Linda Marie Sacks January 2010 Article
Talk to mothers, divorce lawyers, and child advocates and you’ll hear tales of a family court system that’s badly broken.
Gina Kaysen Fernandes: To an outsider, Linda Marie Sacks had the perfect life. Her husband was rich, and they lived in a huge home in Daytona Beach, FL, where she spent her days shuttling her girls to school and various activities. Linda Marie describes herself as a “squeaky clean soccer mom” who “lived my life for my children.” Behind that faÃ§ade, Linda Marie says she married a monster — a man who verbally and emotionally attacked her for years and sexually abused their two young daughters.
When she finally left him and tried to take her girls with her, she encountered a new monster — family court. Rather than protecting Linda Marie and her two young daughters from a sexual predator, a family court judge denied Linda Marie custody and put her daughters into the hands of their sexually abusive father.
Talk to mothers, divorce lawyers, and child advocates and you’ll hear tales of a family court system that’s badly broken. It’s one that routinely punishes women for coming forward with allegations of abuse by denying them custody of their children. Instead of protecting children from abusers and predators, the court often gives sole custody to the abusive parent, say child advocates. Mothers who tell judges their children are being molested or beaten are accused of lying and are punished for trying to intervene. Some are thrown in jail for trying to keep their kids from seeing an abusive parent. Women, many of whom have few financial resources at their disposal, are often at the mercy of a court system that is not designed to handle domestic violence.
Linda Marie first suspected something was wrong in 2002 when she received a shocking phone call from a school administrator. Her 7-year-old daughter was acting out sexually, with knowledge beyond her years. A short time later, the Sunday school teacher reported overhearing Linda Marie’s daughter saying, “I suck my dad’s penis.” She received more phone calls from school about her little girl using Barbie dolls to simulate oral sex with a boy in her class. “I was very concerned, these are alarming red flags,” said Linda Marie.
She consulted family therapists who also expressed alarm and concern, but failed to report these claims to an abuse hotline. In one of the therapy sessions, the oldest daughter drew a picture that depicted her father as an erect penis on legs. Linda Marie says she once walked in on her husband wiping her daughters’ vaginas in the bathroom before school, “because he told me he wanted them to be fresh.” When Linda Marie confronted her husband, he ignored and dismissed the allegations.
After 11 years of marriage, Linda Marie filed for divorce in 2004. Armed with detailed documentation, she believed the judge would grant her sole custody of her two daughters for their protection. “I was sheltered. I didn’t know I had stepped into a national crisis in the courts,” said Linda Marie, who spent tens of thousands of dollars in a legal battle that ended in the loss of her parental rights. Linda Marie has only seen her children during supervised visits for a total of 54 hours over the past two and a half years. “I’m one of the lucky moms,” she said, choking back tears. “Some bonds are severed forever. I’m thankful for my two hours a month.”
Some mothers like Lorraine Tipton of Oconto Falls, WI, have served jail time as the result of contentious custody arraignments. In November, a judge sentenced Lorraine to 30 days behind bars because she didn’t force her 11-year-old daughter to follow the court’s order to live every other week with her abusive father. “She’s terrified of going; she has night terrors and severe anxiety,” said Lorraine.
Her ex, Craig Hensberger, was arrested three times for domestic violence and once for child abuse. His criminal record also includes two DUI arrests, one of which happened while driving with his daughter. The court ordered Hensberger into rehab and demanded “absolute sobriety,” but his daughter claims he still drinks excessively when she visits.
Hensberger admitted in court that he still continues to drink, but the judge punished Lorraine instead for trying to protect her child. “My abuser is continuing his abuse of me and my daughter with the help of the court,” said Lorraine, who spent three days locked up until her daughter made the heart-wrenching decision to return to her father’s home so her mother could be released from jail. “He can’t get to me physically. The only way he knows how to hurt me is to take my child away.”
“What we are seeing amounts to a civil rights crisis,” says attorney and legal writer Michael Lesher, who co-authored the book From Madness To Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts — and What Can Be Done about It. Many judges and court-appointed guardians act above the law with apparent impunity, he argues.
“There’s no hearing, no evidence, no notice — they can take your child away from you,” Lesher tells momlogic. If a mother raises concerns or openly discusses child abuse in court, she typically ends up being the one under investigation. “Mom is guilty until proven innocent,” he says.
A family court judge with the Los Angeles Superior Court refused momlogic’s request for an interview to respond to these allegations.
Unlike criminal court, family court does not rely on criminal investigators to gather evidence in an alleged child abuse case. Instead, the court appoints family advocates known as “guardian ad litem,” or GAL, who are expected to investigate the abuse allegations and make their recommendation in the best interest of the child. GALs are sometimes licensed psychologists, social workers, or attorneys who are not necessarily trained in evaluating sexual abuse or domestic violence. They have the judge’s ear, and their opinions can alter a child’s future. There are no juries and there’s no mandate for legal representation. In fact, most women end up representing themselves because they can’t afford the attorney fees.
Most moms don’t want to take the case to criminal court because they prefer to keep the matter private. Legal experts contend the evidence in sexual abuse cases isn’t typically strong enough to hold up in criminal court to overcome the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” While the bar is set much lower for proving evidence in family court, advocates argue Child Protective Services frequently doesn’t want to get involved. “If there’s a custody battle going on, CPS won’t touch it,” says Irene Weiser of the advocacy group StopFamilyViolence.org.
There’s no doubt fathers play a critical role in a child’s life, and in most cases, are equally loving and capable parents who deserve custody. However, studies find when a wife accuses her husband of abuse, more than half the time, she faces a counter-accusation of “parental alienation syndrome,” or PAS. Although PAS is not a medically recognized disorder, divorce attorneys often successfully argue that it emerges when a parent brainwashes a child into thinking the other parent is the enemy.
