primary custodian, when they were just as capable.  And to that I can only agree.  If they want to be primary caretakers, they should have an equal opportunity for that.  If it’s legal reform that’s needed; go lobby.  Chances are, they’d find me supporting them all the way.  I don’t really care which parent the child resides with.  Only that in end they reside with one of them.

Because we all need a home.  A place that is ours.  And I feel that no matter how well you try duplicate it, a 50% arrangement robs a child of that sense.  Not to mention the continual upheaval; the back and forth.  I also brought up how difficult it would be for kids to answer one of the basic questions of kid-dom.  “Where do you live?”  The question that answers whether they reside in close enough proximity to be playmates.  I know things have changed.  That children of divorce are more mainstream now.  But this is a gateway question for kids!  Who wants to explain their family drama after initial introductions?

Well, at least the moderator was nice enough to pull down the few comments that had name calling in them.  Because the response to that second comment was certainly passionate.  Amidst the profanity, there were examples of how well equal custody works and mentions of child support.  And I’m going to ignore the support thing.  Because a father wanting to spend time with his children should never be motivated by a desire to reduce their price tag.  And I’m going give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume it never is.  I’m making my point from there.

Because in the end I don’t really care about the fathers who feel slighted and disadvantaged at being called ‘secondary’ or feeling like a visitor.  And I don’t care about the mother’s who feel that being primary during marriage entitles them to remain primary through divorce.  I know both ache to be with their children.  I know it kills them to give up any time.  But I care about the child.  Whatever age they might be.  And the biggest problem here is that you can’t ask them.  Because the child of divorce aches to be with both of their parents too.  And they will always put their own needs aside in the name of time with a parent.  So if continually jumping from house to house is the price of spending time with them equally; it will be paid.  Without nearly a thought and even dressed up with assurances that they’re okay.  They’ll pay the price and make it look like it cost them nothing at all.

And there is my point.  Why must they pay?  Can’t the child of divorce have both?  Mom and dad present in their life and a stable ‘home base’?  Don’t they deserve it?  Oh I know it won’t be easy, parents.  You want to talk co-parenting?  There it is.  It would require whoever is ‘secondary’ to make more phone calls, attend things their child is attending, have them over for evenings and (oh no, not the dreaded!) visit their child at their ex spouses home along with enjoying their scheduled visitation.  It would also require the ‘primary’ to aid,  accommodate and welcome those things.  Equal parenting doesn’t have to depend on equal physical custody.  All it really depends on is co-parenting.

Is it a pipe dream?  Do I ask too much of divorced parents?  I hope not.

Because mom and dad were mature enough to get married.  Then they were mature enough to have children.   After which they were mature enough to get divorced.  Can’t they be mature enough to put their own issues and wants aside and give their children everything?  Shouldn’t the price be theirs to pay?  I think so, but that’s just my opinion.  From a grown up child of divorce.

Polarizing.  I can almost feel the heat coming though my monitor as you twitch towards the comment button.  You may agree with me completely or want to wring my neck.  And that’s okay.  I’d love to hear from you.  Because I’m not meek.  And I’m not faint hearted. If anything, I’d call myself an…advocate.

Equal physical custody? You try it. | thegrownupchild.ca.

Families – The True Strength of America

In Child Custody, Child Support, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping on July 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Families – The True Strength of America
Copyright © by Ron Ewart
July 2009

The glue that binds us all together is the bond forged in families – husband, wife and children. It is a powerful bond, held together by love, mutual respect and a large dose of pre-programmed genetics.

The saying that “blood is thicker than water” gets its’ roots from the bond of family. Families are the natural order of life on this planet, at least for most mammals, but it is especially true for the human mammal.

The character of family for we humans is several orders of magnitude above our other earthly creatures and considerably more complex. Being complex, it leads to more complex problems that require resolution.

Sure, family life is more complicated now than it was before, with both parents working to maintain their lifestyle and a schedule for children with education and ancillary activities that has gone way beyond what we used to do in the 1940’s and 50’s with sand-lot baseball and kick-the-can, sans television.

And yes, our adopted contemporary lifestyle has weakened the bond of family a little and increased the complexity of daily life, but still our families survive and thrive, in spite of that lifestyle. Yes, our new lifestyle has fractured the family some and divorce rates are up, but even with the added strain, over 50% of families still stay together.

We need to work a little harder on getting the number of stay-together families higher and we will. But all things tend to run in cycles and it takes time to adapt to rapidly changing technology and the rapid pace of our lives.

We fully expect the divorce rates will go down some in the future, as our adaptation increases.

Raising children in this environment is not easy, but when has raising children ever been easy?

Still, the joy that children bring adults, or each other, is incalculable. The birth of newborns, babies first step or first word, joy during the holidays, the elation and pride that comes from achievements in school or sports, the first date, marriage and its promise ….. all difficult sometimes, but all very worthwhile in the cycle of life.

In spite of these conditions that shake the very fibers of the nuclear family, those fibers and that bond are the true strength of America.

Responsible families produce the current and next generation of thinkers, intellectuals, hard workers, producers, consumers and pray-ers. Some lose and some win, but most who lose pick themselves up again and get back in the game …. sometimes all by themselves, sometimes with the help of family and sometimes in spite of family.

