Crisis In The Family Courts


Does a Custody Evaluation, wherein, inter alia, he ponders what a 13-year-old girl is doing in the bathroom for an hour, watches an 11-year-old brush her teeth, admires the idea of a father's tickling and wrestling a pre-pubescent female to the floor, pontificates on the relationship between eating salad, diabetes, and girls' body shapes, admires the culinary competence required to cook Spaghetti, and generally demonstrates his ignorance of child development and age-appropriate parenting. The father who hired him paid $20,000 for this remarkable piece of crap.

Children need. . . THIS?

Liz’s article, "Why ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ Must Be — and Will Be — Eliminated From Our Family Courts", published in 13Domestic Violence Report 65 (2008) is available at


The Cross-Referral PAS Relationships;
featuring Joe Goldberg aka Bernard Joseph Goldberg

Below my comments is an example of a solicitation/marketing letter by a PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome)promoter (the links and bold emphasis have been added, and the lawyer’s name deleted, but the text otherwise is intact.) This is one way garbage put out by the MHP crowd in furtherance of unscientific therapeutic jurisprudence has permeated the family courts and made its way into the public discourse.

While Joseph Goldberg, the letter’s author (below), does not appear to be a licensed psychologist or expert of any legitimate kind, he is far from the only one doing this. A number of father’s rights types, such as Dean Tong and Ken Pangborn have managed to convince lawyers as well as litigants to work with them as "medical legal consultants" or "forensic experts" (whatever that means — some kind of glorified paralegal.) In addition, licensed psychs and other MHPs also do this same thing, soliciting business as "coaches" and "consultants" as well as appointments as experts for the court.

The problem permeates the entire industry of therapeutic jurisprudence. It’s particularly egregious in the area of the false-acc/abusers’ defense lobbies, many of whom have an odd and interesting overlap with the "parental alienation syndrome" crowd, which seems to involve substantially the same motley activist network of PAS ringleaders, functional disciples of Richard A. Gardner. The PAS group includes psychs, lawyers, and the father’s rights forensic paralegal types.

PAS debunked in Australia; psych Wrigley disciplined for incompetent behaviorOne of the psychologists listed below, Barry Brody of Miami ("Forensic Family Services", regularly has sent out a "parental alienation" newsletter to members of the Florida Bar family law section (I haven’t received one in a while; perhaps he’s finally removed me from his mailing list, but if I get another one, I will scan it and upload it here). Brody as well as a number of more familiar names have chimed in to bless the nonsense of "hostile-aggressive parenting" which burst on the scene a couple of years ago to rehabilitate this discredited drivel. See the sister websites (same ownership) and These include an unhealthy mix of professionals, who, based on their permitting their names to be used this way, apparently support the promulgation of the unscientific crap. Although by no means exhaustive, it’s a convenient list of who to stay away from in child custody cases:

Richard Austin, R. Christopher Barden, Stephen Ceci, Douglas Darnall, Stephen Herman, Jayne Major, Daniel Rybicki, S. Richard Sauber  (listed twice) , W. vonBoch-Galhau, Richard A Warshak, Michael Bone, L.F. Lowenstein, Reena Sommer, Jerry Brinegar, Katherine Andre, Ken Lewis, Catherine Swanson Cain, Monty Weinstein, Amy J. L. Baker, David Britton, Robert Evans, Debra Gordy, Christina McGhee, Harvey Shapiro (Elizabeth Loftus’s "investigator"), Jose Manuel Aguilar Cuenca, Theresa K. Cooke, Jeff Opperman, Remi Thivierge, Joe Goldberg, James J. Gross, Randy Kolin, Randy Rand, David Carico, Lawrence W. Daly, Charles D. Jamieson. [from accessed 01/01/08]

Notice in Goldberg’s letter, below, the trade-promotion claim that these cases are "difficult to resolve". This is typical parenting evaluator propaganda — it increases the appearance of some kind of need for their "expertise". Also note that not only does he make the ubiquitous misrepresentation that there is a disorder known as "parental alienation syndrome" but — and this is fraudulent — adds the embellishment that it is a medical disorder! (Who is infected? At its least implausible, PAS was a description of a relationship dynamic.)

