Crisis In The Family Courts

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

Judicial Abuse: In Memory of the Children and Parents who have Died from Family Court

Judicial Abuse

Introduction

Judicial abuse occurs when the effects of law itself are damaging to the person access to justice. In the most severe forms, Judicial abuse often occurs involving the most vulnerable members of our world: Children. For some time, judicial abuse has occurred across systems and mostly against mothers and children. Considering that it was not that long ago that both women and children were seen and not heard, just as things were improving it seemed as though humanity was finally valuing each and every prescious human life. Out in the public, such things would and do cause enough outrage for a sense of "natural justice". Away from the public eye, these human rights atrocities occur almost unseen and unheard like a thief in the night.

Secrecy

There are laws that prevent survivors from speaking out about their experiences. Whilst it is "for the children", children are not allowed to speak about the proceedings either. The media have written too few articles on the family court. To bring the case to the media, participants must seek permission from the court itself or face imprisonment. Controversially, fathers rights groups were allowed to heavily voice their stories of "no contact", "falsely accused of child abuse and domestic violence" and few were allowed to challenge that except in utilizing generalist terms and evidence based research. We are aware that most of these stories are not the case at all but are withheld by law to bring the public the truth.

Family Court

In the process of seeking more time with children and promoting what appears to be the most noble cause, has entrenched the rights of mothers and children in their ability to seek safety from violence. Heads have been quoted in the media for stating that "family violence is our core business". The propaganda that is spread about the voices of children and their access to justice promotes the profitability in manufacturing child abuse and domestic violence. They can do something about it, but it is not within their best economical advantage to do so. This will continue until something is done. ShareThis

Disclaimer

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

 

 

 

 

 

Custody Dispute; another Father kills 5-year-old son, self in Columbia County

 

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/04/08/blotter/doc4bbd594c73b43358151159.txt

Published: Thursday, April 08, 2010

By Freeman staff and The Associated Press

ANCRAMDALE — A 42-year-old man apparently killed his 5-year-old son with a shotgun and then took his own life, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office said on Wednesday.

Sheriff David W. Harrison Jr. said deputies were called to 9715 state Route 82 in the southeastern Columbia County community of Ancramdale about 9:30 a.m. and found Franklin Hankerson and his son Khaliff dead from gunshot wounds.

The boy was shot several times with a shotgun, authorities said; the father appeared to have died from a rifle shot.

Harrison said it appeared the two deaths were a murder-suicide but that the investigation was not yet complete.

Investigators believe the shootings took place about 11:30 p.m. Tuesday. Police were notified about the deaths in a 911 call Wednesday morning from the boy’s grandfather, who lives next door, Harrison said.

Autopsies were to be performed today.

Harrison said Hankerson was unemployed and undergoing kidney dialysis.

The sheriff also said Hankerson and the boy’s mother were not married and did not live together and that there had been custody disputes. The mother also complained about Hankerson’s marijuana use, Harrison said.

The Register-Star of Hudson reported the mother lives in Pine Plains and Khaliff attended a Dutchess County preschool.

Hankerson did not leave a suicide note, the sheriff said.

PAS is a Scam  Parental Alienation Syndrome Awareness Day aka “Abusers Deniers Day”

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

The Family Court Mafia: Marin County Courts Delaying Family Court Audit

From the Parenting News Network™

What is Marin County, California Family Court hiding? After many years of complaints by family court victims, an audit has been ordered focusing on the use and potential misuse of court-appointed specialists, such as mediators, investigators and therapists, in family-law disputes. Members of the state Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted unanimously last year to approve the audit with the encouragement of state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

“Despite the fact that our statutes clearly give our office access to the individuals and records we are now seeking and make it a misdemeanor for the courts to fail or refuse to grant us access, it is now March 2010 and the courts are still refusing to cooperate,” Sharon Reilly, chief legal counsel to California State Auditor Elaine Howle, wrote in a March 18 letter to Robert Buckley, managing attorney of the Judicial Council of California. The state auditor’s office has notified superior courts in Marin and Sacramento counties it will seek a court order to gain access to information needed to conduct an audit of the family court system – unless the courts guarantee by Monday that they will comply.

Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin watchdog organization, said, “This is indicative of the lack of transparency at the Marin County courthouse. In our four years of attempting to get basic information from the court and meet with them and collaborate with them they have always had a stonewall and been very territorial about information that is not confidential. That is why there is such a need for this audit.”

For more information see: State auditor threatens to subpoena Marin Superior Court records

PAS is a Scam

Parental Alienation Syndrome

ShareThis

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

 

This is your brain on PAS/PA/PAD

PAS is a Scam     Parental Alienation Syndrome

From: Glenn’s Cult

Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don’t know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.

So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child – even amid allegations of violence by mother’s family in foreign country and mother’s widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother’s native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.

What do you mean – father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn’t siblings and extended family of mother’s be allowed continuing contact with child?

Apparently not and apparently the well known father’s rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family – in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don’t get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?

Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.

Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here’s how it works. It’s only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing ("gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn’t count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?

So go back and watch the video again.

Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.

Egg is your brain.

And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child’s life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don’t know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER’S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives – ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker’s, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Father’s Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court’s actions.

Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Posted by Glenn’s Cult?at 6:56 AM

Labels: Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, PA, PAD, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, PAS

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

Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don’t know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.

So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child – even amid allegations of violence by mother’s family in foreign country and mother’s widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother’s native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.

What do you mean – father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn’t siblings and extended family of mother’s be allowed continuing contact with child?

Apparently not and apparently the well known father’s rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family – in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don’t get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?

Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.

Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here’s how it works. It’s only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing ("gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn’t count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?

So go back and watch the video again.

Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.

Egg is your brain.

And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child’s life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don’t know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER’S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives – ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker’s, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Father’s Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court’s actions.

Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Posted by Glenn’s Cult?at 6:56 AM

Labels: Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, PA, PAD, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, PAS

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

Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don’t know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.

So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child – even amid allegations of violence by mother’s family in foreign country and mother’s widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother’s native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.

What do you mean – father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn’t siblings and extended family of mother’s be allowed continuing contact with child?

Apparently not and apparently the well known father’s rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family – in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don’t get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?

Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.

Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here’s how it works. It’s only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing ("gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn’t count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?

So go back and watch the video again.

Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.

Egg is your brain.

And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child’s life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don’t know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER’S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives – ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker’s, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Fa
ther’s Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court’s actions.

Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Posted by Glenn’s Cult?at 6:56 AM

Labels: Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, PA, PAD, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, PAS

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

Remember those scare tactic videos about your brain on drugs? Don’t know about you but they worked for me. Now lets take this on a new spin. What is someone who believes PA/PAS/PAD doing to their brains? Why are women the only ones ever accused of alienation or gatekeeping? We have a case here which to my eye appears to have the ever present gatekeeping and alienation tactics happening.

So quick run down on this story. Mom "allegedly" kidnaps child and returns to her native country amid accusations by her of violence in the marriage. Mother remarries after divorce has another child and dies in childbirth. Father to older child goes on rampage in order to secure custody of older child – even amid allegations of violence by mother’s family in foreign country and mother’s widowed current spouse. Father eventually uses American politicians and television news stations in order to carry child out of mother’s native country. Now grandparents want to see child, want child to have a relationship with half sibling and father refuses.

What do you mean – father refuses? I thought all family should be allowed a relationship with children? Even with mother deceased shouldn’t siblings and extended family of mother’s be allowed continuing contact with child?

Apparently not and apparently the well known father’s rights blogger, Glenn Sacks, REFUSES to run any stories on this "gatekeeping" of the child by FATHER. Even Ken Walker (kc9bdr@yahoo.com) agrees that Father should be allowed to keep child from maternal family – in fact he even quotes: "The maternal grandparents take the grandson to Brazil for 5 years, (mother dies) then complain when they don’t get placement. Give it time!". Mother does this and it is automatically a given that mother is gatekeeping and engaging in PA/PAS/PAD. So why is this not true for FATHER? Is FATHER not gatekeeping and possibly engaging in PA/PAS/PAD? The child in question has been around the maternal relatives for years now. Are we punishing another innocent young child by denying that child the RIGHT to have a relationship with the older sibling?

Well, let me explain this so you get it really good, okay? Just as in this commercial about heroin use, PA/PAS/PAD has some rules too.

Women are the only ones who can gatekeep a child. Ladies, ladies. Here’s how it works. It’s only PAS/PA when we accuse you of doing it. When WE do the exact thing we just accused you of doing (
"gatekeeping," obstructing visitation, etc.) it doesn’t count. WE are the ONLY ones who can protect our children. These children are not your children, they are only our children. Just like that nice new car we fought for in the divorce, just like the house. Oh and forget about any equitable split, that is all ours too. Any questions?

So go back and watch the video again.

Frying pan is PAS/PA/PAD.

Egg is your brain.

And the violence you see portrayed is what COULD happen if PA/PAS/PAD is bought hook, line, and sinker. Our children, our future will be destroyed if abusers are allowed to continue to use JUNK SCIENCE in order to remove protective parents from a child’s life and place children with an alleged abuser. Do we want to place these children with potential alleged abusers? Don’t know about you but I do not. And now a young child is being denied a relationship with a sibling by a father and Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, and who knows who else in the FATHER’S RIGHT MOVEMENT think this father is completely justified. Ken by his own words, and Sacks by his lack of words. Or is it just that as long as it is a father who is being allegedly denied this is a travesty that must (MUST!!!) be rectified, but when it is a mother or maternal relatives – ahhh who cares? One need only look at the case of Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz in Texas to see this is true. Where are the Ken Walker’s, the Glenn Sacks for this mom who has proof of abuse, has court orders granting her custody of this child? The courts were TRICKED into turning the boy over to father. He did this ILLEGALLY yet we see nobody in the Father’s Rights Movement speaking to the tragedy of this court’s actions.