That bond of family is even stronger under the umbrella of freedom and it is that bond that will allow Americans to hold onto their freedom. The job of preserving freedom must start at the family level. It must start with teaching our kids about the foundations of freedom and liberty in America.

Our children are not being taught the great history of America in our schools and why we have become the most powerful nation on Earth, but also the wealthiest, the most creative, industrious, ingenious and the most generous.

Many adults who grew up in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and now in the first decade of the 21st Century, haven’t learned and aren’t learning it either.

The fact is, America is a “Constitutional Republic”, (see definitions below) which means that the minority is protected from the majority (mob rule) by the rule of law under the Supreme Law of the Land, our Constitution.

Because of the current massive attempts by all levels of our government (especially the federal government) to rule every aspect of our lives, our constitution is being torn asunder by the day and yet it is the only document that stands between us and socialism, communism, fascism, a dictator, or outright anarchy.

It is the ultimate responsibility of the parents in the family to pass on the heritage of freedom and liberty to their children, even if our public school system isn’t doing it. It is the family’s responsibility to teach their children about the documents that established that freedom and how important it is to preserve, protect and defend those documents.

In the end, the preservation of freedom lies with each individual but each individual’s drive to preserve freedom is best nourished in the safe environment of a loving family. It is up to the parents of the family to initiate the conversations about freedom and our founding documents. It is up to the parents to show their children the rich heritage of this great nation and learn about those who sacrificed so much that we might live free.

With most families having one or more computers and access to the Internet, the information about America is literally at the family’s finger tips. Talk about these issues when you gather together for holidays. But the most effective environment to discuss America, is right at the dinner table when all are gathered to share the evening meal.

President Reagan stated that “freedom is only one generation away from extinction.”

If Americans care about the preservation of our liberty and American sovereignty, they must teach their children about freedom, so that it is carried on from generation to generation, or freedom will die and our culture of liberty and our very sovereignty will be absorbed into the one-world-order without a shot being fired. America will become but a footnote in some history book that will improperly paint America as some strange anomaly that could have never lasted very long anyway.

Americans need to do everything in their power to see that that footnote is never written.

Losing is not an option.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Constitutional Republic: “….. is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.”

A True Democracy: “….. where the majority has the ultimate say in all things ….. essentially mob rule.”

Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 98027
425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848
(Fax No. 425 222-4743)
Website: www.narlo.org

Families – The True Strength of America.

FamilyCrossings Blog » Children And Divorce

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children legal status, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Marriage, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation on July 17, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Children And Divorce

One out of every two marriages today ends in divorce and many divorcing families include children. Parents who are getting a divorce are frequently worried about the effect the divorce will have on their children.

During this difficult period, parents may be preoccupied with their own problems, but continue to be the most important people in their children lives. We at Family Crossings believe in the ability for all to stay connected. Keep the non-custodial parent up to date with their children by using our website. With a calendar section the non-custodial parent can be kept in the loop of important activities, changes in scheduling and the ability to contact the child and the other parent 24/7. This feature is very beneficial to keep the child in the other parent’s life, share photos, stories from school and even just to say “Hi!”- don’t let divorce separate you from your child visit Family Crossings today and reconnect to your child TODAY!

While parents may be devastated or relieved by the divorce, children are invariably frightened and confused by the threat to their security. Some parents feel so hurt or overwhelmed by the divorce that they may turn to the child for comfort or direction. Divorce can be misinterpreted by children unless parents tell them what is happening, how they are involved and not involved and what will happen to them.

Children often believe they have caused the conflict between their mother and father. Many children assume the responsibility for bringing their parents back together, sometimes by sacrificing themselves. Vulnerability to both physical and mental illnesses can originate in the traumatic loss of one or both parents through divorce.

With care and attention, however, a family’s strengths can be mobilized during a divorce, and children can be helped to deal constructively with the resolution of parental conflict.

Parents should be alert to signs of distress in their child or children. Young children may react to divorce by becoming more aggressive and uncooperative or withdrawing. Older children may feel deep sadness and loss. Their schoolwork may suffer and behavior problems are common. As teenagers and adults, children of divorce often have trouble with their own relationships and experience problems with self-esteem.

Children will do best if they know that their mother and father will still be their parents and remain involved with them even though the marriage is ending and the parents won’t live together. Long custody disputes or pressure on a child to “choose sides” can be particularly harmful for the youngster and can add to the damage of the divorce.

Research shows that children do best when parents can cooperate on behalf of the child.

Parents’ ongoing commitment to the child’s well-being is vital. If a child shows signs of distress, the family doctor or pediatrician can refer the parents to a child and adolescent psychiatrist for evaluation and treatment.

In addition, the child and adolescent psychiatrist can meet with the parents to help them learn how to make the strain of the divorce easier on the entire family. Psychotherapy for the children of a divorce, and the divorcing parents, can be helpful.

FamilyCrossings Blog » Children And Divorce.