There’s a big problem with this kind of thing that supersedes even the promotion of bogus parental alienation theories. The problem arises because most lawyers represent different clients taking different sides in different cases (sometimes the wife, sometimes the husband, sometimes the "good guy", sometimes the "bad guy", etc.). If Solicited Attorney runs up against Expert in another case, after they have established a "cross-referral professional relationship" and formal or informal "working partnership" (the formal kind is of dubious legal ethicity because of the inappropriate feeder of referrals in exchange for indirect compensation), and have "mutual" cases pending, Solicited will have a very difficult time shredding Expert or Expert’s testimony when that is required in another case, or filing a complaint against him, if necessary, because that would place Solicited’s other clients’ pending cases at risk.

In such cases, the lawyer will be tempted to rationalize to himself, as well as maintain the posture in the community at large, that Expert’s horsepuckey is scientifically valid, and pretend that lawyer in any event can safely buy into this because lawyer is not a "scientist". Expert (who likely knows his spoutings are specious) also will know that Solicited is doing this, and thus has given clients less than competent representation (potentially damaging information to have against a lawyer).

But because it’s all ostensibly collegial, neither of them will admit to the bogus science, or what is going on, even to each other, and as people do, they both will maintain the pretext of belief in such things as the "medical disorder of parental alienation" or "the benefits of joint custody", as well as the value of their memberships in the organizations that promote these make-work ideas.

It’s almost like unacknowledged blackmail. The lawyer who naively or purposefully steps down this path and goes along with this kind of thing (encouraged by the mixed-discipline organizations, such as the AFCC) in order to obtain referrals has sold his professional soul to the devil, literally. This is true whether the cross-referral relationship is with a licensed psychologist, or, as in this case, with a paralegal-type bird dog.

Deliberate relationships with expert witnesses such as the one sought in the below should be recognized as ethical violations and banned by state bar ethics rules. But the conflict of interest problems are inherent in the nature of the association and exist even when there is no explicit referral relationship — a reason for banning these people from the court system altogether. Ironically, it’s worse for the lawyers who are not ideologues, because they are more likely to advocate for different client perspectives. The repeated association of these "experts" into cases, however, any one of whom at any time and from time to time may show up on the wrong side of a given case, creates many of the same dilemmas that ordinary client conflict-of-interest issues do. This problem also applies to guardians ad litem, frequently a small group of lawyers or MHPs who are appointed by judges and placed over and over again in the same local group of lawyers’ cases, and who similarly opine and write reports that sometimes are on the right side and sometimes on the wrong side.

These people are witnesses in each case (or, in the case of GALs, sometimes even considered to be parties proper). They are not in fact "neutrals" (even if hired as such, once their reports are rendered, they are advocates for one or the other side, and they are never neutral when they are hired as a consultant-turned-testifying expert for one of the lawyers). Thus, at a point, they are, just as a party would be, pointedly in favor of one side and outcome, and overtly adverse to the position of the other party in a case.

They are not objective disinterested witnesses. They are not neutrals. They are not scientists. They are not immune from bias and self-interest (especially where favor is curried with judges and lawyers for future referrals), and especially where their professional trade organizations have lobbied for immunity and effectively protected them from oversight. They are not doing this because they "care about children". They are not akin to a doctor who drew blood and put it under a microscope and testifies in court that yes, he saw the little amoebae or bacteria or whatever and made a diagnosis. (And the Goldbergs and Tongs are not even licensed, regulated professionals of ANY sort — not that licensed psychologists are much better.) If you don’t understand this, having spent your life immersed in this over-therapized. infotainment pop-psychology advice-columnized big-pharma drug-pushing culture we live in: it’s time to get educated.

Not only are they witnesses, just like litigants and other interested, affiliated parties on one side or another of a case, but they are an especially dangerous kind of witness, because they appear in case after case after case. One lawyer may encounter the same expert in different cases in which the same fraudulent snake oil is sometimes favorable and sometimes disfavorable to the lawyer’s client. Expert may be taking a meritless position for the lawyer’s client in one case (which position the lawyer would like to bolster, being an advocate for the client), but show up in another case with the same meritless position that is against the lawyer’s client in that case. Or, Expert might be opining differently because after all, so much psychological opining and "theories" — er ideas — (these are not scientific theories) are unsubstantiable, unfalsifiable, unresearched nonsense. If Expert and a lawyer are in cahoots in various cases, the lawyer is placed into a conflict in the instant case, unable to zealously discredit Expert and do what is appropriate and necessary to protect his potentially harmed client in the instant case — even if the lawyer otherwise would be willing to sacrifice his own referral source or collegial association with Expert. Can’t do it.

