Crisis In The Family Courts

Mother Looses Custody For Reporting Child Sexual Abuse

Linda Marie Sacks January 2010 Article

Custody Crisis: Why Moms Are Punished in Court

Talk to mothers, divorce lawyers, and child advocates and you’ll hear tales of a family court system that’s badly broken.

Linda Marie and Children

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 façade, 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.

see more photos
Linda Marie and Children

Read more: http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/custody_crisis_why_mothers_are_punished_in_family_court.php#ixzz0mbjVKpl1

WordPress Tags: Mother,Looses,Custody,Child,Sexual,Abuse,Linda,Marie,January,Article,Crisis,Moms,Court,Talk,system,Gina,Kaysen,Fernandes,outsider,life,husband,Daytona,Beach,activities,children,Behind,Rather,predator,father,Instead,parent,judges,Some,kids,Women,disposal,mercy,violence,administrator,daughter,knowledge,teacher,girl,Barbie,flags,therapy,bathroom,marriage,documentation,protection,courts,rights,tears,Lorraine,Tipton,Oconto,Falls,result,November,Craig,Hensberger,times,drinks,abuser,heart,decision,attorney,writer,Michael,Lesher,From,Mutiny,Many,ends,investigation,Angeles,Superior,guardian,recommendation,GALs,workers,representation,fact,fees,Most,Legal,cases,threshold,Protective,Services,Irene,Weiser,advocacy,StopFamilyViolence,role,wife,accusation,alienation,syndrome,Although,disorder,enemy,psychiatrist,Richard,Gardner,subject,data,theory,Parental,author,consultant,Dean,Tong,truth,Tender,Doctrine,Equal,Clause,amendment,Best,Interests,victory,Movement,climate,hell,innocence,self,Elusive,Survival,Guide,assumption,relationship,Stop,justice,needs,education,American,Association,litigation,Despite,Joyce,Murphy,Diego,Henry,Parson,victim,woman,prison,reporters,Wisconsin,penny,efforts,goal,government,Read,lawyers,tales,allegations,therapists,sessions,terrors,guardians,opinions,juries,fathers,articles,decisions,accusations,pleas,Critics,solutions,girls,daughters,penis,hotline,didn,hours,three,momlogic,psychologists,attorneys,parents,visitation,porn,towards

Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

 

From batteredmomslosecustody

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!

From the Top Ten Unethical Psychological Experiments
The Well of Despair 1960

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 »

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

THE FATHERS RIGHTS MOVEMENT

 

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):

Fathers Rights Movement

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: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Domestic Violence Divorce How Abusers Use the System to Invalidate Domestic Violence Survivors

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

Domestic Violence Divorce How Abusers Use the System to Invalidate Domestic Violence Survivors

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: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Anonymoms; We are Everywhere

Posted in : PAAO, Parent Alienation, Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting Awareness Day, Parental Alienation Awareness Day, Parental Alienation Awareness Organization, Abusers Denier, Amy Castillo, Maryland legislatures Kill Domestic Violence Bill,, Angry fathers, Battered Mothers Custody Conference, Breaking The Silence; Children's Stories, child abuse, Child Custody, Child found, Childrens Rights, corrupt bastards, Curtis S. Anderson (D-Baltimore), Benjamin S. Barnes (D-Prince George's), Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore), Frank M. Conaway Jr. (D-Baltimore), Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel), William J. Frank, Custody Hell, domestic law, don hoffman jill dykes judge david debenham Dr. rodeheffer, Dr Richard Warshak, Dr. Richard Gardner, Father of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Committed Suicide May 25, 2003, family court corruption, Fathers & Families, Glenn Sacks, ACFC, RADAR, ANCPR, fathers murdering, Fathers Rights, FRANK M. CONAWAY, JR FRANK M. CONAWAY, JR. FRANK M. CONAWAY, JR. FRANK M. CONAWAY, JR., Getting screwed by the Family Courts, Getting screwed by the politicians, JUDGE KEVIN CRONIN, Karin Huffer"Legal Abuse Syndrome" FAMILY LAW JUDGE SENTENCES DISABLED MOTHER TO 21 DAYS IN JAIL, Maria's ex-husband broke her back during a rage of anger. Maria Mel, Judge Richard Anderson Shawnee County Courts Topeka Kansas, Judge Robert Lemkau Katie Tagle Wyatt Garcia Stephen Garcia Victorville CA., Kansas House Representive Melvin Neufeld . Ks Wefare Summit, Kansas State House, SRS, CPS, Kansas Joint Committee on Children’s Issues on Nov 30, 2009 in Topeka, Kansas Legislature, Covenant Marriages, Domestic Violence, BULLSHIT LAWS, Katie Tagle, Dr. Phill, Steven Garcia, Pinnion Hills, CA,, Maryland Legislature Frank Conway Jr, BATTERER Democrat, District 40, Baltimore City, Maternal Deprivation, Domestic Violence By Proxy, Message to My Child . ., Motherhood, Mothers Rights, Murder-Suicide, Parental Alienation (PAS), Parental Alienation (PAS), Parental Alienation (PAS), Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), PAS is a Scam, Speak Out, Susan Murphy Milano, Times Up, Defending Our Lives, by abatteredmother on April 25, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee Men’s Rights Lawmakers Continue Child Severing Bill