Ruling favours ‘happy’ father | The Australian

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fathers rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on July 14, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Ruling favours ‘happy’ father

Caroline Overington | July 15, 2009

Article from: The Australian

A FAMILY Court magistrate has ruled that the right of two young children to have a meaningful relationship with their father is more important than the unhappiness of their mother, who wanted to relocate them from Sydney to Melbourne following the breakdown of their marriage.

A woman’s right to start fresh after divorce — colloquially known as the “happy mum, happy child principle” — has long been used by lawyers acting for mothers in Family Court matters.

For at least a generation, lawyers have successfully argued that a mother who was settled and happy in a new life was more beneficial to a child than frequent contact with the children’s father.

The most recent relocation case to come before the Federal Magistrates Court shows how far the ground has shifted.

The case, known as Beaufort and Beaufort, involves a couple who married in 1991 and have two children, aged 6 and 8.

The couple separated in March 2005, and in July 2005 the father announced he was in a new relationship with his personal assistant. They purchased a “knock-down” property and built a five-bedroom house on the site. They are now engaged, and planning to have more children.

The mother, 46, who moved to Sydney with her husband in 2001, wants to move back to Melbourne, where she is part of a large Italian family, including four siblings, grandparents, aunts and cousins.

She told the Federal Magistrates Court, sitting in Sydney, that she was miserable and isolated in Sydney, watching her ex-husband and his new girlfriend get on with their lives, while she was stuck in a “holding pattern”.

She recognised the children were close to their father, but said he was wealthy and could fly to Melbourne on weekends to see the children.

He objected to this idea, saying he would have to stay in a serviced apartment, with none of the children’s toys around, in an artificial environment.

The mother’s legal team raised the case of Taylor and Barker (2007), in which the Family Court allowed a mother to relocate her son from Canberra to the Atherton Tablelands in north Queensland, so she could marry another man.

The magistrate in that case said the relocation was in the best interests of the child, in part because it would make the mother happy. There was evidence that father and son had a close and loving relationship, but the magistrate was concerned with the mother’s “happiness and contentment”.

The magistrate in the Beaufort case said changes to the Family Law Act meant the court must apply the presumption that a child’s best interests were served by having a relationship with both parents, ahead of the mother’s happiness. Under questioning, the mother agreed that the children’s relationship with their father was more important than their relationship with her extended family.

Ruling favours ‘happy’ father | The Australian.

Custody laws ‘should put children first’ – National News – National – General – The Canberra Times

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine on July 14, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Custody laws ‘should put children first’
15/07/2009 12:00:00 AM
Child protection experts say it’s time Australia’s child custody laws put children’s rights before those of squabbling parents.The Federal Government is reviewing the controversial Howard-era shared parenting laws which forces courts to consider joint custody, and frantic lobbying by interest groups has already begun.

Chairman of the Government’s peak family law advisory body, the Family Law Council, Professor John Wade, said shared-parenting rules risked creating a generation of ”ping-pong children” being shuttled between warring parents and needed to be changed.

The laws are subject to an automatic review carried out by the Institute of Family Studies this year, and battle lines are being drawn between the increasingly influential parents’ lobby groups.

Some parents groups have welcomed the news of the possible changes, but fathers’ rights campaigners, who lobbied for shared parenting for more than 25 years, have vowed to fight for the retention of the laws.

Under the current laws, the court’s default position in relation to custody is an equal and shared parenting arrangement if it is deemed in the best interest of the child.

Child defence expert witness Charles Pragnell says children are often being placed in dangerous situations by courts forced to consider shared parenting, and gave the recent example of a Melbourne court ordering that an 18-month-old spend alternating weeks with each parent.

”That will have a tremendously traumatic effect on that child, and cause severe and long-lasting emotional harm,” he said.

”Children of that age and older need a sense of belonging, consistency and security.”

He referred to several high-profile cases where courts had placed children in danger with tragic consequences, such as four-year-old Darcy Freeman, who died after her father threw her off Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge in January.

”The law is concerned about parents’ rights, and gives very little account or regard for children’s rights, even those children’s rights under the UN Convention to which Australia was a signatory in 1991, but hasn’t done very much about,” Mr Pragnell said.

”Children’s rights in this country are appalling compared to the UK and European countries.”

A spokeswoman for the National Council of Shared Parenting agreed that the current family laws gave priority to the parents, rather than their children.

She said when one or the other parent was forced into a custody arrangement, this often created unsafe or unhappy environments for their children. ”How do children get protected in all this? Their rights are being forgotten and not heard,” she said.

”It’s an awful situation, and it’s made awful by the fact that it’s so preventable.”

But Lone Fathers’ Association President Barry Williams vowed that the fathers’ movement would lobby hard to retain shared parenting.

”We’ve called for an appointment with [Attorney-General] Robert McClelland, and I’ll be taking quite a few people from quite a few different organisations,” Mr Williams said.

”We’re going to try to convince him not to take any notice of this rot that’s being put out by people with vested interests.

”In cases that we deal with, the children are quite happy and they like the shared parenting arrangements.

”We had 30 years of the old system when hundreds of thousands of children never saw their fathers.”

But one Canberra family lawyer, who did not want to be named, said one of the most frustrating aspects of the law was seeing a parent, usually a father, who had previously had little role in caring for his children and had showed no interest in their wellbeing, suddenly demanding shared custody.