Unlike lawyers in many other areas of practice, who may retain their clients for years, family lawyers typically need a steady stream of new one-shot clients. In addition, family lawyers also tend to work in smaller firms. So they value those who send them business. From what I’ve personally seen, I suspect that too many family lawyers, perhaps without recognizing or acknowledging the conflicts of interest that have caused their discomfort and unwillingness adequately to represent some of their clients, in fact have sacrificed these clients on the altar of maintaining their professional relationships, associations, and referral sources.

These people are not colleagues, however. They are case witnesses and participants.

Some lawyers admit to feeling burnout, but they’ve rationalized their unwillingness to zealously advocate for their clients, and their discomfort, as stemming from the "high conflict" created by unreasonable clients, or the high emotional toll the cases are taking on them. Others retain their enthusiasm by becoming ideologues, and taking only cases in which they will not encounter the conflicts (e.g. overwhelmingly their clients raise claims that the other parent is an alienator.) This conveniently furthers the propagation of the bad science.

The rest justify their lack of vigorous representation, and the coerced settlements they’ve foisted on some clients as concern for the best interests of children, or as the only reasonable settlement position, or as their ideological commitment to helping people to just get along (especially when the retainer has run out). They profess to themselves and everyone around a great affinity for mediation and therapy and collaborative resolution, and all manner of therapeutic jurisprudence in the interests of everyone, and similar specious posturing, encouraged in their self-delusion by a steady drip of MHP literature. This kind of thing is just not as pervasive in other areas of the law, no matter how heated the conflicts get, and it’s one substantial reason the public has such a generally dim view of the family courts and family lawyers.

Given that clients are entitled to their choice of attorneys, and are entitled to independent, unconflicted, attorneys (agents) who are committed to furthering their interests and goals (as the client, not the attorney, has defined them), the only viable solution is a disqualification of any GAL or forensic expert who previously has been associated in any case with either of the lawyers in that case, and the striking and nullification of all testimony and reports of that expert, no matter at what stage of a case the lawyer is hired. It also is time to substantially limit the use of forensic experts and GALs in family court altogether because for the most part, MHPs, including child custody evaluators and their relatedforensic offshoots, in fact are unneeded, unhelpful, and undesirable in the vast majority of child custody cases.

(And any judge who would let Joe "PAS is a medical disorder" Goldberg** testify as an expert in a case really should be removed from the bench for incompetence. Yes, I said that.)

        — liz

      **Joe Goldberg formerly was known as Bernard Joseph Goldberg. In his own Florida divorce case, Goldberg claimed that his ex-wife was "alienating" his teenage daughters, and even the psychs didn’t buy it — except, Goldberg urges us to mention, an evaluator in his case, Glenn Caddy, Ph.D. Not surprisingly, Caddy is listed as a speaker in and among some of the usual names in the PAS promotion set at a September 2008 "Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome" organized and promoted by Mr. Goldberg. See Dean Tong also is listed as a speaker at the event. That pretty much says it all. (That and that Mrs. Goldberg and her two poised and articulate daughters ultimately and fortuitously prevailed against the frivolous machinations.)

Examples of Goldberg’s approach to lawyers, financial advisors, vocational experts, and evendomestic violence groups! More. This is not "medicine", it’s marketing and money. Very dangerous, given Goldberg’s obvious promotional talents combined with his obsessive motivation stemming from his own failed attempts to control his ex-wife and children in his own divorce case. (Recent misguided Canadian courts apparently are being influenced, too, sending children for deprogramming "treatments" at Warshak "clinics" in the U.S. at unthinkably ridiculous expense. I could not call this merely a financial con because children and family affectional relationships — which should not in the first place be the province of government engineering — literally are being experimented on and at risk of being harmed. Judges, wake up!)

Below, he approaches a lawyer:

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:24:00 EST
Subject: Re: Client Referral from Goldberg & Associates – Joe Goldberg
To: [Solicited Attorney]

Dear [Solicited Attorney]:

My name is Joe Goldberg. I am a Medical Legal Consultant specializing in Family Law cases that involveParental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I found you listed in ACFLS ( Association of Certified Family Law Specialist ).