Oh gee I keep forgetting. That is because the parent who is being denied the child is MOM. Who cares about moms right? After all, the only thing moms are good for is carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child life supporting breast milk. When the child can walk and talk, the mother should be gone. Fathers are the only important ones now.

ANY QUESTIONS?

Posted by Glenn’s Cult?at 6:56 AM

Labels: Glenn Sacks, Ken Walker, PA, PAD, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, PAS

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

Courts Awarding Custody to Abusers and Domestic Violence Homicides Is There a Connection?

Parenting News Network™

Parental Alienation Syndrome PAS is a Scam

“Time’s Up!”

By Barry Goldstein

The research establishing that the custody court system is broken and has a pattern of mishandling domestic violence cases is now overwhelming.  The new book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, I co-edited with Dr. Mo Therese Hannah brings all the most up-to-date research together in one place.  It includes a multi-disciplinary review of the relevant professional fields by the leading experts in the US and Canada.  The meticulous citations provide overwhelming proof that common mistakes and the use of myths, stereotypes and gender bias have resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers.  At the same time recent statistics about domestic violence homicide confirm an increase in the murder rate after many years of reductions.  Many have been quick to assume the increase is caused by the poor economy, but in this article, I want to look at what, if any role the problems in the custody court system are having on domestic violence homicides.

Lack of Research on Success of Court Outcomes

The court system operates upon the assumption that once a case is decided, the facts are established and the outcome is accurate.  This assumption may have contributed to the failure to seek research on the validity of court decisions in domestic violence custody cases.  It certainly has contributed to a common problem we see that once a court makes a mistake in a domestic violence case there is a pattern of courts failing to use new information to correct the initial errors made by judges and other court professionals.

The criminal court system has received substantial criticism as an increasing number of defendants convicted of murder, some of whom were sentenced to death were later found to be innocent.  The improvement of scientific tests for DNA and other new evidence has helped courts correct errors after homicide convictions.  In context, such wrong convictions appear to be very rare, but are extremely serious because it results in adults losing the rest of their lives.

In contrast, a large majority of domestic violence custody cases are wrongly decided with abusive fathers receiving custody or joint custody at least 70% of the time in contested custody cases.  Even when the safe parent receives custody, the court usually fails to protect the children from unsupervised visitation with the abuser.  In contrast to murder convictions that affect defendant’s adult lives, the wrong decisions in custody cases often destroy or damage children’s entire lives.

Court’s started relying on mental health professionals in domestic violence custody cases at a time when there was no research and many believed domestic violence was caused by mental health problems, substance abuse and the victim’s behavior.  Although all of these assumptions proved wrong, the courts continue to rely on mental health professionals even when there are no legitimate mental health issues in the case.  These professionals rarely are familiar with up-to-date research and often substitute their personal beliefs, biases, myths and stereotypes for the scientific research now available.  Many use a family systems approach which is totally inappropriate in domestic violence cases.  These mistakes lead to the minimization of the importance of domestic violence and unsafe outcomes.

If evaluations had any validity, the “experts” would be able to tell the court how the approaches used in a particular case had worked in other cases.  In fact there is virtually no such research.  Only in the custody courts can “experts” routinely give their opinions when there is no research to support them.  In contrast we have solid research about the harm of taking children from their primary attachment figure or forcing them to live with abusers.  There is no such research about “alienation” which courts tend to pay much more attention to even though the effects on children are minimal or non-existent.  The closest thing we have to research about custody outcomes are the Courageous Kids.  These are children who were sent to live with alleged abusers and have now aged out of the custody order.  The children are now young adults  and describe disastrous experiences as a result of the common practices used in the custody courts.

Similarly, the court has not commissioned studies to see how its decisions in domestic violence custody cases have worked out.  Anecdotally we have seen many cases in which fathers courts found safe were later convicted or otherwise proven to have engaged in physical assault and sexual abuse.  We have also seen many bad outcomes for children forced to live with alleged abusers.  I strongly recommend systematic studies of the outcomes of child custody decisions.

Failure to Make Children’s Safety the First Priority

Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and they have had great success in misleading the courts, legislatures and media.  The men who control “fathers’ rights groups are extremists whose goals include eliminating child support, repealing domestic violence laws and in some cases permitting sex between adults and children.  Obviously, if they said this to courts, they would get nowhere.  Instead they disguise their goals by seeking seemingly fair objectives like “shared custody” “friendly parent” protections and equal treatment of parents.  Who could object to such reasonable requests?

The abusers are saying that when parents come to court for custody and visitation the parents should be treated equally regardless of the past parenting, parenting skills or history of abuse. Of course they don’t mention the last part.  Imagine if a group demanded that everyone receive equal income regardless of their contributions to increasing society’s resources.  Liberals and Conservatives would deride such a demand as communism.  If we would not be willing to divide money without consideration of contribution, why would anyone take seriously a proposal to divide something so much more precious, our children, without consideration of the contributions the parents made to the well-being of the children before coming to court?