She said the motivation was usually increased child support payments.

Custody laws ‘should put children first’ – National News – National – General – The Canberra Times.

Speakers on Parental Alienation at We the People Fest In Washington D.C. | Coshocton Tribune

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, fathers rights, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights on July 10, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Local group to speak in D.C.

COSHOCTON – C.A.S.O.O. and founder L Wilson will speak at the upcoming We The People Fest in Washington D.C. for the second year.

Last year the group attended and held a vigil for children who died while in the care of Children Services across the country. They rallied in Ohio for reform on the issue including Coshocton to create awareness and placed a video on the Internet called No Place To Hide upon returning from D.C.

The issue of parental and children alienation syndrome has grown and thousands are expected to attend this event with more than 100 speakers from across the country speaking and 18 different bands attending to play music in the range of Hip Hop and Christian Music.

The group will hold candle vigils for the three day event held July 16-19 at Senate Park and Capitol Hill Park.

via BRIEFS | coshoctontribune.com | Coshocton Tribune.

Usher Review: PBS Documentary “Breaking the Silence”: Evidently a Conspiracy

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children criminals, children legal status, Civil Rights, deadbeat dads, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Feminism, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, Liberty, Marriage, motherlessness, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome on July 10, 2009 at 9:50 pm


Sunday, December 18, 2005

PBS Documentary “Breaking the Silence”: Evidently a Conspiracy

In October, PBS released a scandalous documentary about domestic violence titled “Breaking the Silence”. Despite studied science on the issue, the producers of the show intentionally censored all information contrary to their partisan mission, which we know now was to go to extraordinary lengths portraying fathers as batterers who take custody of children as the final act of abuse.

Breaking the Silence pretends that the system “routinely penalizes women who are victims of domestic violence by favoring their abusers in battles over child custody”. Anyone who knows about how domestic violence laws are routinely applied knows that when a woman files any allegation of abuse, or even fear of abuse, the father is immediately thrown out of the home and has little chance of custody and even visitation.

The tactical purpose of the documentary is to synthesize an epidemic of unrestrained male batterers who seize children from completely unprotected abused women. Perhaps if this documentary were about life in Sudan, they might have a point.

The producers walked into their own trap. One of the supposedly-abused women, who was attempting to seize custody of the child from the father, was found responsible for multiple acts of child abuse in court. Despite being informed of this fact in advance, the producers filmed the documentary according to the prefabricated story board, while refusing to include any perspectives from fathers with legitimate cases.

CPB and PBS Ombudmen Agree That Breaking the Silence Is Flawed

A tsunami of equalitarian organizations and activists rose to the occasion, taking PBS and CPB to task. Glenn Sacks, Carey Roberts, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Mark Rosenthal, Fathers and Families, and a cotillion of others called PBS and CPB out on the carpet.

It did not take long for ombudsmen from PBS and CPB to agree with us. Ken Bode, the CPB ombudsman found that “there is no hint of balance in Breaking the Silence”. The PBS Ombudsman, Michael Gettler opined “My assessment, as a viewer and as a journalist, is that this was a flawed presentation by PBS. I have no doubt that this subject merited serious exposure and that these problems exist and are hard to get at journalistically. But it seemed to me that PBS and CPTV were their own worst enemy and diminished the impact and usefulness of the examination of a real issue by what did, indeed, come across as a one-sided, advocacy program.”

PBS published an article in Current, glossing over the major flaws in the documentary. The focus is quickly shifted away from the core issues we raise –- which are that the documentary is deeply unbalanced, partisan, sexist, and a fakery of science. Current conveniently changes the subject, pretending that the brouhaha is merely over whether parental alienation syndrome (PAS) exists or not.

Whether or not parental alienation is a diagnosable psychological disorder is not an issue we have raised. We are interested in the fact that parental alienation often takes in divorce and custody situations, most often disrupting the child’s relationship with the father. It should be noted that even the leading critics in the “syndrome diagnosis” debate agree with us that parents often alienate children in divorce and custody situations. The issue we raise is the maltreatment of fathers, science, and facts surrounding divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, and parental alienation that masqueraded as documentary on domestic violence, intended to ensure that men are not afforded equal standing to be custodial parents in the event of divorce.

Censorship, Multiple Abuses of Science, and Absence of Journalistic Ethics

Dr. Richard Gardner defined parental alienation as ”any constellation of behaviors, whether conscious or unconscious, that could evoke a disturbance in the relationship between a child and the other parent”. Breaking the Silence is, in itself, an act of parental alienation aimed at all fathers. It is intended to cover for or rationalize-away the alienating behaviors of mothers — even mothers known to be abusers – and generate irrational public fears and discrimination against fathers in public policy and law.

Dr. Murray Straus, the leading authority on domestic violence objected strongly to misuse of his research cited out-of-context in the NNEDV Guide to “Breaking the Silence”. The intent of the guide was to create an illusion that fathers are responsible for the substantial majority of spousal and child abuse.

