So you’d rather watch tournament games and go bowling than support a “We Are Fathers” campaign for justice and equality. Well that’s your choice, it’s a free country, in theory anyway. But you should know that countless lawyers, child experts and bureaucrats are cheering you on because they profit from all this apathy and a misguided sense of priorities.
In America today, our government is engaged in the lucrative expansion of a child control bureaucracy that is harming our families, productivity and moral fiber as a nation. This vast public enterprise has invaded every aspect of private life, often wielding power beyond that exercised by the NSA, CIA or IRS. It is a silent and insidious trend eroding parental rights repeatedly declared by our Supreme Court to be the “oldest liberty interest” protected by the United States Constitution.
This interest is shared equally by fathers and mothers. But in practice, the male half has not been accorded its rightful place among our human rights due to a profit motive in family court driven by needless custody, support and divorce contests. Census Bureau reports continue to show the gender disparities on all domestic fronts. After promoting a parental rights cause in Paris recently, I was amazed to note how a million people together with world leaders could rally in that city within days to support free speech. Meanwhile, here in the states, more than 70 million fathers have yet to mobilize after a century of widespread discrimination.
Such discrimination is having harmful impacts on all aspects of society and quite likely the female population more so than its counterpart. Veterans, minorities and high profile figures are particularly vulnerable to a court system that has placed money and politics over genuine parent-child relationships. Fathers are a vital component of any social or family structure as they have been since the beginning of civilization. Unfortunately federal entitlement laws and incentive funding to the states have marginalized that role to a point of virtual extinction. This has led to educational costs, heinous crimes and moral deterioration on a vast scale corroborated by an exodus from all manner of religion. In practical terms, our taxpayers are funding the creation of social ills and then forced to pay for it on the back side with costly welfare programs.
Future generations will look back one day and be amazed at how truly barbaric our domestic relations courts once were. A scheme of laws and processes derived from feudal equity doctrines has been retained which features loving parents engaged in brutal contests over their offspring in a public arena. A winner-take-all battle for custody leads to overregulation of families by the state and marginalization, alienation or outright extinction of one fit parent from the children’s lives. Anal investigations of the combatants’ backgrounds by self serving advisors incite further controversy to last a lifetime. It is a spectacle reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum.
No person or entity has ever been able to achieve a comprehensive study of the vast detriment which this archaic custody and support system has had upon our society. Any such effort would assuredly be stymied because custody and unequal parenting are highly profitable. Yet common sense dictates that our nation could be well served with sweeping reforms here in our least scrutinized branch of government. We can put a man on the moon, split atoms, engage artificial intelligence and achieve vast breakthroughs in medicine but remain unable to extricate family courts from their nineteenth century practices.
Being told I could never see my toddler grandson again, would make me feel as though my heart had been plucked out of my chest. Yet I have received more than 250 letters from grandparents who are suffering that agony now.
They tell me it’s like a living bereavement and they think about their grandchildren every day. The greatest agony they feel is the worry that those children may not know how deeply they are loved and missed.
These desperate letters were written to me after I made a film for BBC’s The One Show exposing the misery of grandparents denied access to their grandchildren. Tonight I will be revisiting the subject, for the same programme.
This is the standard mental health response to all forms of child abuse. This is the standard mental health response to physical child abuse. This is the standard mental health response to sexual child abuse. This is the standard mental health response to psychological child abuse. Diagnosis guides treatment.
Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.
After hearing the testimony of the Petitioner, reviewing the documentation and supplements, and having received no responsive testimony, substantive documentation, or other evidence from any of those cited officials, the Committee finds that the Petitioner was wrongly denied by the Family Division all visitation with his child contrary to N.H. law and his constitutional rights for approximately 13 months.
1. Made unlawful recommendations to the Court in her 2/11/11 guardian ad litem report including suspension of all visitation with his son with no findings of fact that it would be detrimental to the child and with no findings of abuse or neglect contrary to RSA 461-A:2;
2. Posited as fact the psychological condition of the minor child without being an expert herself, and with no expert psychological findings or report, and apart from any testimony that is the product of reliable principles and methods contrary to RSA 516:29-a;
3. Recommended the imposition of extrajudicial conditions on reunification contrary to RSA 461-A:2, RSA 461-A:6 and contrary to the presumption that fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children;
4. Recommended unlawful prior restraint of Petitioner’s free speech by restricting him from talking with his son about the subject of love (see RSA 461-A:6 I(a);
5. Recommended as a condition to see his son, that Petitioner enroll in a parenting class and separately in individual therapy which is contrary to the Troxel presumption that “fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children,” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57);
6. Did not complete the duties ordered by the Court in her stipulation;
7. Failed to comply with Family Division Administrative Order 2011-03 by not filing a final report with the Court and not submitting her final bill by the deadline;
8. Failed to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Order 17 by exceeding her court-ordered fee-maximum and not requesting a hearing to do so;
9. Fraudulently filed a stalking warning letter with the Dover/Laconia police departments in response to pro se Petitioner’s court-related correspondence for actions that do not qualify as stalking;
10. Failed to comply with GAL Ethics Rule 503.06(a)(1) by not recusing herself as requested after reporting that she was “fearful” of Petitioner; and,
11. Improperly recommended suspension of all of Petitioner’s visitation and parental rights with only allegations, but no findings of abuse or neglect per RSA 461:A-5 III.