In the new book, we present our information based upon our belief that safety of children should be the first priority and arrangements that give children the best chance to reach their potential should be the next priority.  The public would be shocked that this is not the priority in the present custody court system.  Most states use the best interest of the child standard for custody and visitation decisions, but this tends to be extremely subjective.  Even when legislation favors safety issues, we have found courts often pay more attention to less important factors like parties’ income, remarriage and “friendly parent” provisions.  In fact in states that have mandated friendly parent consideration, children a
re even more likely to be sent to live with abusers.

Compounding the failure of legislatures and courts to demand safety be the highest priority in custody cases, judges and the professionals they rely on rarely have the training they need to recognize domestic violence or child abuse.  Judge Mike Brigner frequently trains other judges about domestic violence.  In his chapter for the book, he describes how judges often ask him what to do about women who are lying.  When asked what they mean, they refer to women who return to their abuser, withdraw petitions for a protective order, fail to make police complaints or have hospital records.  In fact none of this is probative as battered women often act this way for safety and other reasons particularly when they are still living with their abuser.   Similarly many professionals observe fathers and children interact and if the children show no fear they believe this proves the allegations of abuse are false.  What the children understand is that their father will not hurt them with witnesses present, particularly ones he is trying to impress.  In fact they could be punished if they showed fear.

Male supremacist groups often refer to sexual abuse allegations as the “atomic bomb” of child custody.  In reality when sexual abuse is alleged, even when strong evidence supports the allegation, the alleged abuser usually wins custody.  In research unrelated to custody, it is well established that by the time children reach the age of 18, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused.  Although the stereotypical rapist is a stranger in a raincoat, most rape and sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows, often the father.  Furthermore children rarely lie about sexual abuse because it is so painful and embarrassing.  Nevertheless, custody courts have proven to be so hostile to allegations of sexual abuse that attorneys regularly discourage these charges because they usually work against the protective mother.  Courts are reluctant to believe a father could do something so heinous, particularly if the father is successful in other parts of his life.

With courts relying on inadequately trained professionals who quickly discount valid abuse complaints based on information that is not probative, there is little chance for them to recognize abuse and therefore be able to protect children.  The research bears this out with courts mishandling contested custody cases (most of which involve abusive fathers) and sending thousands of children to live with abusers.

Connection Between Court Mistakes and Increased Homicide Rate

The media has done a poor job of covering the crisis in the custody court system and particularly the pattern of mistakes that result in thousands of children forced to live with abusers.  Local media cover tragedies involving murders and murder-suicides of family members, but little effort is made to look at the patterns of these tragedies.  On February 11, 2010, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Center for Judicial Excellence issued a press release about two crimes in California where divorcing dads killed eight and nine-month-old babies after the courts ordered visitation despite concerns for the babies’ safety.  Those who follow this issue see frequent stories of abusive fathers killing children, partners and themselves.  Most of the time there is a connection to custody and divorce proceedings, but the media usually fails to emphasize these causes.  The Dastardly Dads blog chronicles these painful cases and in doing so makes it easy to see the patterns of court practices that lead to these tragedies.  Judges and the court professionals they rely on are very aware of research that children do better with both parents in their lives, but often give less consideration to the research that this is not true if one of the parents is abusive.

I want to be careful here because a lot of misinformation has entered the public debate out of ignorance and bias.  We have seen numerous flawed studies reported in the media purporting to find women abuse men with similar frequency as men abuse women.  Closer review of these studies demonstrate a failure to consider the severity of the assault, seriousness of injury, purpose such as self-defense, context (as part of a pattern of controlling behavior) and sexual abuse which is overwhelmingly committed by men. We don’t have definitive research to determine what percentage of domestic violence homicides and child murders are caused by the crisis in the custody court system, but there is research beyond the anecdotal evidence of individual murders and murder-suicides.

Although we know there have been many fathers who used access provided by court orders or the failure of courts to restrain his access, how do we know they would not have killed anyway?  This is similar to issues surrounding protective orders.  Some people say they are only a piece of paper and cannot protect the victim.  This view is supported by too many cases where a woman with a protective order was murdered by her ex-partner.  The research, however demonstrates that although protective orders do not prevent all homicides, women with protective orders are safer than those without this protection.

The government has used a lot of scarce resources to determine the effectiveness of batterer programs, anger management and therapy to prevent domestic violence.  None of these programs has been shown to reduce men’s abuse of women, but unsupported claims continue to be made by those who have a financial stake in these programs.  The only response research has demonstrated to reduce domestic violence is accountability and monitoring.  Custody courts emphasize the promotion of a father’s relationship with the child rather than holding him accountable for his abuse.  They sometimes send abusers to some form of program or therapy.  If this was used for accountability it might be useful, but generally they use the false assumption that completion of the program means he is then safe.  In other words custody courts are using approaches that the research demonstrates work against the safety of women and children.