The psychiatrist Richard Gardner, who first coined the phrase “parental alienation syndrome” in 1987, has written more than one hundred articles on the subject, but has offered no scientific data to support his theory. While it’s not considered a certifiable medical condition, PAS is widely accepted in the legal community.
“Parental Alienation unequivocally, categorically exists, and it’s a form of child abuse,” says author and forensic consultant Dean Tong. While he believes more studies need to be done to validate PAS, “it does exist, anecdotally speaking,” he says. As an expert witness, Tong has been called a “fathers’ rights prostitute” for his work in court clashes. But he also testifies for mothers who are fighting to appeal unfavorable rulings. For Tong, it’s about using forensics to find the truth. “I’m not here to protect guys who are guilty,” he says.
In years past, mothers were typically considered the “protective parent” in custody decisions when courts relied on the “Tender Years Doctrine,” which states that children under the age of 13 should live with their mothers. Recently, several courts have ruled that doctrine violated the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment, and replaced it with the “Best Interests of the Children” doctrine. It’s a huge victory for the increasingly powerful Fatherhood Movement that contends dads are systematically alienated from their children after a divorce.
Tong argues the current legal climate continues to put fathers on the receiving end of false allegations. “It’s handcuffs first, speak later,” said Tong, who experienced that firsthand. In 1985, Tong’s ex-wife falsely accused him of sexually abusing his 3-year-old daughter. He spent time in jail and went through “a year of hell” trying to prove his innocence. While Tong was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, he never regained custody of his kids, and remained under supervised visitation for years. Tong became a self-taught expert on the subject of family rights and abuse accusations. He has written three books, including Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused.
“There’s an assumption that maintaining a child’s relationship with the father is a good idea — even if the father is abusive,” says Stop Family Violence’s Weiser, who believes when the overburdened court system is unable to sort out a custody conflict, it relies on misogyny. She argues there are many judges, GALs, and evaluators who believe that women are inherently vindictive and will lie to get a leg up in a custody battle. “We see it over and over again in family court, where judges or professionals don’t believe the violence is occurring,” Weiser says.
“All we have is ‘he said, she said.’ Who’s telling the truth? That’s up to the judge,” says Tong, who believes the justice system isn’t working for either side. “The system is not doing a good job interviewing kids, we’re still in the dark ages there,” says Tong, who thinks there needs to be more formal education and training for the professionals, including judges who are hearing child custody cases.
According to the American Bar Association, child abuse allegations in custody disputes are rare — occurring in only six percent of cases. The majority of those accusations are substantiated. In terms of false allegations, fathers are more likely than mothers to intentionally lie (21 percent, compared to 1.3 percent). In fact, abusive parents are more likely to seek sole custody than nonviolent ones, and are successful about 70 percent of the time.
After three years of litigation, Linda Marie Sacks says she was no match for her ex-husband’s financial resources and powerful connections. “He was buying his way through the courtroom.” Despite 10 calls into the abuse hotline by licensed professionals, Linda Marie’s ex-husband still claimed she was making false allegations of abuse to alienate his children, and the judge believed him. Linda Marie was kicked out of her home and put on supervised visitation with her two daughters, who are now ages 10 and 12. “The judge legally kidnapped my daughters and won’t give them back,” she said.
In some extreme cases, a custody decision will be reversed, which is what happened to Joyce Murphy. The San Diego mother was charged with kidnapping after she took her daughter out of state, away from the girl’s father, because she believed he was a child molester. The father, Henry Parson, accused Joyce of parental alienation and she lost custody. “Despite my pleas for protection to the police and the DA and the family court representatives, and even psychologists, Mr. Parson was able to convince them and the community at large that he was the victim, and I was just an angry, embittered, divorced woman,” explained Joyce.
Six years later, Parson was caught in the act and pleaded guilty to six counts of child abuse, which included oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn, and using a child to make porn. After Parson received a six-year prison sentence, Joyce told reporters that family court’s only good decision in her case was granting her full permanent custody of her daughter after her ex-husband was jailed.
Lorraine, the Wisconsin mom who was jailed for protecting her daughter, knows her daughter’s nightmare will continue for the rest of her childhood. “He’s never going to stop, it’s never going to end until she’s 18.” Linda Marie says she’s putting every penny towards her legal efforts to win back custody of her daughters. “I will never stop fighting for my girls. I know one day justice will prevail.”
Critics argue that not only is the family court system broken, it was never designed to deal with issues like child custody. The goal is to develop solutions that are in the best interest of the child. “Unfortunately when judges and guardians start thinking of themselves as super government, all sorts of abuses will occur,” says attorney and author Lesher.
Activists are working towards making reforms through legislation. “The heartbreaking challenge is that there’s not one quick fix,” says Stop Family Violence’s Weiser. “This is a war — it’s very ugly, it’s bloody, and very bitter,” concludes Tong.
This Dr. Harry Harlow was not just unsympathetic, but a monster just like the unethical doctors who forcefully remove children from loving mothers by claiming parental alienation to give them to their abusers. Why do they do this? Because they get paid by the abuser to do this! It’s a fraud on the courts that needs to end!
Dr. Harry Harlow was an unsympathetic person, using terms like the rape rack and iron maiden in his experiments. He is most well-known for the experiments he conducted on rhesus monkeys concerning social isolation. Dr. Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys who had already bonded with their mothers and placed them in a stainless steel vertical chamber device alone with no contact in order to sever those bonds. They were kept in the chambers for up to one year. Many of these monkeys came out of the chamber psychotic, and many did not recover. Dr. Harlow concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression, while science writer Deborah Blum called these, common sense results.