Lasseur flatly justified censorship of all fathers perspectives (reasonable or otherwise), on the insupportable grounds that the fathers perspective is generically “destructive”. Read: when you are getting paid a half million dollars by radical feminists to do a partisan documentary, you only cite liturgy from the feminist “bible”.

Lasseur’s alternate (and equally indefensible) excuse for his decision to entirely censor the father’s perspective pretends that censorship is somehow more balanced than giving the father’s perspective short shrift; ”If we had featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have overstated the problems of men in this area. Nevertheless, we recognize that men are also victims and men are also sometimes victimized by family courts, but the fact is that many more women are victims”.

Despite the torrent of valid criticism of the documentary, Dominique Lasseur, the producer of Breaking the Silence, clings defiantly to his indefensible film. He states in the Current article, “we believe that the comments and concerns that have come in so far [concerning the documentary] are often not based on the full and complete content of the program”. The reverse is true: the content of the program was intentionally not full or complete, as the producer has admitted in his prior two statements. We strenuously object to the fact that the producer intentionally censored information and perspectives that do not explicitly adhere to the radical feminist propaganda he attempts to transmogrify into social policy and jurisprudence.

The Current article also features an evasive exculpatory statement by the producers, but nothing by anyone legitimately criticizing the film. Here, the producer cites the long-debunked feminist myth “while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner”, as his excuse for committing an hour of journalistic hate crimes.

Lasseur has generated a number of nebulous statements in defense of his film. None of them would win in debate class because he has never directly rebutted the points of our remonstrance.

Evidence Of Conspiracy

Our complaint is now much more serious than before. I have uncovered evidence that the producers of Breaking the Silence were aware that it was not an honest film.

Lasseur is planning another documentary aimed at establishing judicial accountability when judges do not acquiesce to the demands of radical women’s organizations. He is apparently working with Meera Fox, an attorney and executive Director of Abuse Solutions located in Berkeley, Ca, who among other things works the issues of domestic violence and child abuse as a trainer and presenter for public policy symposiums. Fox is evidently working with street-level women’s operatives, including the Mothers Research and Resource Center (MRRC), located in Gilbert, Arizona.

As is the case with most non-professional street-level feminist advocates, MRRC is rather loose-lipped about what it is doing, revealing feminist Schadenfreude that can often be witnessed when internal information accidentally falls into the public eye. The MRRC website demonstrates what the entire chain of actors was really thinking and doing behind-the-scenes of Breaking the Silence.

Both Meera Fox and Dominique Lasseur are apparently aware they are fabricating yet another false documentary, and that collecting supportive anecdotal footage might not be an easy task. The MRRC website contains an apparent confession [emphasis added]: “Dominique is passionately interested in continuing his work in this area, as he can see how raising the public’s consciousness about this problem and indeed, creating a public outcry about it, will be key to achieving the reforms we seek in Family Court …. I know you will all agree that this is a project that would be worth its weight in gold if he [Lasseur] can pull it off. He envisions marketing a series on Family Court failure to Court TV, Frontline, America Undercover, or all three, if we can get him enough information, footage and support. The reason he met with me about this project is because I know all of you and he was hoping I could rally you troops to help him with his project.”

The phrase “worth its weight in gold” likely reveals Meena Fox’s end-goal as a feminist attorney in steering courts to liquidate fatherhood, seize family assets, and children. Is there any other substantial benefit she could possibly be chasing? We think not. “Pulling it off” is a term commonly used in planning bank robberies, political subterfuge, and other illegitimate activities. The statement that Lasseur is actively pursing the same target, and driving the execution of it all, suggests that he is on the same page.
We have archived this web page for future reference, since it will probably be deleted by the time you read this article.

The business relationships between the Mary Kay Foundation, the producers, PBS, and feminist activists appear to constitute a profitable conspiracy against men in marriage and society. The actors used the profits of cosmetics to finance a false and inflammatory documentary, transmitted via the federally-supported public television network, thus allowing feminists the largesse to easily end marriages behind the closed doors of courtrooms for arbitrary and even irresponsible reasons. This can be done successfully only if radical feminists can project all family problems on the husband, thus seizing chattel control of family, assets, and income.

Breaking the Silence plays into the larger multi-billion-dollar conspiracy of the “no-fault” divorce industry, that has bilked about half the fathers in America out of their earnings, savings, and social position as husbands and fathers. Divorce hurts far more women than it helps. In fact, divorce has left more women and children in poverty, without health insurance, and at risk than any other event in American history. CPB does not understand that it can help more women and children by helping spouses work through the normal problems and processes of marriage and aging than it does by perversely magnifying feminist agenda into a cause celebre for mass divorce.

Dissembling Science to Suit Feminism

Both MRRC and Meera Fox repeatedly refer to mothers as being the “protective parent” {archived copy]. In their usage, “Protective parent” means that motherly interference with the father-child relationship is expected to take place on ideological grounds alone. Read: parental alienation is “protective” when committed by a mother, but destructive and to women and children when committed by the father.

The conversion of parental alienation into a label with two vastly disparate meanings based solely on gender of the actor, and the tactical reason for using this label, has certainly been discussed with Lasseur given the fact that it is core terminology for Fox and MRRC.