There are times I’m sure, when you’ve come across high conflict cases regarding Visitation, Custody and Parental Alienation. These cases are extremely difficult to resolve in the best interest of the child.

You may not know that Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome, is both a medical disorder and a form of Child Abuse.

In many of the cases I am involved in, I refer a client to a new attorney.

I like the fact that you have the highest qualifications and I believe that you could assist us with legal representation.

I would like for us to get to know each other, a little better and I would also like to know if you would be interested in developing a cross-referral professional relationship on these type of cases?

Allow me to introduce you to our website, so you can learn more about me and my firm: Presently we work on cases all over California.

We would also like to link websites with you.

Please let me know, if you’d be interested in a working partnership and if you would like to talk with me after the holidays.

Until then, I want to wish you a Happy and Healthy Holiday Season.

Respectfully Yours,

Joe Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates
Tel 905-481-0367

Below: Goldberg targeting — and contaminating — financial forensics with this specious rot by promising them $$$$ referrals…

Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:30 AM
Subject: CDFA Assistance Needed – Please Call Joseph Goldberg /905-481-0367
To: [Solicited Financial Advisor]

Hello [Solicited Financial Advisor]:

My name is Joseph Goldberg and the name of my firm is Goldberg & Associates. We work with family law attorneys in divorce litigation and specifically on the topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Please visit our web site at http://www.ParentalAlienation.Ca

We have many clients that need CDFA Services. The clients we represent and local to you (although we have offices in FL, & ON.).

I would like to discuss an offer to refer my clients and their business to your firm. In fact, I would like to give you an opportunity to be our "Exclusive Affiliate" for all of our clients needing CDFA Services.

Due to the fact that I am the Founder of The Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome, ( CS-PAS ), my firm anticipates a significant increase in the number of clients that come to us for assistance, we want to prepare for that volume of business by having your help lined up in advance.

I assume that you did not know that Parental Alienation Syndrome is both a Medical Disorder and a widely recognized form of Child Abuse.

Please visit the website for CS-PAS so you’ll understand the importance of this event.


It would be greatly appreciated if we could get better acquainted on the phone. I would very much like to discuss our interest in the arrangement to work with you and your firm. Please call me at – Tel : 905-481-0367

Once again, I look forward to hearing from you soon !

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates

Tel: 905-481-0367

And below: yet another marketing ploy, targeting vocational forensics — and with the promise of referrals, soliciting money from them!

[Saturday, June 28, 2008]

Hi [Solicited Vocational Forensic

Please do me a favor and try and mail out a few packets of information about you and your firm so I can pass it along to our interested clients. If you can send it by Express Mail that would be appreciated. (Include your CV, Photos, Logos, etc.)

You can mail it to me at:

Goldberg & Associates
A7-1390 Major Mackenzie Drive East
Suite 127
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4S 0A1

Also… I forgot to mention this but in reference to the one time Sponsorship Fee, if you want to make the payment with a credit card directly to CSPAS, they ;made it very simple and easy to do.

All you have to do is click on the hyperlink below: Click here: Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome

Then scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click on the button that says:  


Once again, I look forward to doing business with you soon.

Respectfully Yours,

Joe Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates
Tel: 905-481-0367

[Sunday, June 29, 2008]

Hi [Solicited Vocational Forensic]

It was a pleasure getting to know you and I am very excited about this opportunity to work with you and your firm.  

I’d like to itemize the details regarding your Exclusive Vendor Affiliation with G&A. We truly want to make this a successful and profitable arrangement for your company because we need your assistance for Vocational Evaluations

We are prepared to offer your firm all of the following benefits – all we seek in return is your support of the CS-PAS, (symposium) and a one time Sponsorship Fee in the amount of $750.00 ;


1. Your company will be our Exclusive Vendor for Vocational Evaluations in Texas

2. The Registration Fee for you to attend the symposium will be waived ($395.00)

3. The Fee to attend the Gala Banquet Dinner will be waived ($250.00)

4. Significant advertisements promoting your company will be posted on the CS-PAS website. The cost to design the ad will be paid for by the CS-PAS, it will be designed by an advertising agency. The value of the ad would normally cost $400.00, and the ad will be seen on ;

5. Significant advertisements promoting your company will also be posted on our website. The cost of the ad will be paid for by the CS-PAS, it will be designed by an advertising agency. The value of the ad would normally cost $400.00, and it will be seen online at

We want to build a business relationship that will last for many years to come. It would be a great pleasure to work with you on these services.