Gene Sackett of the University of Washington in Seattle, one of Harlows doctoral students, stated he believes the animal liberation movement in the U.S. was born as a result of Harlows experiments. William Mason, one of Harlows students, said that Harlow kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. Its as if he sat down and said, Im only going to be around another ten years. What Id like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind. If that was his aim, he did a perfect job.
Any doctor removing a child from their mother using the fraudulent theory of parental alienation or other phony psychobabble BS needs to be exposed for the monsters they are. They come up with phony rhetoric and say it in a convincing manner, much like they did back in Salem when they accused women of witchcraft.
This Parental Alienation Custody Change Fraud is going to go down in history as one of the most unethical psychological social engineering experiments of all time. The scandal is on the same level as the cover up of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church. It’s time people start to wake up and recognize that these doctors are covering up for all types of domestic abuse against women and children for PROFIT.
If you click on the links regarding Dr. Harry Harlow, you will find out that he received awards from psychological associations. Maybe this will start to get people thinking that there are groups of people doing unethical experiments and they do support each other on their theories and cover up for each other. The APA also published the Rind Study which tried to justify child sexual abuse as being acceptable and not that harmful to children. There is a common thread between all of these sick studies that push quack theories to justify unacceptable behavior. Only with Parental Alienation Theory, the whole idea is to call the victims liars which re-victimizes them. All that is needed to do this is to pay an unethical doctor to testify who will ignore real evidence and substitute in their fraudulent rhetoric.
When people realized the horrible treatment of animals that Harlow inflicted, the result was an animal liberation movement. What needs to happen as a result of these unethical parental alienation scams is for children to have a liberation movement and demand to have rights to be heard and to make their own decisions.
And Intentionally Scaring Monkeys
Posted in Abraham Worenklein, Alabama, Alaska, Amy J. L. Baker, Anthony Pisa, Arizona, Arla Witte, Australia, Barbara Fidler,Barry Bricklin, Bernard Joseph Goldberg, Bob Hoch, C. David Missar, California, Canada, Christopher Tilman, Cole Eason,Colorado, Connecticut, Dalia Saffa Biller, David L. Levy, David Sweet, David Tassoni, Deborah Day, Diane Rotnem, Doneldon Dennis, Donna Wowk, Elizabeth McCarty, Florida, Frank Marocco, Fred Norris, Gail Brick, Gary Karpin, Georgia, Glenn Caddy,Gregory Sisk, Harold Niman, Harry Harlow, Illinois, Indiana, J. Michael Bone, Jack Ferrell, Jake Cooley, Jan Faust, Jayne Major,Jeffry Price, Jim Campbell, John Zervopoulos, Joseph Goldberg, Judge Bob Wattles, Judge Charles A. Porter, Judge Damian Amodeo, Judge Daniel C. Banina, Judge David Barker, Judge Henry Walsh, Judge Howard Lipsey, Judge Jennifer Elliott, Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah, Judge John Gomery, Judge Joseph A. Dugen, Judge Karen G. Shields, Judge Lawrence J. Stengel, Judge Mark A. Ciavarella, Judge Michael T. Conahan, Judge Neil Buckley, Judge Peter J. McBrien, Judge Susan Greenhawt, Judge W. Stephen Nixon, Judges, Justice Faye McWatt, Kansas, Karen Allen, Kay Kraus, Lawyers, GALs, Mediators, Et Al, Leslie Riggs,Lisette Laurent Boyer, Locations, Lorah Sebastian, Mark Hirschfeld, Mark Hoffman, Martha Jacobson, Marty McKay, Mary Laughead, Maryland, Maureen Patton, Meg Sussman, Mental Health Professionals, Michael Baer, Michael Perzin, Minnesota,Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Patricia Scaglia, Pennsylvania, Phil Heller, Ralph Underwager,Raymond David, Reena Sommer, Rhode Island, Richard Gardner, Richard Sauber, Richard Warshak, Robert Basham, S. Richard Sauber, Sherrie Bourg Carter, Stephanie Holland, Stuart Greenberg, Susan DeVries, Texas, UK, Vicki Plant, Virginia,Washington, William Wrigley. Tags: abuse, child abuse, custody, divorce, domestic abuse, Family Court, fraud, parental alienation, psychologist, unethical, visitation. 14 Comments »
What is Maternal Deprivation
Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court.Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.
Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings. A twisted form of Maternal Deprivation is to kill the children, so that the mother will be left to suffer. Sometimes there are family annihilation murders where the father kills the children and himself (or dies by cop), but the mother is not killed because she has received protective orders and her children have not as in the case ofJessica Gonzales.
In seeking to define this form of abuse certain common elements are found in the Maternal Deprivation scenario as follows:
The intent of “Maternal Deprivation” is to punish the mother and the child for revealing the abuse and to falsely claim that they are not abusive. This very commonly occurs as there are more and more “abuse-excuse” parental alienation accusing professionals who use this scientifically invalid theory over and over to achieve specific goals of the person paying them. Maternal Deprivation can also occur in response to child support legal proceedings. When occurring in this manner, Maternal Deprivation is a response to the financial demands as retaliation. Suddenly the father who had little prior involvement wants to take the kids half the time to avoid child support obligations, etc. When the men are really abusive, they ask for sole custody and demand the mother of the child pay them.
Although some people call this “Maternal Alienation”, a distinction needs to be made as the pro-pedophilia “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of the word “Alienation” are most often used AGAINST battered women and abused children. There needs to be a distinction between the phony psychological syndrome and the intentional infliction of abuse on a mother and child by intentionally severing their natural bond. This distinction can best be made by NOT using the label of “Alienation” which will always be associated with the pro-pedophilia monster Doctor Richard Gardner.