In their review of Breaking the Silence, CPB and PBS must take note that “Protective parent” is a clearly fraudulent substitute label for parental alienation. This leaves Lasseur with no foundation in credibility to now justify the legitimacy of his recipe applied in Breaking the Silence.

MRRC makes wildly-expansive claims about the results of its “National Protective Parents Survey”, reciting many factoids about divorce and domestic violence known to be either unreliable or false. Elsewhere on the MRRC web site, Meera admits that the survey includes only 157 respondents (apparently all are women). As is the norm for feminist activists, the MRRC website is loaded with anectodal stories, emotion, and factoids; and lacks any evidence of scientific balance or credibility. It is quite clear that MRRC is a highly-unreliable partisan information source that any responsible journalist would immediately avoid, but which Lasseur is apparently actively engaged.

A major thrust of the pending documentary is to create the illusion that abusive fathers seizing control of children is somehow an American epidemic. This is absolutely false. According to The US Census Department, in 2003 single mothers represent 80% of all single-parent households, single fathers only represent 20%. If fathers seizing control of children in divorce is pandemic, the statistics would be reversed. If anything, the statistics prove that mothers seizing control of families is a problem – a fact reflected by the fact that father-absence has become our greatest social problem since 1960.

MRRC and the documentary attempt to create the illusion that men are responsible for all family violence. The vast majority of credible studies and papers prove that women initiate slightly over half of all serious spousal altercations, and are responsible for over 2/3 of all serious child abuse. Breaking the Silence takes a position opposite of these facts by citing a variety of unreliable feminist studies.

When observed from an aerial view, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Breaking the Silence was an act of parental alienation, collectively committed by all parties involved the creation and dissemination of the documentary. This places additional responsibility on CPB and PBS to make a robust and accurate documentary, to undo the damage it has done.

Many Organizations Expect Responsible Decision by PBS

PBS has taken a surprisingly long time to publish the results of its inquiry. At worst, this could be “stonewalling” (as they say in management science parlance). I do not see any justification for further delay. The issues are bright and clear.

There is no evidence suggesting that this documentary is well-founded either in truth, science, or balance. It is merely a question of whether PBS has the simple corporate candor to set the record straight and make an acceptable compensatory documentary to correct the damage it has done to public attitudes towards men.

PBS cannot take the position that it is innocent. At least on PBS affiliate was actively working with local feminist activists to place the film as training material to influence legislation and court decisions. PBS affiliates were also providing free advertising directing women to local feminist activists. CPB and PBS have done great damage by allowing Breaking the Silence to be aired on hundreds of stations, completely unvetted by leading experts on domestic violence and parental alienation.

PBS now has a distinct responsibility to issue a balanced documentary, which should feature balanced, well established scientists on family violence, such as Dr. Murray Straus. It should openly include the situations of fathers who are most often the target of parental alienation. PBS must also implement a stringent pre-release review policy for all programs covering marriage, divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse, since they have often been similarly misrepresented by both NPR and PBS in the past.

Given the seriousness of this situation, I anticipate PBS will respond responsibly. In the event they do not, we are all fully prepared to pursue this issue, using all ethical means at our disposal, for as long as it takes until PBS finds reason to be responsible.

Fathers will no longer sit for being abused by the media. Nine years ago, I organized the first national protest in the history of the men’s movement, over the movie “First Wives Club”. The protest, hastily organized in eight days and held in 26 cities across America, was covered briefly in Time Magazine. A segment was filmed for Hard Copy. Universal Studios immediately cancelled the sequel, which was already in progress, and has avoided these waters ever since.

Our 2001 “Bridges for Children” father’s day informational protest was held in 226 cities around the world. Our movement is much stronger today. The Violence Against Women Act [HR 3402] now requires appropriate funding for services for men living in violent environments. Many women have walked away from radical feminism to advocate for healing and marital responsibility within the legitimate marriage and family-rights movements. Structural discrimination against men in education, home, and family is now common knowledge, and a major issue for forthright media outlets and state legislatures. Times have changed, and so must CPB.

If PBS fails to honor its public mandate, Congress should end all funding of CPB and PBS. CPB is using public funds to broadcast perverse feminist social re-engineering propaganda to illegitimately influence legislation and judicial decisions.

Secondly, if PBS fails to act appropriately, everyone considering membership or making a gift to CPB or PBS, should take note that their monies may be misused to spread hate and arbitrarily destroy marriage, fatherhood, and the futures of thousands of women and children.

David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

posted by David R. Usher at 12:03 PM

Usher Review: PBS Documentary “Breaking the Silence”: Evidently a Conspiracy.

Parental Alienation Family Law video presented by Goldberg Assoc.

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children legal status, children's behaviour, Civil Rights, CPS, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights on July 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm

YouTube – Parental Alienation Family Law video presented by Goldberg & Assoc..