    From the Parenting News Network™

    Men’s rights lawmakers planning law to take children from mothers as much as they can get away with.

    Despite the opposition fromwomen’s groups, judges, and the Tennessee Bar Association, the men’s rights lawmakers continue their attempts to impose harmful custody and divorce laws on women and children. There seems to be no thought involved that this will lead to more deaths of women and children who will be unable to escape from abusive situations. Despite the token wording “except for in cases with abuse” as often put in custody bills to placate the domestic violence coalitions, this provision does NOT work because it is nearly impossible to prove abuse with the horde of father’s rights attorneys and hired-gun experts who for a fee will malign the victim and undermine her credibility to the point where the victim is declared to either be a liar or mentally ill. This goes on every day in every state in family court. It’s America’s dirty little secret that women and children are treated just as badly in the United States if not worse than other more progressive countries.

    This new custody bill is calling for 50/50 forced custody for children unless the parents can agree on their own plan. It seems the vast majority of divorces with children do create their own schedule per the Tennessee Bar Association’s report on joint custody dated March 23, 2010. So this custody bill is the WORST idea ever as parents who can’t agree generally have a reason and it is usually abuse. The abuser will claim to be falsely accused and say that the protective parent is an “alienator.” The whole scenario repeats itself in case after case with horrible results that are going largely ignored in this fatherhood-exalting, mother-hating society. Please take the opportunity to view clips from a recent Dr. Phil show on the custody crisis.

    Dr. Phil: Crisis in Family Court

    Dr. Phil with Kathleen Russell and Amy Leichtenberg on children being killed by family court orders

    Mothers who fear for their children’s safety are being ordered under threat of losing their children or going to jail to turn their children over to abusive fathers. The worst case scenario has occurred many times over. So why are the Tennessee men’s rights lawmakers pushing for a law that will only serve to help abusive men have access to children?

    This bill has all male sponsors, Mike Bell, Stacey Campfield, G.A. Hardaway, Dewayne Bunch, and Bill Ketron. Tennessee does not have 50/50 representation of lawmakers, as in 50% men and 50% women so that it might be possible to actually represent women more appropriately. Tennessee has 8 female Senators out of 33, and 15 female Representatives out of 99. That is 24% female representation in the Senate and 15% in the House. There needs to be a law passed requiring that women have equal representation. The mother-child bond needs to be adequately protected and women’s contribution of risking maternal death to bring another life into the world should not minimized. Tennessee is ranked 38th among the states for maternal health. Out of 100,000 births, about 12 women will die in childbirth. That risk is only taken by the mother, no one else, she bears that risk alone in bringing her child into the world. Besides risking death in childbirth, pregnant women are also at risk of being killed by the father of the child. Homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant women (Chang, Berg and Herndon 2005). So instead of passing a bill that would help women protect themselves and their children, the sponsors of this custody bill want to make it next to impossible for women and children to be free from an abusive situation.