Some of the characteristics of the especially heinous abusers who inflict Maternal Deprivation include but are not limited to the following:
Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)
Intentionally tries to humiliate mother and/or child
Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style
Outrage at child’s challenge of authority
May use force to reassert parental position
Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility
Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits
There is a distinct overlap of the intimate terrorist type domestic violence abuser with the Maternal Deprivation abusers as follows:
Coercion and threats
Minimizing, denying and blaming (Hallmarks of PAS)
The people who most often engage in Maternal Deprivation Abuse are most often:
Vindictive second wives who don’t
want to deal with the real mother of the children
Paternal grandparents who raised dysfunctional children (abusers)
The effects of Maternal Deprivation often cause the children to become psychotic, depressed, and sometimes suicidal or to have suicidal ideations. Another terrible reaction is when the child retaliates against the parent who accuses Parental Alienation Syndrome as in a Texas case where the child killed his father. Other times when the Maternal Deprivation abuser completely takes over the will of the child by using brainwashing techniques similar to those used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to force ideological changes in captives, these children often have a sort of trauma-bonding with the abuser and model their behavior. Sometimes these children will also abuse the mother in the same manner as the father. Another generation is created to carry on the abuse, and will likely do the same to their own spouse and children.
For more articles involving Maternal Deprivation:
VAWnet Joan Meier on PAS-Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews
And many more articles throughout Battered Mothers Lose Children to Abusers and all the links on the sidebar.
Maternal Deprivation Abuse will be featured on BMLCTA Blog in an effort to wipe out this heinous crime against mothers and children.
FILED IN: CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR FATHERS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,FATHERS RIGHTS, PARENTAL ALIENATION AWARENESS DAY, PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDER, PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDERS, PROTECTIVE ORDERS, RESTRAINING ORDERS, PARENTAL ALIENATION
This is by Ana Ottman and Rebekah Lee for the “Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence ” (2008, SAGE Publications):
The fathers’ rights movement advocates for fathers who feel deprived of their parental rights and subjected to systematic bias as men after divorce or separation. The term fathers’ rights is relevant to interpersonal violence primarily in custody and visitation cases involving domestic violence.
The fathers’ rights movement emerged in the 1970s as a loose social movement with a network of interest groups primarily active in Western countries. Established to campaign for equal treatment for men by the courts on issues such as child custody after divorce, child support, and paternity determinations, this network is also part of the broader men’s rights movement. While there is no written history of the movement, it is generally viewed as stemming from changes in both the law and societal attitudes. These changes include the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1969 and the attendant rise in divorce rates; the increasing entry of women into the workforce, upturning traditional gender roles; and the increasing social acceptance of single parents and their increased proportion of all families.
Fathers’ rights activists typically believe that the application of the law in family courts is biased against men. Because mothers have historically been seen as the primary caregivers for their children, they have often been granted custody of their children, causing some fathers to feel marginalized. Thus, one longstanding goal of fathers’ rights groups is obtaining “shared parenting,” asking that courts uphold a rebuttable presumption of joint custody after divorce or separation. Under a shared parenting arrangement, children would be required to live with each parent for the same amount of time, unless there were valid reasons not to do so.
Fathers’ rights advocates claim that women often falsify allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases, and misuse protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny them contact with their children. Attorneys and advocates for abused women note that while it is not uncommon for family court proceedings to be accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders, this is largely representative of the prevalence of domestic violence in our society, and of the fact that domestic violence often increases (or begins) at the time of separation or divorce. Many battered women seek protection orders as a last resort, after being subjected to continuous violence, because the orders can provide an effective means to gaining safety from the batterer.
While many mothers are awarded custody, there are many contested custody cases. In these contested cases, fathers often seek and win joint or full custody of the children. One way that a mother might lose custody is through the father’s use of a theory called parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Fathers’ rights groups see PAS as occurring when the mother has “poisoned” the minds of their children toward the other parent by brainwashing them into reporting abuse. When this legal tactic is used, the mother often loses custody or is forced to accept joint custody based on the father’s allegations of PAS.
While the fathers’ rights movement presents PAS as a credible theory, it is recognized as deeply flawed, based on extreme gender bias, and rooted in a disbelief of women and children who report abuse. Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association recognizes PAS as a credible theory, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has rejected the theory and recommended that it not be used when considering custody matters.
Women’s rights groups and profeminist men argue that fathers’ rights groups want to entrench patriarchy and undo the advances made by women in society. Those opposed to the fathers’ rights movement believe that the bias fathers’ rights members speak of in family courts either does not exist or is such that single mothers in particular are not advantaged as a class to the extent stated, especially in the face of sexism and male privilege and power.
—Ana Ottman and Rebekah Lee
Ottman, Ana, and Rebekah Lee. “Fathers’ Rights Movement.” Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence. 2008. SAGE Publications
Technorati Tags: RIGHTS,MOVEMENT,CHILD,CUSTODY,BATTLE,DOMESTIC,VIOLENCE,PARENTAL,ALIENATION,DISORDER,PROTECTIVE,ORDERS,Ottman,Rebekah,Encyclopedia,Interpersonal,SAGE,bias,separation,cases,Western,treatment,courts,history,introduction,attendant,rates,workforce,gender,acceptance,proportion,children,Thus,goal,presumption,Under,arrangement,parent,advantage,protection,Attorneys,proceedings,prevalence,fact,Many,resort,father,theory,syndrome,tactic,disbelief,Neither,American,Psychological,Association,Psychiatric,National,Council,Juvenile,Court,Judges,Women,extent,sexism,male,FATHERS,DISORDERS,Publications,attitudes,roles,allegations,members
FILED IN: AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, APRIL 25TH,CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILDREN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CORRUPT JUDGES, CORRUPT PSYCHOLOGISTS, DSM-V, DR. RICHARD GARDNER, LEGAL ABUSE, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, PAS,PARENTAL ALIENATION AWARENESS DAY, PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDER, PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDERS, PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME, PARENTAL ALIENATION
There needs to be a little bit of propaganda to blanket their true goals.