The modern movement to end domestic violence has resulted in making it easier for women to obtain criminal prosecution, protective orders, divorce, financial support, shelter and community support.  As women had access to these resources and particularly after communities adopted policies to hold men accountable, the domestic violence homicide rate was reduced.  Significantly, those communities that were stricter in enforcing accountability benefitted with even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide.  Although murders of men and women by their intimate partners went down, surprisingly, the number of men’s lives saved was much higher than for the lives of women.  Why would laws and practices designed to protect women have a bigger affect in saving men’s lives?  Before the reforms, some women believed the only way to get away from his abuse was to kill him.  The added resources gave her other ways of leaving him.  This conclusion is supported by research that demonstrates men and women kill their intimate partners for different reasons.  Men kill to maintain control and so no one else can have her and women kill in self-defense and to stop his abuse (there are of course exceptions).  This is supported by the fact that 75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left or is trying to leave.

Abusive me
n, who believe she has no right to leave were upset at the reforms that made it easier for victims to leave their abusers.  These male supremacists developed tactics to maintain what they believe is their right to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship.  The cruelest tactic has been to hurt the children.  We see this in the murder or abuse of children by their fathers, but more frequently in fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seeking custody when she tries to leave.  The courts have been slow to recognize or respond to this tactic and instead pressure mothers to keep the father in the children’s lives regardless of his abusiveness.  Instead of pressuring the father to stop his abuse, courts routinely punish mothers for trying to protect the children.  Ironically, in an attempt to keep both parents in the children’s lives, courts often deny children a meaningful relationship with their mother when she continues to believe the father is harming her children.  In almost all of these cases the mother was the primary parent and the safe parent.  As mothers and domestic violence advocates have recognized the harm and unfairness in the present custody court system, more and more mothers are staying with their abusers and accepting his beatings in order to be near their children so they can protect them.  Inevitably, some of these mothers do not survive this decision.

In the batterer classes I teach, we often talk about how boys are taught it is ok for men to abuse women.  The men often object and say they were told not to hit girls.  They are right that boys are not told to abuse women.  Instead they see their father mistreat their mother with no consequences to the father and this gives them the message that society allows men to abuse women.  Children know much more about the father’s abuse in the home than we think they observe so when the custody courts ignore the father’s abuse to give him custody or unsupervised visitation, this reinforces harmful messages.  Children pay much more attention to the behavior they see then what they are told.  In minimizing and failing to recognize the father’s abuse, courts are encouraging men to continue their abuse.  This is especially harmful when abusers successfully manipulate the courts to abuse the mother.  The research demonstrates that abusive men use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to abuse their partners.  By seeking to support fathers’ involvement with their children REGARDLESS OF THEIR HARMFUL BEHAVIOR, the courts are reinforcing harmful attitudes and behaviors.

The flawed and outdated practices used in the custody courts are causing tremendous harm to children and society.  If the bad decisions in these courts did not result in any deaths of mothers and children they should still be reformed.  We have significant anecdotal evidence and research on related issues that makes it likely some of the murders and murder-suicides could be prevented if the custody courts made better use of the up-to-date research now available.  No one  wants to be known as the judge who hurts children or receive publicity when an abuser the judge protected kills the mother and/or children.  I would urge that research be started to determine how often custody court mistakes result in the deaths of the children they are supposed to protect.  In the meantime, I hope judges will stop sending children to live with abusers.

Barry Goldstein is a domestic violence speaker, writer and advocate.  He is co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Technorati Tags:Courts,Custody,Abusers,Domestic,Violence,Connection,Time,Barry,Goldstein,system,cases,ABUSE,CHILD,Therese,Hannah,disciplinary,Canada,citations,myths,gender,bias,children,statistics,homicide,Many,article,role,problems,Lack,Research,Court,assumption,outcome,failure,judges,criticism,death,improvement,context,results,parent,abuser,health,substance,victim,behavior,Although,beliefs,importance,fact,attachment,alienation,attention,Courageous,Kids,result,Make,rights,Instead,treatment,requests,history,Imagine,income,contributions,Liberals,communism,money,contribution,proposal,belief,arrangements,Most,favors,Judge,Mike,Brigner,chapter,hospital,records,father,Male,supports,allegation,stranger,raincoat,life,Rate,crisis,Local,effort,February,National,Coalition,Against,Center,Judicial,Excellence,California,babies,partners,proceedings,Dads,chronicles,misinformation,ignorance,frequency,Closer,injury,purpose,self,defense,percentage,orders,Some,piece,paper,woman,protection,government,management,therapy,response,promotion,relationship,completion,words,movement,prosecution,conclusion,Abusive,victims,tactic,involvement,decision,classes,consequences,message,messages,cost,analysis,HARMFUL,meantime,speaker,writer,Goldsteins,Attorney,Homicides,reductions,Outcomes,decisions,errors,convictions,fathers,assumptions,biases,systems,evaluations,opinions,legislatures,extremists,goals,protections,skills,factors,complaints,allegations,tragedies,members,crimes,policies,attitudes,deaths,thousands,adults,visitation,sexual,parents,women,probative,girls,suicides,batterer,easier

ShareThis

Gender Biased and Punitive: Why Abusers Get Away With Claiming “Parental Alienation”

PAS is a Scam

In DSM-V, Dr. Richard Gardner, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorder, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome on April 6, 2010 at 2:19 am

The late Richard Gardner developed the theory of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) after claiming that one parent alienated the children from the other parent in 90% of his divorcing patients. Though claiming that the “disorder” was not sex specific, he used it almost exclusively against mothers, maintaining that mothers falsely raise domestic violence and incest during custody disputes for tactical gain. Even Gardner admitted PAS was not an actual syndrome; some call it parental alienation (PA), but the concept is identical.