    The best arrangement for a child is an individual one that brings the most happiness and stability to the child and doesn’t serve to reduce the child to property that is divided like real estate. Also, give mothers the credit they deserve as they are the ones who can best determine whether there is an abusive situation.

    The custody bill failed in the House, but has been placed on Senate Judicial Committee calendar for 04/27/2010.

    Please contact your Tennessee Senators and tell them your opinion on this bill.  Click here for contact information

    Also read Tennessee Lawmakers Impose 50/50 Child Splitting

    And 88 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USA)

    ShareThis

    One Response to “Tennessee Men’s Rights Lawmakers Continue Child Severing Bill”

  1. rj says:

    April 23, 2010 at 10:30 am

    face it. states that imposed 50-50 custody don’t give a shit about children or families, merely by this fact:

    “It seems the vast majority of divorces with children do create their own schedule”

    So, although most families create their own arrangements post divorce, a small group of vocal men shall have it see fit that ALL families submit to how the government thinks a family should operate. I would almost believe that these men were all Republican–but I thought Repubs wanted LESS govt involvement in the family.

    Shit, maybe children should be represent children’s issues in our government, 50% women is no guarantee that they won’t be the same second wives and girlfriend-father supporters.

    Tennessee judges and lawmakers want to pass the buck instead of investigating the real problem.

  2. WordPress Tags: Tennessee,Rights,Continue,Child,Bill,From,News,Network,children,Despite,opposition,judges,Association,custody,cases,violence,provision,horde,father,victim,liar,America,March,WORST,abuser,parent,scenario,results,Phil,crisis,Court,Russell,Leichtenberg,orders,threat,times,male,Mike,Bell,Stacey,Campfield,Hardaway,Dewayne,Bunch,Ketron,representation,Senators,Senate,House,needs,contribution,death,life,world,health,Besides,Homicide,Chang,Berg,Herndon,situation,arrangement,estate,Also,Judicial,Committee,calendar,opinion,Click,Impose,Killer,Dads,ShareThis,Response,April,fact,arrangements,government,Republican,Repubs,involvement,Shit,supporters,Lawmakers,deaths,situations,fathers,women,parents,childbirth

    Tell the Childs that Sex Abuse by the Father is Normal; Parental Alienation a Phony Disorder: NOW Foundation Opposes

    NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder

    Parenting News Network™

     

    Over the years, hundreds of women have contacted National Organization for Women chapters looking for assistance in their efforts to protect minor children in family court custody proceedings. Often these women have been accused of a phony psychiatric condition, termed Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD). The “disorder” has been proposed by so-called father’s rights (men’s custody) activists to be added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostics and Statistics Manual – V to give it more legitimacy than it currently has — or should have — in court.

    This accusation is made by abusive ex-husbands and is intended to cause the courts to disregard mothers’ claims of fathers’ physical or sexual abuse in an effort to gain the fathers’ full or joint custody. NOW Foundation is concerned that because of the alienation accusation known batterers and child abusers have been awarded custody; the numbers of cases involving dads in custody disputes abusing and murdering children is appalling. (See link below)

    The notion of a parental alienation in custody disputes was advanced by the late Dr. Richard Gardner who committed suicide in 2003. The alienation accusation has been embraced by men’s custody activists as an effective weapon to undermine mothers’ bid for legal custody of minor children. Many advocates on behalf of mothers believe that batterers, child abusers and pedophiles populate these men’s custody networks. There have been numerous instances of documented batterers and child abusers being awarded custody by biased family court judges.

    NOW Foundation has sent a letter recently to the American Psychiatric Association noting that publications by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have concluded proposed “alienation disorder” is inadmissible in court and has been discredited by the scientific community. Accordingly, family court judges, lawyers and other court personnel should take action against the use of the alienation accusation in cases before them. Read NOW Foundation’s letter (PDF) and for more information on family court issues, go to the family law website.

    More information on fathers and ex-partners involved in child custody or child support matters who have killed children, murdered mothers and/or committed suicide, please visit this website.