Richard Gardner gave them that blanket by promoting ideas that society should punish those to speak against abuse as, “sick” and “requiring therapy”. He coined the term, “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. Appalled by the pro-pedophile material that was circulated on a large scale, researchers on child abuse and family violence worked even harder to debunk this content and for many years it has been frequently rejected by the American Psychology Association as a Syndrome. Regardless of the theory being discredited, it has still been used on court cases all over the world including a case where it was a defense for a brutal murder of a mother. Some backyard psychologists have even held workshops about, “Maternal Gate-keeping” and others have promoted theories such as, “Malicious Mother Syndrome”.
Whilst in most debates, we all amicably prefer to keep things gender neutral apart from where one gender is being targeted in a way no different to the apartheid in Africa, the slavery towards African Americans and of course the stolen generation of aboriginal children. Whilst the use of parental alienation syndrome appears to be one of those gender neutral terms, the literature and statistics of court cases where the reversal of custody cases involving abuse allegations suggests that the number one target is the mother. Enmeshed with child abuse cases are often intimate partner terrorism, mostly perpetrated by fathers and a deep lack of community support towards mothers who try against many odds to protect their children from further abuse and exposure to violence. The superficial surface of parent alienation suggests that their goal is to stop “false accusers” despite statistics stating over and over again that false accusers are a minority of cases and in fact most of the false allegations are use by fathers. Empirical research has defined this as part of a series of behaviors that follow the intervention of a intimate partner terrorism relationship. This is where the real problem lies, with little support thanks to the erosion of domestic violence and child protection services, mothers experiencing false accusations towards them have drifted unknowingly towards the movement that is solely there to continue these abuses against her and the children.
Supporters of this theory have even gone as far as promoting it as a form of child abuse and sadly many court cases involving child abuse and intimate partner terrorism with evidence are treated as alienation resulting with the child being transferred to the abuser. The influence of this theory has been so great that other aspects of the system where the perpetrator could be convicted are thwarted.
Whilst Parental Alienation attracts pedophile lobbyists, batterers and abusers, they also attract mistaken victims. These victims are in turn used to become the front of the organisations eliminating the promotion of any true need for children and victims of violence and appear as though they are gender inclusive. The laws, case statistics and culture of the courts are a true reflection of the backyard psych therapists and abuse excuser’s causes. Some organisations are obvious in their agenda, whilst others confuse the situation.
Given the clusters of abusers that are attracted to the cause, it is important to encourage police abuse units to investigate the members of these groups as they do with pedophile rings. This could help stop abuse occurring. Other things that can be done is reporting professionals who use the theory as a form of diagnosis to psychologist registers, law bars and social worker accreditation organisations. The use of junk science destroys the credibility of professionals who do not practice backyard therapies and such reports are welcomed to peak bodies. By alerting other parents of the dangers of these organisations, parents can then become aware of the potential risks they could expose the children to by engaging with potential abusers activities and prevent abuse from occurring.
Here are a list of confirmed pedophile organisations that promote Parent Alienation:
If a group of pedophiles and abusers named their cause, “Abusers Awareness Day”, no one would help champion their goals.
Technorati Tags: TIME,LEARN,TRUTH,ABOUT,PARENTAL,ALIENATION,Abusers,AMERICAN,PSYCHIATRIC,ASSOCIATION,PSYCHOLOGICAL,APRIL,CHILD,CUSTODY,BATTLE,CHILDREN,DOMESTIC,VIOLENCE,CORRUPT,JUDGES,PSYCHOLOGISTS,RICHARD,GARDNER,LEGAL,ABUSE,NONCUSTODIAL,DISORDER,SYNDROME,needs,propaganda,ideas,therapy,Psychology,theory,cases,world,defense,Some,backyard,Maternal,Gate,Malicious,Mother,Whilst,gender,Africa,African,Americans,generation,literature,statistics,reversal,terrorism,odds,exposure,parent,goal,fact,Empirical,series,intervention,relationship,lies,erosion,protection,services,movement,Supporters,abuser,system,perpetrator,victims,promotion,culture,courts,reflection,agenda,situation,Given,rings,diagnosis,worker,accreditation,science,reports,expose,activities,Here,messages,info,files,goals,DISORDERS,theories,allegations,fathers,accusations,aspects,therapists,units,members,therapies,dangers,pedophiles,towards,accusers,organisations,parents
By : Dr. Jeanne King Ph.D.
Submitted 2010-04-16 13:17:47
Victims of domestic abuse reach out to the system for help in stopping the abuse perpetrated upon them. This can involve both healthcare and law enforcement. Yet, what actually happens, more often than most people know, is that these so called “helpers” can be used to perpetuate domestic violence “legally” during divorce.
In healthcare, it’s the psychologists and psychiatrists. These healthcare providers are frequently manipulated by abusers to aid them in establishing false claims about the domestic abuse survivors that they batter and control.
Psychiatric Diagnosis as Batterer’s Club in Domestic Violence Divorce
Almost daily, I am sought out by a domestic violence survivor seeking help from being falsely accused of being mentally ill. In many of the cases, the mental healthcare diagnostics appear to be grossly improper.
But that doesn’t prevent a court from making determinations about the accused. In many of these cases, the battered mothers (and abused fathers) are faced with losing custody of and, in some cases, even the essential moments of simple human contact with their children.
Once judicial decisions are made, remedies can be added on and on…with no regard for the accuracy of the original foundation underlying the initial judicial decision. We have seen domestic violence victims prevented from having unsupervised or any access to their abused children because of a clinical psychiatric diagnosis.