Please Make Your Check Payable To:
CSPAS / Canadian Symposium

Please Mail It To:
CSPAS / Canadian Symposium
A7-1390 Major Mackenzie Drive East, Suite 127
Richmond Hill, Ontario L4S 0A1
Attn: Corporate Sponsors Dept.

Once again, I look forward to meeting you and doing business with your firm!

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates
Tel: 905-481-0367

Below: Goldberg attempting to schnor the email subscriber list from a domestic violence group:

From: <>
Subject: Announcement To Members from The CSPAS – Founder Joseph Goldberg
Date: Thursday, December 25, 2008, 1:44 AM

I am with The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome, and my name is Joseph Goldberg. We would like to know if it is possible to obtain an opt-in email list of your members so we can send them a video clip of our upcoming conference at The Metro Toronto Convention Center March 27th through March 29th.

Please visit our website for the details

Since this is our First Annual Conference we hope you will allow us to use your email list solely for this purpose and at no time would your list be given out to any third parties. I am the Founder of the Conference, and I will take every measure to safeguard the usage of your email information.

We would also like to ask if your email name and address information is available in a CSV data format ? ( This way we can do a simple blast of the emails all at one time, or perhaps we could send you the video clip and you could send it out to all of your members for us ? ) Either way, The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome would be forever grateful for your assistance.

Did you know that Parental Alienation Syndrome ( P.A.S. ), is a recognized form of child abuse ?

Once again, thank you for giving us this opportunity to inform your members with our promotional video clip of the conference.

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Founder of The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome

Below: Goldberg flattering psychologists and promising referrals:

Sent: 1/29/2009 6:07:32 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Client Referral To Your Office – From G&A / JG  

My name is Joseph Goldberg, and I’m with the C.S.P.A.S. &#160; I was looking online at a few different websites when I came across your information.

I’m trying to help some clients that live in close proximity to your office. My clients recently expressed a need for professional services that you can provide.

Are you presently meeting with and taking on new clients and if we wanted to refer these clients to you is that something that would be of interest?

All of the clients that I would refer, are local to your office and the main reason that I’m able to refer a potentially large number of new clients to you, is because we have public access to a database of experienced professionals who are affiliated with the CSPAS – Referral Service Center.

FYI, there are no charges of any kind in connection with the CSPAS – RSC.

The CSPAS provides assistance to adults and children who are dealing with problems that relate to "Parental Alienation." We also try to encourage professional’s to enroll in at least a few lectures that offer CEU’s to assist them in working with the clients that we refer.

FYI …We have an upcoming conference on Parental Alienation this coming – March 27 – March 29th at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC).   As Founder of the CSPAS -  I’m very interested in supporting the work you do, and I believe we can,  and should help each other on an on going basis. I assume that you are acquainted with the fact that Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome ( P.A.S. ), is a widely recognized form of child abuse.

Please let me know if you’re interested in taking on some new clients and our client referral services which can help you to expand the growth of your practice.

My Kindest Regards,

Joseph Goldberg Founder of CSPAS

For more information about the conference, please visit our website at

To stop receiving these emails please unsubscribe.
The Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome
A7 – 1390 Major Mackenzie Drive East, Suite 127
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4S 0A1

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Founder of The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome

Dean Tong (another non-psychologist "forensic consultant") was arrested 01/28/08 in Florida for domestic violence and witness tampering. Tong was accused in a prior marriage of child sexual abuse, which lead the former paramedic to create a business of, inter alia, helping guys accused of abuse beat the rap (although in recent years he apparently sought to gain legitimacy occasionally working for the "other side" too). His primary affiliations, however, appeared to be with the PAS purveyor crowd, a number of the individuals listed above, and other "it’s a false accusation and mom brainwashed the kid to make this up" defense lawyers and forensics such as Ralph Underwager. Lightning striking twice? More of these types: Steven Carlson, "the custody coach", Ken Pangborn, and Allen Cowling. And of course the agenda’s Ph.D.s…

More on Dean Tong, can be found here:

A side note on one reason parental alienation theory is so appealing to the family law therapeutic jurisprudence types, including not only the forensics but also the therapists, guardians ad litem, parenting coordinators, and supervised visitation and therapeutic visitation opportunists: when their ineffective make-believe, "reunification therapies" and similar ideas don’t work (probably because not a one is backed by any credible research or even anecdotally effective methodology), even if parental alienation wasn’t earlier raised in the case and abuse was founded, it provides the perfect alibi to give some schnookered judge who wants to know what happened. And so they just point the finger for all of the wasted time, money, and miserable mess they’ve made of the case at… the mother (usually), claiming "unconscious alienation" or "covert alienation".