    From the NOW Foundation

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Tell the Childs that Sea abuse by the Father is Normal; Parental Alienation a Phony Disorder: NOW Foundation Opposes

    NOW Foundation Opposes Phony Parental Alienation Disorder

    Parenting News Network™

     

    Over the years, hundreds of women have contacted National Organization for Women chapters looking for assistance in their efforts to protect minor children in family court custody proceedings. Often these women have been accused of a phony psychiatric condition, termed Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD). The “disorder” has been proposed by so-called father’s rights (men’s custody) activists to be added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostics and Statistics Manual – V to give it more legitimacy than it currently has — or should have — in court.

    This accusation is made by abusive ex-husbands and is intended to cause the courts to disregard mothers’ claims of fathers’ physical or sexual abuse in an effort to gain the fathers’ full or joint custody. NOW Foundation is concerned that because of the alienation accusation known batterers and child abusers have been awarded custody; the numbers of cases involving dads in custody disputes abusing and murdering children is appalling. (See link below)

    The notion of a parental alienation in custody disputes was advanced by the late Dr. Richard Gardner who committed suicide in 2003. The alienation accusation has been embraced by men’s custody activists as an effective weapon to undermine mothers’ bid for legal custody of minor children. Many advocates on behalf of mothers believe that batterers, child abusers and pedophiles populate these men’s custody networks. There have been numerous instances of documented batterers and child abusers being awarded custody by biased family court judges.

    NOW Foundation has sent a letter recently to the American Psychiatric Association noting that publications by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have concluded proposed “alienation disorder” is inadmissible in court and has been discredited by the scientific community. Accordingly, family court judges, lawyers and other court personnel should take action against the use of the alienation accusation in cases before them. Read NOW Foundation’s letter (PDF) and for more information on family court issues, go to the family law website.

    More information on fathers and ex-partners involved in child custody or child support matters who have killed children, murdered mothers and/or committed suicide, please visit this website.

    From the NOW Foundation

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    The Nurturing Mother

     

    Although even this article still makes mom most important for being incubator and wetnurse/milkcow, it is one of the few articles I have ever found that discusses that children are being deprived of mothers.

    The Nurturing Mother
    by James Kimmel, Ph.D.

    Because young animals depend on their mothers during a substantial part of their early development the mother-offspring group is the universal nuclear unit of mammalian societies. Edward Wilson, Sociobiology

    The nurturing mother is not a myth or a fantasy. She was, for hundreds of thousands of years if not longer, the mother of all humans and the foundation on which our success as a species rested. This does not mean that she was worshipped as a Goddess, nor that she was part of a race of Amazons who dominated men. Neither did she, as an individual, correspond to the romantic images portrayed in civilization by Madonna-like paintings and sculptures. She simply cared for her offspring as any mammal does. Both those who glorify her and those who do not recognize her importance in human evolution and individual development are unable to grasp what we have lost and what we lose every day in our society by her absence.

    Throughout the bulk of time that we have existed as a species, all infants who lived had a nurturing mother (or her equivalent). Breastfeeding was a successful adaptive mechanism not only because it provided the newborn with sustenance, but because it continued the attachment of mother and infant after birth. The prolonged mother-child bond was the root of human sociability, and the nurturing response of the mother to her child became a model for human interaction. It prepared both female and male children to live in a world where attachment to, caring about, and collaborating with other humans was natural to life. Our prehistoric ancestors were born into and lived as part of a protective and caring group, unified around the recognition and support of their connection to, and dependence on, each other. We could not have survived as the species we are without attachment to each other. Our adaptive strength has always been in our ability for combined and unified functioning, not in our separate and individual powers. Our brain, with its capacity for language, empathy, and imagination evolved as it did to increase our ability to function together. Mothering was the foundation – the bricks of human solidarity; the human mind provided the cement.

    The history of child care in Western civilization has been characterized by a pervasive assault on natural mothering and the mother’s nurturing role. Breastfeeding is the only human biological function that we have attempted to replace and eliminate. But it is not breastfeeding in itself that has been disturbing in civilization. It depends on who is doing the breastfeeding.

    Wet nursing, as a replacement for nursing by the natural mother, was a popular and conventional practice for thousands of years. It was not a practice that was developed to improve on nature’s way of providing the newborn with sustenance, but a way of eliminating the necessity for mothers to care for their babies. It was, in many parts of the world, a major way that infants were fed from ancient times through the beginning of the twentieth century.