Acceptance

Gardner claimed to have testified in 400 custody cases in 25 states. Although no state has codified PAS, at least 31 states have adopted Gardner’s friendly parent concept (FPC) in which courts are encouraged to give custody to the parent who will foster a better relationship between the children and the other parent. Even where not codified, many judges and custody evaluators base decisions or recommendations on PAS, PA, or the FPC.

Problems

There are problems associated with PAS, PA, and the FPC. They may deflect investigation from the validity of abuse accusations to the protective parent’s behavior. In addition, PAS, PA, and the FPC may deflect courts from noticing that men’s alienation allegations may themselves be alienating behaviors raised for tactical gain.

False Premises

Gardner incorrectly assumed that women need a tactical ploy to not lose custody under the best interest of the child standard. Gardner evidently was unaware that once a child passed its tender years, roughly at age 7, fathers were presumptively entitled to reclaim custody, and that most mothers still win custody under the best interest of the child standard.

Gardner also wrongfully assumed that women often make false incest accusations in custody cases and that they gain advantage from doing so. Incest is raised in only about 6% of custody cases, and only a very small fraction (2%-3%) of this 6% are false. Investigated incest allegations are substantiated as often during custody disputes as at other times, but many child protection agencies do not investigate when a case is in court. Men have been found to make 16 times as many false incest allegations as women (21% vs. 1.3%).

Gardner’s Motivations

Gardner, who had no hospital admitting privileges for his last 25 years and fraudulently claimed to be a clinical professor of child psychiatry, derived his theories to discredit mothers who complained that their partners were abusing them or their children. Gardner, who often testified on behalf of pedophiles, admitted that probably over 95% of all sex abuse allegations are legitimate, but claimed incest and many other deviant sexual practices are normal and not harmful.

Gender Biased and Punitive

PAS, PA, and the FPC may discourage battered women and mothers in incest cases from complaining. Gardner advocated removing custody and if the behaviors continue, denying visitation to the alienating parent. These concepts may not be in the best interest of children as they generally deprive them of their protective parents and place them in the custody of abusive parents. They also may prevent protective parents and children from realizing the wrongfulness of the abuse or from venting their anger, thus exacerbating their pain and inhibiting healing.

These concepts can be considered gender biased since their definitions exclude alienating behaviors most commonly committed by fathers: domestic violence, nonpayment of child support, and raising alienation allegations. They can be used only against custodial parents and impose no penalty on alienating noncustodial parents. An attempt to rename PAS as malicious mother syndrome confirms the bias.

Inadmissible Evidence

Gardner promoted PAS in self-published books. PAS has never been subjected to peer review or been recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association. The Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family characterizes PAS and PA as having no validity. With no validity within the scientific community, neither PAS nor PA is considered admissible in evidence.

—Joan Zorza

Further Readings

Bruch C. Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong in child custody cases. Family Law Quarterly vol. 35 (2001). no. (3), pp. 527–552.

Dallam S. J. Dr. Richard Gardner: A review of his theories and opinions on atypical sexuality, pedophilia, and treatment issues. Treating Abuse Today vol. 8 (1998). no. (1), pp. 15–22.

Dore M. K. The “friendly parent” concept: A flawed factor for child custody. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law vol. 6 (2004). no. (1), pp. 41–56.

Smith R. and Coukos P. Fairness and accuracy in evaluations of domestic violence and child abuse in custody determinations. The Judges’ Journal vol. 36 (1997). no. (4), pp. 38–42, 54–56.

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

Tennessee Lawmakers Impose 50/50 Child Splitting

TENNESSEE LAWMAKERS CONSIDER SHARED PARENTING LEGISLATION

Quote from abuse denier Richard Gardner, Father of Parental Alienation Syndrome

 

Several Tennessee lawmakers have sponsored legislation this year that would be very harmful to children reducing them to time-sharing property with no regard for their feelings or best interest. House Bill 2916/Senate Bill 2881 sponsors are Mike Bell, Stacey Campfield, G.A. Hardaway, Dewayne Bunch, and Bill Ketron. This bill would force the children of divorced or unmarried parents to spend 50 percent of time at one house and 50 percent at another. This is a foolish recommendation for any person to be subjected to. Would any of these legislators like to be forced by court order to not stay at the home of their choice, but be ordered to stay elsewhere because a law has been passed that says they must be subjected to this?  It stands to reason that if the lawmakers themselves were subjected to this, it would not even be considered.