The sad thing here is that those directly negatively impacted, like the protective parent and children, are unaware of this ploy during its set up and ultimate execution. Often they go along with certain procedures trusting in their sanity and hoping for justice to prevail. Then, the day comes when they awaken to the fact that they have been re victimized by their abuser’s manipulation of the psychologists and psychiatrists.
Psychiatric Re victimization To What End
Now you’d think that if the batterer is getting a divorce and seeking to move on with their lives, then the victim’s declared mental health status would be of no interest to him/her. Wrong…completely wrong!
By establishing for “the record” that the domestic violence survivor is “crazy,” the abuser leverages their ability to regain and maintain control over the family…and most importantly, control over themselves, or at least control over their public image. Many people will tell you that the legal psychiatrics of a case are nothing more than to save face for the batterer.
The abuser seeks to walk away looking good and certainly not being an abuser. To this end, they must make the victim to be “bad”…“wrong”…“crazy.” Essentially, the abuser enlists (directly or indirectly) the healthcare provider to discredit the victim in order to invalidate who she/he is and what she/he stands for with respect to being a domestic abuse survivor.
If you are a domestic violence survivor and have been threatened with losing custody of your children and the credibility of you mental health status, seek to understand how batterers manipulate healthcare providers to establish false claims. And as you learn about the reality of what’s before you, find a credible professional to help you prevent this life changing destructive legal psychiatric ploy. The sooner you become proactive in preventing the establishment of false claims, the easier you can prevent them from defining your life and limiting your liberties.
Author Resource:- For information about legal psychological abuse and domestic violence divorce, see http://www.preventabusiverelationships.com/crazy_making.php . Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D. helps people nationwide recognize, end and heal from domestic abuse. Copyright 2010 Jeanne King Ph.D.
Article From Article Arty
Technorati Tags: Domestic,Violence,Divorce,Abusers,System,Invalidate,Survivors,Video,Jeanne,Victims,Psychiatric,Diagnosis,Batterer,Club,Almost,cases,custody,human,children,Once,accuracy,foundation,decision,parent,ploy,execution,Often,procedures,justice,fact,abuser,manipulation,victimization,victim,health,status,Wrong,image,Many,provider,life,establishment,Author,Resource,Article,From,helpers,psychiatrists,providers,fathers,moments,decisions,healthcare,psychologists,survivor
FILED IN: CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, CHILD CUSTODY FOR FATHERS, CORRUPT JUDGES,CORRUPT BASTARDS, FATHERS RIGHTS, FLORIDA, GETTING SCREWED BY THE FAMILY COURTS, JUDGE SHAWN L. BRIESE, LEGAL ABUSE, LINDA MARIE SACKS, MOTHERLESS CHILDREN, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS
April 19, 2010
Judge Holds Mother in Contempt; Refuses to Hold Scheduled Custody Hearing
Daytona Beach – A mother who has been separated from her children for more than three years was denied a hearing today to reunite with them and instead was held in contempt by a Volusia County judge.
Linda Marie Sacks, an Ormond Beach mother, arrived this morning at the City Island Courthouse in Daytona Beach for a scheduled hearing (Case 2004-30312 FMCI) asking for unsupervised visitations and total contact with her daughters, ages 13 and 15. But Volusia County Family Court Judge Shawn L. Briese declined to hold the hearing, which had been on the trial court schedule for six months, and demanded instead that Sacks submit to a deposition by the opposing counsel during the scheduled hearing time.
Sacks filed for divorce in 2004 after her daughters began acting out sexually. The eldest daughter, at age 8, drew a picture of the father as an erect penis during a therapy session and made an outcry during Sunday School that she had performed a sex act on her father. Sacks has spent six years in the family court trying unsuccessfully to protect her daughters.
Justice for Children, a Houston-based national child advocacy organization, has written a letter to Volusia County law enforcement authorities, including Department of Children and Family Administrator Reggie Williams, expressing concern that the allegations of sexual and physical abuse of Sacks’ daughters was never properly investigated.
In April 2007 Judge Briese (Case 2004-30312-FMCI) ruled that the child lied, gave the father sole physical custody of the daughters and placed the mother on supervised visitation. In the last three years, Sacks has had only 63 hours with her daughters at the The Family Tree House Visitation Center in Daytona Beach.
In 2008 the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals in Daytona Beach reversed that decision,(Case 5D07-1682) and ruled that Judge Briese had abused his trial court discretion, violated the mother’s due process rights and ordered the custody case be retried in the lower court. Despite the appeals court ruling and numerous motions to have him removed from the case, Judge Briese has continued to deny Sacks full-contact with her children.
Instead, just a few months after the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruling, Judge Briese quickly set another custody hearing, denied to admit any of the mother’s evidence or witnesses and again ruled that Sacks be allowed only supervised visits with her daughters.
Sacks, this time as a pro se litigant, has again filed an appeal with the Fifth District Court (Case 5D09-3752). Recently, the appeals court denied the father’s attorney’s motion to strike the mother’s appeal brief. Within days the father’s attorneys, James L. Rose and Leonard R. Ross of Daytona Beach, filed a subpoena in the lower court demanding Sacks appear for a lengthy deposition and filed a motion to end the mother’s two-hour a month supervised visit with her children.
Florida Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 1.310 (d) dictates that a deposition being used to harass a party can be terminated. Rule 1.290 (2) also states that a party cannot be forced into a deposition 20 days before a hearing. Sacks was found to be in contempt of court after she refused to take part in the deposition and only asked that she be able to have her hearing time.
During the hearing today, Judge Briese at first agreed with the mother’s filed objection to the deposition saying the Ross has had years to take the deposition. But when the Ross complained that the mother is speaking to national organizations about the case, Judge Briese changed his mind and demanded Sacks submit to the deposition.
Judge Briese said today that the mother will not be heard about being reunited with her children until she does submit. The hearing to see her children was scheduled for three days.