    The substitution of a wet-nurse for the natural mother has been explained as an expression of class distinction. Breastfeeding was perceived as unseemly, animal-like, and beneath women of the upper classes. But the practice of using a wet-nurse also spread to the poorer classes. Many wet-nurses earned a good enough living to be able to hire a less expensive wet-nurse to breastfeed their own babies.

    The negative perception of breastfeeding reveals, of course, the strong negative feelings toward natural mothering in civilized societies. But if we look below the surface, more was at stake than the social status of an individual female. What was really troublesome was the fact that breastfeeding fostered the physical and emotional attachment of infant and mother. Civilization was built on stratification of the group, on inequality between individuals, on the greater importance and value of specific individuals, and on the belief that women are inferior to men. This position is tenable and can only be perpetuated if the influence of mothers on their children is negated. Biological mothering establishes that every individual is important, precious, and special. We become equal in each other’s eyes from being nurtured in the human way.

    The need to eliminate mother-infant attachment and mother influence is clearly revealed in Plato’s ideal society which he describes in "The Republic." He states, in discussing his conception of ideal infant care:

    The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be… that must be done if the breed of the guardians is to be kept pure.

    They will provide for their nurture, and will bring the mothers to the fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognize her own child; and other wet-nurses may be engaged if more are required. Care will also be taken that the process of sucking shall not be protracted too long; and the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants.

    Plato is not against mothers nursing as long as they don’t get to know their own babies and their babies don’t get to know them. In the male-dominated, slave society of ancient Greece there is no place for mother love. The last thing they would want are children who, in their development, would be shaped by women, who might love their mothers more than their fathers, or who might consider another human to be more important than the state.

    We can see that in ancient Greece the devaluing of natural mothering was well established. The mother’s role in individual development and her biological and genetic capacity to nurture new life had lost its value. It was the wet-nurse, whether a slave or paid servant, who kept babies alive.

    Wet-nursing was a recognized profession throughout civilization. In ancient Rome wet-nurses would gather in the Colonna Lactaria to sell their services. "The wet-nurse is a familiar figure in the Bible, the Code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian papyri and Greek and Roman literature." It was a common practice in England, and throughout eastern Europe, for infants to be sent away from home immediately after birth to live with a wet-nurse for three to five years. The practice of farming out infants, in spite of the high infant death rate associated with the practice, continued until the eighteenth century in England and America, until the nineteenth century in France, and into the twentieth century in Germany. The police chief of Paris, France estimated in 1780 that of the 21,000 children born each year in his city, 17,000 were sent into the country to be wet-nursed, 2,000 or 3,000 were placed in nursery homes, 700 were wet-nursed at home and only 700 were nursed by their mothers.

    The wet-nurse made the biological nurturing mother unnecessary. Infants could live without their natural mothers. The nurturing mother had lost her value in individual development and as a symbol of human relationship. The separation of infant and mother became a regular practice in a world where everyone was viewed as separate. The natural nurturing and protective response of mothers were perceived as indulgent and as spoiling and weakening children. Empathy and compassion were detriments in t
    he struggle to survive. Indifference to the cry or pain of another was an asset in a world where the individual was expendable and replaceable.

    As the foundation of societies became power, ownership, and the exploitation of individuals, and as women and children became property, children would be broken, as animals were, to become domesticated, obedient, and submissive to authority. No longer would the nurturing mother be seen as a model of life, of relationship, or of the moral and the good, but as a handicap to individual development and success. She would lose her purpose, her meaning and her importance in a world which was not built on tenderness and caring but on its absence.

    The mothering role became different than it had been when we lived in the natural world. In the man-made world, the female would become, in her submission to male domination, a servant of her master’s values and priorities. Even when she was not replaced by a wet-nurse, servant, nanny, or slave, her role was no longer to nurture her children but to domesticate them. She became a housemaid with chores, one of which was to teach her children to obey and submit to their father. Children were to be seen and not heard. Mothers, rather than accommodating to their children’s needs, would teach their children to accommodate to adults and to society, even if that meant hurting them, physically and emotionally. Mothers became ignorant about, and alienated from, the nurturing process natural to their gender. Over time, in many parts of the world, the nurturing mother ceased to exist.