Mom Exposes Child to Public Ridicule – Ordered Off the Internet

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Feminism, National Parents Day, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation on July 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm

I am not quite sure what this hubbub is all about… but I think it is about another psychotic false-accusing mom who lost custody in court…. I feel sorry for the child, but her mom needs help. She is being Parental Alienation from her child by her own actions. – Parental Rights

This also reminds me that a well-known “protective parent” attorney did the same thing here in California, by trotting up on state a bunch of “abused kids” exposing them to public shame and ridicule to push a DV, feminist agenda and anti-Parental Alienation agenda. A family court watcher who was there at the time tried to turn his camera on to record the humilation and abuse that this attorney was bringing on these children, but was told to turn his camera off. The attorney in question would be disbarred today if caught. – Parental Rights

Shawnee County Courts: Mom Guilty- Contempt and further ordered to remove “Public Records” in order to be able to pay 40$ an hour for two hours a week-I did- again-they didn’t

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall––think of it–always. –Mahatma Gandhi

I guess that being no ORDER- as well completely out of funds- ‘they’ are preparing to un-purge the contempt-cant afford to see daughter, cant afford 10K for another forensic courtwhore- so I guess we are back at a stand off- what do I want my daughter to know – how can I empower her to not go through this herself?

truth v evil

How to hold a promise I made to my mother when she died-

“ do not let my granddaughter endure what I had to watch my first born endure.”

god –that would be intolerable to have another 20 years repeat- I simply can not do nothing-I love you my daughter- when you can- reach for you- this is NOT acceptable-it is wrong- you deserve your daughters deserve safety love, respect, ‘hope’…and JUSTICE!

Shawnee County Courts: Mom Guilty- Contempt and further ordered to remove “Public Records” wtf are they hiding?

Why are they doing this..? …because they can…. for now.


Susan Murphy Milano’s Journal: Family Court and the Judicial Murder of Children’s Lives

A Human Rights Issue-Custody…

Remember that little thang called the U.S. Constitution …???

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” –Margaret Mead (1901-1978

[The Courts, Shawnee County, Kansas, were more concerned about THEIR imagesand here– than those of my daughter –the ‘contempt’ that I was convicted of..? Civilly -without rule- of procedure of same- criminal- So when does civil become criminal..? Doesn’t jail or per say the 4th amendment speaks ‘civil; may have jury-(no silence-oppression) if ‘value exceeds twenty dollars”—yeah, would make a ‘mad’ man-…’mad.’… as a ‘hatter’ indeed-hence, this blog post- sanity –dignity-social activism-true change. Confused..? Wait.. ..this is the …sane part- it gets better….]

“Today is my Birthday; birthdays are really for the ‘mothers’ (I learned after the birth of my dear daughter as we recall the birth with perfect clarity… This is my first b-day- since my own mom’s passing a few months ago- her death in the ‘feeding’ frenzy of the Courts and their court whores who will not even in death stop their crimes against ‘humanity’. My ‘contempt’ was because of the video I made- the ‘preservation’ of good- sacred’ a tribute video for my daughter and mother as healing- in lei of the courts cruel blow by denying a child and her mother to attend grandmother’s funeral- even in life callously maliciously denied the child access to any and all contact with her ‘maternal’ family-

“Today, I had a very precious few minutes with my daughter– via mobile-(the first time she was able to say ‘happy birthday mom’) her little heart so weary, painfully heavy but; a strong compassionate heart it is. She takes after her grandmother. We……. survived another ‘court feeding’….. Next feeding….April 15th, 2009 at 3:00 PM…..we will survive that too……

“Today, with my mom and my daughter–so far away… This b-day seems so much more ‘raw’ I feel as I know my daughter does-and so many others- like all my nerve endings are exposed-perhaps they are- and either 15 days-or fifteen years- the ‘stripping’ of rights- especially ‘human’ …there simply are no words, other than it must stop… via the system that profits so heavily from so much spilled blood.. the nation… indeed the world.. et ‘humanity’ its self….

“Today, I continue- the ‘path-un-paved’ happy b-day mom, it is-the beginning- to and end…’Human Evolution’-higher intelligence- -that I try to form my thoughts as each action I take or inaction- each step I take is to ‘free’ my child her children- from the blood lust of the ‘family courts’ globally…”

-I am my mother’s -daughter–and- my daughters– mother-

I was lucky to find the tribute video for repost to this blog- We have a ‘code of honor’- my sisterswww.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org

When one is silenced, we speak for her- we speak for all our children – – we just act and ‘do’ as a ‘human’ would. We carry our dead and our wounded– we leave no one behind. [marine motto-human motto]

This because of the death and tribute of my mother-my daughter’s grandmother-

From the ‘on-line PUBLIC ACCESS’ of case No. 96D217

(but wait- I am now Ordered to remove PUBLIC DOCUMENTS as well) what do they not- want the public to know…

Shawnee County Courts: Mom Guilty- Contempt and further ordered to remove “Public Records” in order to be able to pay 40$ an hour for two hours a week-I did- again-they didn’t

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall––think of it–always. –Mahatma Gandhi

I guess that being no ORDER- as well completely out of funds- ‘they’ are preparing to un-purge the contempt-cant afford to see daughter, cant afford 10K for another forensic courtwhore- so I guess we are back at a stand off- what do I want my daughter to know – how can I empower her to not go through this herself?

truth v evil

How to hold a promise I made to my mother when she died-

“ do not let my granddaughter endure what I had to watch my first born endure.”

god –that would be intolerable to have another 20 years repeat- I simply can not do nothing-I love you my daughter- when you can- reach for you- this is NOT acceptable-it is wrong- you deserve your daughters deserve safety love, respect, ‘hope’…and JUSTICE!