The Committee finds that Marital Master Nancy Geiger also contributed to this when she:
1. Conducted a hearing that affected Petitioner’s parental rights without proper judicial notice per Duclos v. Duclos, 134 NH 42 – NH: Supreme Court 1991, quoting Morphy v. Morphy, 112 N.H. 507 – NH Supreme Court 1972;
2. Wrongfully recommended the suspension of Petitioner’s visitation and parental rights with no findings of abuse or neglect and no expert testimony;
3. Compelled Petitioner to finance the “therapeutic reunification” with his son in a forced contract contrary to Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43;
4. Utilized what she knew to be false and/or incomplete GAL report testimony of GAL Tracy Bernson in arriving at her decision;
5. Refused to admit Petitioner’s properly authenticated telephone logs as exhibits at trial; and,
6. Issued a parenting plan that does not comport with N.H. RSA 490-D:9, requiring the signature of a judge accompanied by the judge’s sworn oath.
Further the Committee finds that Judges Ned Gordon and Brackett L. Scheffy also contributed by:
1. Approving a Marital Master’s wrongful orders, therefore failing to provide proper review or oversight; and,
2. Approved a parenting plan that does not comport with N.H. RSA 490-D:9.
The Committee finds that Marital Master Leonard Green also contributed when he denied Petitioner due process of law by declining to issue orders on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and; finally, that Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly failed to provide adequate oversight and supervision of marital masters and judges in the Hooksett Family Division by permitting ongoing malfeasance to occur after Petitioner notified him of it in a lengthy letter to which same judge, with the power to fire Marital Masters at will, responded that he had no authority to intervene.
The Committee therefore recommends that legislation be introduced to so amend our laws as to:
1. Eliminate coerced contracts and/or stipulations with guardians ad litem;
2. Make clear that there is a presumption that fit parents will act in the best interests of their children;
3. Provide greater supervision and accountability of guardians ad litem, marital masters, and judges in the circuit court family division;
4. Permit courts to deviate from equal parenting time distribution only in cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect by one or both parents or it is requested by party receiving the lesser proportion of time;
5. Adopt strict rules of evidence for the family division;
6. Require advance notice for any and all hearings; and,
7. Investigate whether impeachment proceedings should be initiated to remove Judge Edwin Kelly, Judge Ned Gordon, and Judge Brackett Scheffy. Vote 8-2.
Rep. Alfred P. Baldasaro for the Majority of the Committee
There are lots of reasons why we need a name for the pattern commonly called Parental Alienation.
Some people do great work with Alienated children and families but without using that label. So you won’t find their good work by Googling ‘Alienation’.
We want to feature two important papers on Alienation by another name. They go under our radar because they don’t use our word for it.
First though, there is already a very well known different name for Alienation … under which some very well known work with Alienated families has been described. Richard Warshak gives us his striking informal alternative name: Divorce Poison. It’s certainly been good at getting attention in the market place.
Why don’t we use that term more? Well, ‘divorce’ doesn’t include other family separation. Maybe Warshak’s is a more neutral description of general misery for the whole family?
But divorce poison – like Parental Alienation too – may picture one person doing the poisoning of someone else. So both terms carry the victim / blame picture. Poisoning sounds very medical, but otherwise ‘divorce poison’ doesn’t sound scientific enough to be taken seriously, does it? No label can convey both the one-sided-ness, as well as the subtler complexity of the pattern.
Incidentally, this victim / blame thing is why many professionals don’t like any of these terms. Maybe we should categorise PA / Divorce Poison along with other Child Abuses which are very widely accepted … despite the term Child Abusemeaning that there is a victim and perpetrating to sort out. It is widely recognised that PA is emotional abuse of the children … if you need any proof, just look up at that 7-year old’s drawing. The implied perpetrator in PA though would need to not be just one culpable individual, not even both parents. The perpetrator in PA is a more collective adult system – a collective culpability that includes legal and other professional and social agencies too. Read the van Lawick & Visser paper for how the wider social system can actually be involved in making things better.
Anyway, here’s the less well-known papers you might miss without our familiar tag on them.
Identifying the population size of current victims, and social services community, and roles results, initiatives involved with Parental Alienation. Steps to slaying the demon, to ending Alienation. From a personal level to an effective concept we hope this video inspires an organizational confidence in the enormous community of targeted parents and extended family.
PARENTAL ALIENATION carries pretty much the same symptoms as kidnapping does… except maybe worse- this kidnapper hates the other parent. They are often jealous of the parents’ latter successes. For whatever their reasons they are using children to destroy, and the first and primary destruction is Daddy (in some cases Mommy).