    Rather than being a traditional and historical model for human relationships, the nurturing mother became historically extinct, at least in Western civilization. Unlike other cultures, our history does not recognize the contribution of the nurturing mother to our humanity and progress as a species. Our Gods are male, not female, despite the fact that it is the female who contributes the most to creating and caring for life. Her importance in our evolution is completely overlooked. In the Judao-Christian story of creation, Adam and Eve, the first humans, do not even have a mother.

    We understand "mankind" in terms of male, not female behavior. In a world which has worked so hard to eliminate the necessity for a nurturing mother, why would we want to know about her contributions or acknowledge that she ever existed? We view human progress in terms of man’s ability to hunt and to make weapons, as if we did not have tools and containers before we made weapons, as if every invention and discovery were made by males, as if women were always seen as less than men and subservient to them, as if caring for children has no value, as if our power to kill had more importance than our power to nurture life. Even in our contemporary psychological theories of child development, and the philosophy underlying our child rearing practices, the contribution of mothering is made minimally important and receives little value. She is supposed to provide, for a brief time, the physical care her infant needs as well as provide him with love, so he can develop trust. But this trust is seen as merely preparation for the real making of a person. In our culture, too much mothering and love, that which creates trust, cannot be trusted; it is thought to spoil children, keep them dependent too long, delay the development of autonomy, and become harmful to their social development. We do not believe that human social behavior develops from being nurtured, but rather from the imposition on children of adult authority and power. We must give up our symbiotic attachment to our mothers to become socialized. The selfish, self-centered, illogical, impulse-ridden child must be taught how to live with others. Children must learn proper behavior, not to demand, to wait for satisfaction, to tolerate frustration, and to obey.

    In the history of Western civilization, it is not the nurturing mother who makes us a social being, but the demanding father. We speak of the child as "father to the man", never as the child being "mother to the man", or for that matter "mother to the woman". It is the father, as the symbol of the "real" world away from home, who has traditionally directed children’s development, not the mother. Today we still accept this traditional male belief, even though there is no father in the home or both mother and father work away from home, that children become properly social from the imposition on them of authority, not by identifying with a nurturing mother. We utilize power, punishment, and discipline (whether it is administered by father or mother or both) to get children to behave in the ways we want.

    Human inventiveness has made it possible for the newborn to survive without a nurturing mother. In an age where anyone can feed a baby with formula in a bottle, the natural mother is no longer necessary. In fact, our values and priorities are directed toward eliminating or minimizing the child’s need for a nurturing mother and the mother’s need to be one. This is not, as I have indicated, a recent innovation. What needs to be stressed is that our intervention in natural mothering was not designed to improve the life of infants, but rather to eliminate, shorten, and alter the infant-mother bond. Wet-nurses, bottle feeding, nannies, and day-care centers came into being so that the biological mother would not have to take care of her child. Forced weaning, early toilet training, and the imposition at a young age of self-care in dressing, feeding, washing, etc. are all representative of efforts to shorten the time that children are dependent on their mothers. The discouragement of carrying infants, sleeping with them, and immediately responding to their crying have changed the mother’s protective and nurturing role into one where she conditions her infant to accept life in aloneness. The conversion of the nurturing mother into a conditioner of behavior has altered her role in child development. For thousands of years it has not only been fathers, but mothers also, who have been ignoring babies’ crying and imposing harsh and cruel discipline and punishment on them.

    Most of us no longer know about the nurturing mother. Few of us had one, and rarely do we meet anyone who is one. Her role in human history does not appear in the history books we read in school. Yet, we evolved to develop in relation to a nurturing mother, and every baby biologically "expects" to have one. Our need for her, if unmet, does not go away as we mature. She remains as a "longing" which we can no longer identify, because we have repressed our need for nurturing.

    We may try, as many do today, to satisfy the emptiness inside us by attaching to possessions and wealth and by compulsive, self-relating addictions to food, alcohol, drugs, our bodies, unloving sex, and our separate egos. But these dependencies always fail because they reinforce our feeling of separateness in the world. Our longing and our emptiness can only be satisfied in loving human attachment, which is what we lost when the nurturing mother ceased to fit the world we made.