This work is part of ongoing research being conducted by the National Network on Family Law Policy, with the assistance of numerous scholars, professionals, and others who are investigating the workings of our justice system. For more information, contact sarah,

Also see
Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts
Custody Evaluator Quotes
What’s Wrong With Parenting Coordination
Parenting Coordination issues
Psychology in Family Court
Custody Evaluators Lack Expertise
Forensic Evaluators Lack Science
Custody Evaluator Discovery Issues
Collaborative Divorce Psychologists

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

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:

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

Maternal Deprivation

Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court.Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.

Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings. A twisted form of Maternal Deprivation is to kill the children, so that the mother will be left to suffer. Sometimes there are family annihilation murders where the father kills the children and himself (or dies by cop), but the mother is not killed because she has received protective orders and her children have not as in the case ofJessica Gonzales

In seeking to define this form of abuse certain common elements are found in the Maternal Deprivation scenario as follows:

  • History of domestic abuse that could be physical, psychological, sexual, and/or social abuse occurring on or off again, occasionally, or chronically which could be mild, moderate, or severe, including homicidal and/or suicidal threats.
  • Legal proceedings relating to abuse
  • Hiring of “Fathers Rights” attorney
  • Use of “Hired Gun” mental health professionals to make accusations of psychological disorder against the mother and children in deliberate effort to excuse abuse and change custody or grant visitation that is contrary to safety concerns. Another name for these unethical professionals are “Whores of the Courts
  • Raising claims of “psychological disorders” against the mother such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, Malicious Mother Syndrome, Lying Litigant Syndrome, Hostile Aggressive Parenting or any other mother-blaming psychological disorder that can be used by the unethical professional to re-victimize the victims.
  • Infliction of “Legal Abuse” by continually and excessively filing motions so that the mother continually has to defend herself and her child(ren) causing financial and emotional devastation.
  • Can occur in response to child support legal proceedings as retaliation.
    • The intent of “Maternal Deprivation” is to punish the mother and the child for revealing the abuse and to falsely claim that they are not abusive. This very commonly occurs as there are more and more “abuse-excuse” parental alienation accusing professionals who use this scientifically invalid theory over and over to achieve specific goals of the person paying them. Maternal Deprivation can also occur in response to child support legal proceedings. When occurring in this manner, Maternal Deprivation is a response to the financial demands as retaliation. Suddenly the father who had little prior involvement wants to take the kids half the time to avoid child support obligations, etc. When the men are really abusive, they ask for sole custody and demand the mother of the child pay them.

      Although some people call this “Maternal Alienation”, a distinction needs to be made as the pro-pedophilia “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of the word “Alienation” are most often used AGAINST battered women and abused children. There needs to be a distinction between the phony psychological syndrome and the intentional infliction of abuse on a mother and child by intentionally severing their natural bond. This distinction can best be made by NOT using the label of “Alienation” which will always be associated with the pro-pedophilia monster Doctor Richard Gardner.

      Some of the characteristics of the especially heinous abusers who inflict Maternal Deprivation include but are not limited to the following:

        • Angry

        • Abusive

        • Violent

        • Coercive

        • Controlling

        • Threatening

        • Intimidating

        • Demanding

        • Domineering

        • Harassing

        • Stalking

        • Tyrannical

        • Oppressive

        • Forceful

        • Manipulative

        • Deceptive

        • Unethical

        • Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)

        • Entitled

        • Immature

        • Self-centered

        • Neglectful

        • Guilt inducing

        • Pushy

        • Intentionally tries to humiliate mother and/or child

        • Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style

        • Outrage at child’s challenge of authority

        • May use force to reassert parental position

        • Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes

        • Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility

        • Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise

        • Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits

            There is a distinct overlap of the intimate terrorist type domestic violence abuser with the Maternal Deprivation abusers as follows:

            • Coercion and threats

            • Intimidation

            • Emotional abuse

            • Isolation

            • Minimizing, denying and blaming (Hallmarks of PAS)

            • Using children

            • Economic abuse

            • Male privilege

                The people who most often engage in Maternal Deprivation Abuse are most often: 

                • Abusive men

                • Vindictive second wives who don’t
                  want to deal with the real mother of the children

                • Paternal grandparents who raised dysfunctional children (abusers)

                  The effects of Maternal Deprivation often cause the children to become psychotic, depressed, and sometimes suicidal or to have suicidal ideations. Another terrible reaction is when the child retaliates against the parent who accuses Parental Alienation Syndrome as in a Texas case where the child killed his father. Other times when the Maternal Deprivation abuser completely takes over the will of the child by using brainwashing techniques similar to those used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to force ideological changes in captives, these children often have a sort of trauma-bonding with the abuser and model their behavior. Sometimes these children will also abuse the mother in the same manner as the father. Another generation is created to carry on the abuse, and will likely do the same to their own spouse and children.


                  For more articles involving Maternal Deprivation:

                  Failure of Family Court System Leads To Death and Devastation

                  Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

                  Child in imminent fear shoots father – vindicated in appeal – PAS fraud nightmare

                  Cincinatti PAS

                  VAWnet Joan Meier on PAS-Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews

                  And many more articles throughout Battered Mothers Lose Children to Abusers and all the links on the sidebar.

                  Maternal Deprivation Abuse will be featured on BMLCTA Blog in an effort to wipe out this heinous crime against mothers and children.

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




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


                  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 workshops about, “Maternal Gate-keeping” and others have promoted theories such as, “Malicious Mother Syndrome”.

                  Whilst in most debates, we all amicably prefer to keep things gender neutral apart from where one gender is being targeted in a way no different to the apartheid in Africa, the slavery towards African Americans and of course the stolen generation of aboriginal children. Whilst the use of parental alienation syndrome appears to be one of those gender neutral terms, the literature and statistics of court cases where the reversal of custody cases involving abuse allegations suggests that the number one target is the mother. Enmeshed with child abuse cases are often intimate partner terrorism, mostly perpetrated by fathers and a deep lack of community support towards mothers who try against many odds to protect their children from further abuse and exposure to violence. The superficial surface of parent alienation suggests that their goal is to stop “false accusers” despite statistics stating over and over again that false accusers are a minority of cases and in fact most of the false allegations are use by fathers. Empirical research has defined this as part of a series of behaviors that follow the intervention of a intimate partner terrorism relationship. This is where the real problem lies, with little support thanks to the erosion of domestic violence and child protection services, mothers experiencing false accusations towards them have drifted unknowingly towards the movement that is solely there to continue these abuses against her and the children.

                  Supporters of this theory have even gone as far as promoting it as a form of child abuse and sadly many court cases involving child abuse and intimate partner terrorism with evidence are treated as alienation resulting with the child being transferred to the abuser. The influence of this theory has been so great that other aspects of the system where the perpetrator could be convicted are thwarted.

                  Whilst Parental Alienation attracts pedophile lobbyists, batterers and abusers, they also attract mistaken victims. These victims are in turn used to become the front of the organisations eliminating the promotion of any true need for children and victims of violence and appear as though they are gender inclusive. The laws, case statistics and culture of the courts are a true reflection of the backyard psych therapists and abuse excuser’s causes. Some organisations are obvious in their agenda, whilst others confuse the situation.

                  Given the clusters of abusers that are attracted to the cause, it is important to encourage police abuse units to investigate the members of these groups as they do with pedophile rings. This could help stop abuse occurring. Other things that can be done is reporting professionals who use the theory as a form of diagnosis to psychologist registers, law bars and social worker accreditation organisations. The use of junk science destroys the credibility of professionals who do not practice backyard therapies and such reports are welcomed to peak bodies. By alerting other parents of the dangers of these organisations, parents can then become aware of the potential risks they could expose the children to by engaging with potential abusers activities and prevent abuse from occurring.

                  Here are a list of confirmed pedophile organisations that promote Parent Alienation:







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

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

                  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 . 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


                  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.


                  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


                  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)


                    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