The mother will be back at the courthouse at 1:00 P.M. in hopes that hearing will be allowed to begin, but has already been told by the trial court judge, if you don’t allow the deposition, you will not get your scheduled hearing time.
Today Sacks filed an emergency motion to request a hearing before the Seventh Judicial Circuit Chief Judge J. David Walsh to ask that Judge Briese be disqualified from the case but was denied by Judge Briese.
Read more about Sacks’ battle to protect her children in the January 2010 MomLogic magazine article.
For More information please contact: KATHLEEN RUSSELL | KATHLEEN RUSSELL CONSULTING
1346 4th Street | San Rafael, CA | 94901 Cell 415.250.1180 | Main
415.459.9211 | Fax 415.459.9210
Telling Stories, Moving Mountains
Linda Marie Sacks
Technorati Tags: JUDGE,SHAWN,BRIESE,INTO,ASSMUNCH,MODE,FLORIDA,MOTHER,LINDA,MARIE,Rights,CHILD,CUSTODY,BATTLE,SEXUAL,ABUSE,CORRUPT,JUDGES,BASTARDS,COURTS,LEGAL,CHILDREN,NONCUSTODIAL,Release,April,Contempt,Hold,Daytona,Beach,Volusia,Ormond,Island,Courthouse,Case,FMCI,Court,deposition,daughter,father,therapy,session,outcry,School,Justice,Houston,advocacy,organization,letter,authorities,Department,Administrator,Reggie,Williams,Tree,House,Visitation,Center,Fifth,District,decision,discretion,Despite,Instead,litigant,attorney,Within,James,Leonard,Ross,Rules,Civil,Procedures,Rule,objection,emergency,Seventh,Judicial,Circuit,Chief,David,Walsh,Read,January,MomLogic,magazine,article,RUSSELL,Street,Rafael,Cell,Main,FATHERS,allegations,organizations,Mountains,three,daughters,months
Women Receive Overwhelming Response For Child Abuse Yard Signs
Two local women are taking action following the recent abuse deaths of two children.
Reporter: Jared Cerullo
Email Address: email@example.com
Friday, April 16, 2010
Two local women are taking action following the recent abuse deaths of two children. The women are giving away yard signs asking people to call 911 if they suspect a child is being abused and they’re getting an overwhelming response.
"That’s our Vincent’s prayer," said Lily Hill as she looked at the bright yellow sign that says ‘Be aware. Child abuse can be anywhere. Call 911.’
That’s the message Hill and Beverly Van Es want posted on every city block. Their actions were prompted by the brutal abuse deaths of Karsyn Young and Vincent Hill.
"Maybe even abusers will think ‘Oh dear, somebody might be watching me and somebody might be listening and I could get in trouble. Maybe I won’t do that."’
These grandmother’s are getting an overwhelming response from people wanting a sign to put in their own yard. Even as we were interviewing them, someone knocked on the door to pick one up. Hill and Van Es have spent $600 of their own money for the first batch of signs and all of them are spoken for.
"One person can make a difference. One person has many friends. Two grandmas can really make a difference," said Van Es.
"We want people thinking about this," Hill explained. "We want people to think about the horrors that are going on. World War II prisoners of war weren’t treated and tortured the way baby Vincent was."
These grandmas have loaded up a suburban with hundreds of signs to give away this weekend. They’ll be giving them out at Asbury Church at 15th and St. Paul from 10-noon on Saturday. They’ve already given away 100 of them and have 200 more more on order. One by one they say, with help from above, they will cover the city with Vincent’s prayer.
"We’re just a couple grandmas that care," said Van Es. "And we got signs."
If you would like a sign for your yard you can contact Beverly Van Es at 316-838-8601 or Lily Hill at 316-946-1437. They say they will buy as many signs as they can, but would appreciate any donations to help offset the costs.
March 31, 2010
Abuse Hotline Call Dismissed Months Before Baby’s Death
The Harvey County Sheriff’s Department says an abuse hotline call regarding 19-month-old Vincent Hill was dismissed two months prior to his death.
Reporter: Stephanie Diffin
Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Harvey County Sheriff’s Department confirms someone called an SRS abuse hotline more than two months before 19-month-old Vincent Hill was allegedly beaten to death. But Newton SRS and Harvey County law enforcement say they were never informed of the call.
The call came in from a couple who lived in the same duplex as Hill, his mother, Katheryn Nycole Dale, and her boyfriend, Chadd Carr. Dale and Carr are both charged in the case.
"Nothing ever gets done until it’s too late, and unfortunately, it’s too late," said Jason Monarez, the victim’s neighbor.
Vincent Hill’s father describes the little boy as happy and always smiling.
"He’s never going to be able to play catch with me, I’m never going to teach him how to learn how to fish," said Ricky Hill, Vincent’s father. "I”m not going to get to see him do anything."
Now, Ricky Hill wonders if he would have gotten the chance to see those things if social services had further investigated a call it received on January 20th, two months before Vincent’s death.
"We tried to stop it, we tried… me and my girlfriend both," said Monarez. "You could just hear through the wall, the child screaming."
So Monarez’ girlfriend called an SRS abuse hotline. But the center dismissed the call saying it didn’t indicate there was any harm taking place to the child. The last sentence of the report reads, "This completes the initial assessment with no further action needed."
"It just makes me angry, really, to know that i tried and it wasn’t taken seriously," said Jessica Link, who placed the call.
Since the call stopped at the call center, Newton SRS says it never got word of the suspected abuse.
"If they would have had the report, they probably would have notified us, and something would have gotten done," said Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton.
SRS will not comment about specific cases, but did release this statement on the process of investigating calls to its hotline;
"SRS receives reports of alleged abuse and neglect through our Kansas Protection Report Center, 1-800-922-5330. In State fiscal year 2009 SRS received 56,207 reports of alleged abuse or neglect. Of those, 49% or 27,340, cases were assigned for further investigation."