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Parental Alienation Awareness Day–More like "Abusers Awareness Day"

    Excellent post from the Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate blog. And commentary from dastardlydads

    If a group of pedophiles and abusers named their cause, "Abusers Awareness Day", no one would help champion their goals.

    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 workshopsabout, "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 used 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 areobvious 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:

    http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/digest.php

    http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.support.boylovers/parent-alienation_s.html

    http://www.boychat.org/messages/1195439.htm

    http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm

    http://pedophileophobia.com/Richard%20Gardner.htm

    http://www.nambla.org/matters.htm

    http://www.sohopeful.org/intl/facts/files/Investigative%20System/IPT%20Journal%20Manipulating%20the%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse%20System.pdf

    2 comments:

    bllbk1 said…

    Parental Alienation is term that characterizes a suite of behaviors which contribute to the unreasonable rejection of a parent by a child. This behavior surfaces following many high conflict divorces, or separations. The term Parental Alienation cannot be applied when there is actual physical or sexual abuse, and this would include actual domestic violence. This would exclude the reasonable rejection by a child based on an actual injustice done to that child by the targeted parent. The term Parental Alienation only applies to those circumstances where there is no other reasonable explanation for the rejection of a parent by the child.

    April 9, 2010 12:50 PM

    silverside said…

    Well, that’s how the formal theory is presented in public. But it’s not the real theory. And that’s not how it works in practice.

    I found this out by experience. My abusive ex was very em
    otionally manipulative, and tried to turn my then 4-year-old daughter against me. He tried to churn up a lot of hysteria. He even tape recorded a pickup where my daughter was coached to start screaming. The custody evaluator dutifully noted all this, then gave the father custody anyway.

    A few years later, the custody evaluator is giving a presentation for the local fathers rights group on "maternal gatekeeping." I decided to go out of curiosity. Suddenly it dawned on me. For PAS peddlers, it only counts when MOM is accused. They don’t care if fathers badmouth or emotionally abuse. They don’t care that the father was guilty of rampant child neglect either, and that it took me years to get her out of that abusive home that was covered in animal feces and garbage with no food. Especially as the ex continued to deteriorate mentally.

    The PAS peddlers only target Moms. This was clear with Gardner from the beginning, though there have been attempts (halfheartedly) to backtrack in order to look more legitimate and less gender biased. I’m not impressed.

    PAS peddlers doesn’t care about domestic violence. They talk vaguely of Moms who have "negative" feelings–conscious or unconscious. But they don’t talk about concrete, deliberate efforts to destroy a maternal-child relationship within a context of domestic violence. Such a phenemonon is more properly analyzed as domestic violence by proxy, so that those links are made explicit.

    Fundamentally, PAS is just a sloppy diagnostic label. Sort of like "hysteria" in the 19th century. It tells you everything and nothing. I’ve seen the PAS label applied to all the following: Moms who badmouth the ex where the kids repeat her opinions, but don’t believe them; Moms who have negative opinions of the ex, as do the kids, because dad was abusive to both; Moms who complain about the ex in a minor way, and the kids don’t repeat or believe it especially; Moms who give out "negative" vibes or might give out negative vibes, so she has to be kept away from the kids; Moms who express any concerns about the safety of their children even with EVIDENCE (which PAS peddlers ignore and encourage the court to ignore), Moms who are utterly silent about their ex’s or say positive things, but the kids still express fear or dislike of the father because of abuse or other issues.

    One of the symptoms of "hysteria" was a bloated abdomen. In reality, a bloated abdomen can be caused by bad sushi–or by ovarian cancer. Those are very different causes with two very different results. Would you want an ignorant diagnosis like "hysteria" used for both?

    So it’s time to ban the PAS label. Find out what’s really going on. Is it minor grousing? Then let it go, and stop being stupid. Is it an abuser trying to destroy a relationship? Then look at the abuse situation holistically, and don’t fixate just on the alienation piece. Is PAS a phony excuse for deflecting attention from real sexual or physical abuse? Then look investigate the abuse, and don’t get sidetracked by a stupid label.

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,