Shawnee County Courts: Mom Guilty- Contempt and further ordered to remove “Public Records” wtf are they hiding?

Why are they doing this..? …because they can…. for now.


Susan Murphy Milano’s Journal: Family Court and the Judicial Murder of Children’s Lives

A Human Rights Issue-Custody…

Remember that little thang called the U.S. Constitution …???

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” –Margaret Mead (1901-1978

[The Courts, Shawnee County, Kansas, were more concerned about THEIR imagesand here– than those of my daughter –the ‘contempt’ that I was convicted of..? Civilly -without rule- of procedure of same- criminal- So when does civil become criminal..? Doesn’t jail or per say the 4th amendment speaks ‘civil; may have jury-(no silence-oppression) if ‘value exceeds twenty dollars”—yeah, would make a ‘mad’ man-…’mad.’… as a ‘hatter’ indeed-hence, this blog post- sanity –dignity-social activism-true change. Confused..? Wait.. ..this is the …sane part- it gets better….]

“Today is my Birthday; birthdays are really for the ‘mothers’ (I learned after the birth of my dear daughter as we recall the birth with perfect clarity… This is my first b-day- since my own mom’s passing a few months ago- her death in the ‘feeding’ frenzy of the Courts and their court whores who will not even in death stop their crimes against ‘humanity’. My ‘contempt’ was because of the video I made- the ‘preservation’ of good- sacred’ a tribute video for my daughter and mother as healing- in lei of the courts cruel blow by denying a child and her mother to attend grandmother’s funeral- even in life callously maliciously denied the child access to any and all contact with her ‘maternal’ family-

“Today, I had a very precious few minutes with my daughter– via mobile-(the first time she was able to say ‘happy birthday mom’) her little heart so weary, painfully heavy but; a strong compassionate heart it is. She takes after her grandmother. We……. survived another ‘court feeding’….. Next feeding….April 15th, 2009 at 3:00 PM…..we will survive that too……

“Today, with my mom and my daughter–so far away… This b-day seems so much more ‘raw’ I feel as I know my daughter does-and so many others- like all my nerve endings are exposed-perhaps they are- and either 15 days-or fifteen years- the ‘stripping’ of rights- especially ‘human’ …there simply are no words, other than it must stop… via the system that profits so heavily from so much spilled blood.. the nation… indeed the world.. et ‘humanity’ its self….

“Today, I continue- the ‘path-un-paved’ happy b-day mom, it is-the beginning- to and end…’Human Evolution’-higher intelligence- -that I try to form my thoughts as each action I take or inaction- each step I take is to ‘free’ my child her children- from the blood lust of the ‘family courts’ globally…”

-I am my mother’s -daughter–and- my daughters– mother-

I was lucky to find the tribute video for repost to this blog- We have a ‘code of honor’- my sisterswww.BatteredMothersCustodyConference.org

When one is silenced, we speak for her- we speak for all our children – – we just act and ‘do’ as a ‘human’ would. We carry our dead and our wounded– we leave no one behind. [marine motto-human motto]

This because of the death and tribute of my mother-my daughter’s grandmother-

From the ‘on-line PUBLIC ACCESS’ of case No. 96D217

(but wait- I am now Ordered to remove PUBLIC DOCUMENTS as well) what do they not- want the public to know…

04/06/2009 MISC.

TRANSCRIPT of hearing – AUDIO of hearing-

Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13.

Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge.

Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”.

Court found;

1.) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s

website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to;

2. ) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible;

3. ) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible.

Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased mother.

Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail.

Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m.

Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause,

Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist.

Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing.

Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. (these stopped when my mother died) Respondent to pay full costs of SV visits at $40.00 an hour

Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address.

Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD

Ok, I feel better now…. silence is oppression- oppression is silence.

[imagine a world without links-darkness-give light the darkness will disappear of its own-shine bright]

1. Anonymums: Mother Heros:Claudine Dombrowski

Claudine Dombrowski is an amazing human being. Her efforts to free her daughter from the cycle of abuse are tireless. An assumption I made when I read the
anonymums.blogspot.com/2009/03/mother-herosclaudinedombrowski.html – 150k –

Granny, Mom “Dont Give Up”

12:02 Added about 4 months ago

Hope Love Power and enlightenment

Judge ‘death’ David Debenham

17:36 Added about 4 months ago

Topeka Kansas, Shawnee County Courthouse
Justice denied even in death- Protect the perp at all cost.
further victimize child and mother

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall––think of it–always. –Mahatma Gandhi

www.AngelFury.org / KS-Family Court Reform Coalition

Kansans For Judicial Accountability / Kansas Mothers For Custodial Justice

Kansas Family Court Reform Coalition: Shawnee County Courts: Mom Guilty- Contempt and further ordered to remove “Public Records” in order to be able to pay 40$ an hour for two hours a week-I did- again-they didn’t.