"Intake workers receive protective services training to elicit specific information about the situation. Information requested is focused on the extent of the situation, circumstances of the situation, child’s functioning, parenting practices and caregiver function, in addition to information regarding the child’s age, person alleged to have caused harm to the child, where the child is located, other individuals or agencies who may have information regarding the incident and the availability of a non-abusing adult to protect the child from further harm."
"The information gathered through the intake process is then provided to a licensed social worker to review and determine whether the incident requires further investigation. This decision is based on specific safety and risk factors, including but not limited to: seriousness of the incident, prior agency involvement with the family, and seriousness of injury to child."
"All reports assigned for further investigation involving allegations of maltreatment of child must be investigated within either a 24 hour or 72 hour timeframe, depending on the nature of the allegation. Situations requiring a 24 hour response include, but are not limited to: life threatening situation, sexual abuse with the alleged perpetrator in the home, child in protective custody, or a child with current visible injuries."
"Certain reports, not alleging maltreatment, may be investigated within 20 working days. An example of this type of case would be truancy."
By Cristina Janney
Posted Mar 31, 2010 @ 12:07 PM
NORTH NEWTON —
Copyright 2010 The Newton Kansan. Some rights reserved
Posted on Tue, Mar. 30, 2010
Neighbor had called hotline about Newton child who died
BY TIM POTTER
The Wichita Eagle
NORTH NEWTON — A 19-month-old boy had a broken collarbone, a broken lower leg and bruises from head to toe.
But no one directly told local authorities that something was wrong in the child’s life until after he died, local law enforcement officials said Monday.
They announced that a man who had been living at the 19-month-old’
Often when challenged about why the secrecy law is in place, the explanation from Australian Family Courts is to protect children’s privacy. Australian Law, based upon English law often mirrors UK in legal matters. Naturally, Australian law mimicking UK law, will also mimic the adverse legal avenue where the Council of Europe found UK law to err on the side of bias when they ordered secrecy. UK wasfound to maintain secrecy, not to protect the children’s identity, but to protect the evidence where they violated human rights from the public. This led to media reporting on UK Family Court proceeding including the revelation that a mother wasordered by the court to return to UK where she was murdered by her ex husband whom had made previous threats to kill.
Australian journalists have even spoken out on how the Australian Family Court has stopped journalists from reporting on cases even where children are dead:
Today Tonight producer stated that he had received jail threats over reporting cases where all members where anonymized.
So why do we see media reports on the family court?
In the case of Darcey Freeman, the reporting was so viral that it was reported in the UK and in US, which stretched out of the Family Courts jurisdiction and made such a lawsuit very expensive and ambiguous. Since the release of the above video, other journalists have been able to make anonymized reports on family violence cases without needing to seek the courts permission.
Beforehand, only stories that supported mens groups ideology where provided and reports that involved family violence were required to obtain permission from the courts. In fact three media reporters from three Australian leading newspapers who provided reports from the mens groups ideology where in fact mens rights advocates. It is therefore no wonder why the community attitudes on violence against women and children provided poor results. The belief that women raise violence in the family court to obtain custody is widely held:
Half of all respondents (49 percent)
believed that ‘women going through
custody battles often make up or
exaggerate claims of domestic
violence in order to improve their
case’, and only 28 percent disagreed. – page 8, Changing Attitudes Changing Cultures A National Survey on Community Attitudes to Violence against Women
It is a mystery as to why such a document is able to identify the members and explicit details of a family court case:
It is a mystery as to why the details of the mother were revealed on the fathers facebook profile page whom has 672 friends with access to all of the court files that compliment his version of events.
He also identifies the child by providing the photos and the case information underneath. 672 friends can clearly identify the mother and the child, know who judged the case and the details of the case he believes supports his reason for custody. Where he is not identified, he proceeds to identify himself in the case:
It is also important to note that John appeals for his case as an injustice because(according to his account) he had not viewed child pornography for nine years:
The question remains unanswered to the public as to the other remaining years and what police reports was he referring to that he claimed to be untrue?
Then there are the abduction cases where the family court has a high number of fathers looking for mothers whom have absconded with the children. Research has noted that a high number of abduction cases are due to escaping domestic violence and the negligence of protection related to that area. Most abduction cases therefore produce a mens group style promotion, neglecting to add the part where child abuse was raised and not dealt properly dealt with. An excellent example is the case of Melinda Stratton and Ken Thompson. In the court orderedpublication it warned anyone who recognized Melinda Stratton, "not to approach her as she might prove a danger to herself or her son". Unlike other family court releases, it did not specify a criminal or diagnosed mental health history. An aspect that would clearly be important to add when compelling the public to turn a mother and child into the police. It was later revealed that Melinda had run because of her concerns for Andrew Thompson and the courts inability to investigate child abuse. The court of course restrained the Australian from publishing most of the mothers accounts including the allegations that were made.
Posted by Samantha at 4:55 PM
Technorati Tags: John,Aster,Secrecy,Scandal,Often,explanation,Australian,Courts,children,privacy,English,avenue,Council,Europe,bias,human,rights,Court,revelation,husband,threats,journalists,cases,producer,reports,Darcey,Freeman,jurisdiction,lawsuit,violence,permission,Beforehand,ideology,fact,reporters,newspapers,results,belief,custody,Half,National,Survey,Women,Draft,friends,files,version,events,supports,Where,injustice,account,abduction,Research,negligence,protection,area,Most,promotion,example,Melinda,Stratton,Thompson,publication,danger,health,history,aspect,Andrew,Samantha,Harold,James,Johnson,Astor,Section,members,attitudes,Cultures,fathers,photos,allegations,whom,mens,three