It is most harmful to children in abusive situations as a parent who needs to protect their child will have their hands tied. There is already a culture of abuse deniers who fail to protect children who report abuse. This bill will only add insult to injury. It isn’t just bad for mothers who often leave relationships due to domestic violence, but it is also bad for protective fathers. If a father is trying to protect a child who may be reporting sexual abuse by mom’s boyfriend or husband, that father will be forced to send his child into an abusive situation 50 percent of the time. Also, since proving abuse is so incredibly difficult on par with winning the lottery, a protective dad may be accused of making false allegations or of having the fictitious Parental Alienation Syndrome (although it is almost always mothers accused of this). This bill ties the hands of judges and totally ignores the wants and needs of a child. Even in situations where there is no abuse, forcing a child to live in two different homes 50 percent of the time has already been shown to not work as it interferes with child care, education, friendships, and extracurricular activities.

The bill summary follows:

Under present law, the court has the widest discretion to order a custody arrangement that is in the best interest of the child.

Unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child where the parents have agreed to joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child. For the purpose of assisting the court in making a determination whether an award of joint custody is appropriate, the court may direct that an investigation be conducted. The burden of proof necessary to modify an order of joint custody at a subsequent proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence.

This bill removes the above provisions regarding joint custody. Instead, under this bill, at any hearing to determine custody of a minor child, the court must order that the child get equal time with each of the child’s parents unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one or both of the parents are unfit to care for the child. This bill would not prohibit both fit parents from voluntarily entering into a parenting plan that does not give the child equal time with each parent, nor would it prohibit the court from giving the child less than equal time with a parent that does not seek equal time with the child. This bill authorizes a court to direct that an investigation be conducted for the purpose of assisting the court in making a custody determination when a parent has been proven to be unfit.

Fiscal notes on the bill show no added cost to the state, but lists this assumption as a concern: 

There may be an increase in the amount of hearing time necessary for adjudicating matters of parenting time.

Several articles have been published recently showing opposition to this proposed legislation:

TN bill on divorce would require equal custody of children

‘One size fits all’ is for clothes, not for kids

Court must have discretion to put children’s needs first

Custody bill goes too far

‘Equal parenting time’ bill won’t benefit all children

The only article that supports the bill was written by one of the sponsors, Senator Dewayne Bunch, who is a Baptist attorney. He claims that his points of view are universally accepted, despite the fact that his viewpoints are not universally accepted. The title of the opinion piece that this custody amendment will allow more leeway in custody decisions, rather than less, is also the opposite of reality. See: Amendment gives court more leeway in ruling

What isn’t being addressed in this forced child splitting bill is the issue of child support. Usually when time is equally split, child support is either not awarded or greatly reduced. It might even end up that women could be paying men after the mother is deprived of her child by court order rather than because her child chooses to live apart from her. Looking further into child custody and support legislation it appears that such a bill to eliminate child support has been proposed.

SB1096 by Stanley/HB0877 by Hensley Child Custody and Support – As introduced, prohibits a court from ordering either parent to pay child support to the other parent if both parents have been awarded and are going to be exercising a substantially equal amount of parenting time with the child or children of the marriage. – Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 5, Part 1.

There is also proposed legislation to prohibit any change in custody when there is a domestic violence protective order, by Bunch again, along with G.A. Hardaway of DADS-Dads Against Discrimination (as if men who control the 3 branches of federal government and have the majority percentage in every state legislature in the U.S. are discriminated against???).

SB1252 by Bunch/HB1133 by Hardaway – As introduced, prohibits changing of custodial arrangements due to an order of protection against the custodial parent unless the child is the victim of child abuse or the effects of domestic violence. – Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 6.

And some of the same legislators have also sponsored this legislation which allows someone subject to supervised visitation to select their own supervisor.

SB1266 by Bunch/HB1132 by Hardaway – As introduced, authorizes parent or guardian who pays for supervision of child visitation to select provider of supervision services. – Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 6.

And this group of lawmakers have also created a chilling effect on protective parents and incest victims by making it a crime to raise allegations if they can’t be proven. This will doom sexual abuse/incest victims to be with their perpetrators until age 18 unless they somehow get a video to police or become pregnant and have DNA evidence.

SB 1264 by *Bunch. (*HB 1130 by *Hardaway, Campfield.)

Domestic Relations – As introduced, requires court to hold in contempt any person who makes false accusation of sexual abuse in furtherance of litigation; also requires false accuser to pay other party’s litigation costs. – Amends TCA Title 19; Title 20; Title 21 and Title 36.

Bill Summary

ON MARCH 31, 2010, THE HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS #1 AND #2 AND PASSED HOUSE BILL 1130, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 makes various revisions to this bill, as follows:

(1) Clarifies that this bill applies to “false allegations” instead of “false accusations”;

(2) Specifies that the court may hold the violator in “contempt” instead of “criminal contempt” and that the penalties provided for in this bill would be in addition to all other penalties provided for by law or rule; and

(3) Clarifies that the violator would be ordered to pay all litigation expenses, including, but not limited to, the reasonable attorney’s fees, discretionary costs and other costs.

AMENDMENT #2 makes the order to pay litigation expenses permissive instead of mandatory.

    Checking into the backgrounds of these sponsors, they seem to have an agenda to keep women married despite domestic violence or child abuse. These bills are atrocious for victims and show that patriarchal domination is being spread through legislation. Mothers are not free to leave abusers in Tennessee or anywhere in the United States for that matter. With the father’s rights agenda, women are routinely accused of lying when they are being truthful and children are routinely forced against their will to spend time with abusive fathers. Those mothers and children who protest or try to escape from this abuse are accused of fictitious mental disorders such as parental alienation, or anything else they can get away with, resulting in full custody being given to the abuser. Protections that are supposedly in place for abuse victims have created a cottage industry for the “Abuse Deniers.” For large profits the “Abuse Deniers” (lawyers and experts and abusers) accuse victims of lying and destroy children’s lives with little or no recourse for the victim or protective parent.

    (China lists this abuse of women and children in the U.S. as a Human Rights violation in their March, 2010 report)

    Tennessee is known for giving custody to fathers. A recent case where a man  brought his Japanese wife and children to Tennessee then promptly divorced her and remarried, effectly trapping the mother in the U.S. highlighted why other countries, such as Japan choose to protect their women and children. That man was still married under Japanese law as he was married there and was a Japanese citizen. Japan does not allow dual citizenship, so by becoming a Japanese citizen he gave up his US citizenship. He was committing bigamy, yet under TN/US law, TN granted him custody rights. His purpose in bringing his wife and children to Tennessee was so he could divorce under laws that would be favorable to him.

    This bill rewards people who are abusive and also people who are unfaithful. The injured party suffers punishment when a spouse either abuses them or is unfaithful. With this bill, if someone files for divorce, because of abuse or infidelity, they will be punished by losing their child 50 percent of the time, and the party at fault will be rewarded by taking the child 50 percent of the time from the injured party. This is non-gender specific and will punish whoever has worked at the relationship, and will reward or ignore bad behavior. This bad behavior can then serve as a model to the children that no matter how they act, the outcome will be the same, so why be good.

    The sponsors of this custody bill need to be told that their agenda is not what the people want. It may be what abusive men want, but good fathers don’t force children to spend time with them against their will and they don’t deprive children of their mothers to get out of supporting them, or to intentionally inflict emotional abuse.

    SB2881 has been placed on the Senate Judiciary Committee calendar for 04/06/2010. Dewayne Bunch, one of the bill sponsors is on this committee.

    Committee Officers

  • Mae Beavers, Chair     615-741-2421  sen.mae.beavers@capitol.tn.gov

  • Doug Jackson, Vice-Chair     615-741-4499 sen.doug.jackson@capitol.tn.gov

  • Doug Overbey, Secretary     615-741-0981 sen.doug.overbey@capitol.tn.gov

      Members

      • Diane Black     615-741-1999 sen.diane.black@capitol.tn.gov

      • Dewayne Bunch     615-741-3730 sen.dewayne.bunch@capitol.tn.gov

      • Mike Faulk     615-741-2061 sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov

      • Brian Kelsey     615-741-3036 sen.brian.kelsey@capitol.tn.gov

      • Jim Kyle     615-741-4167 sen.jim.kyle@capitol.tn.gov

      • Beverly Marrero     615-741-9128 sen.beverly.marrero@capitol.tn.gov

          HB2916 has been placed on calendar for the Children and Family Affairs Committee on 04/06/2010. With 3 of the bill sponsors on this committee one wonders if anyone would dare oppose them.

          Committee Officers

          • John DeBerry, Chair     615-741-2239 rep.john.deberry@capitol.tn.gov

          • Kevin Brooks, Vice-Chair     615-741-1350 rep.kevin.brooks@capitol.tn.gov

          • Tommie Brown, Secretary     615-741-4374 rep.tommie.brown@capitol.tn.gov

              Members

              • Mike Bell     615-741-1946 rep.mike.bell@capitol.tn.gov

              • Stacey Campfield     615-741-2287 rep.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov

              • G. A. Hardaway     615-741-5625 rep.ga.hardaway@capitol.tn.gov

              • Sherry Jones     615-741-2035 rep.sherry.jones@capitol.tn.gov

              • Barrett Rich     615-741-6890 rep.barrett.rich@capitol.tn.gov

              • Jeanne Richardson     615-741-2010 rep.jeanne.richardson@capitol.tn.gov

              • Donna Rowland     615-741-2804 rep.donna.rowland@capitol.tn.gov

              • Johnny Shaw     615-741-4538 rep.johnny.shaw@capitol.tn.gov

              • Terri Lynn Weaver     615-741-2192 rep.terri.lynn.weaver@capitol.tn.gov

                  Please call or email these legislators with your opinion on this bill.

                  ShareThis

                •  

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