Take The Bait

  1. Lawyers are predominately paid by the hour. They want you to PAY for COMMON KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION that exists within their industry while they can try to create conflict within your divorce. The scary part… only one of the two parties involved needs to “take the bait” and the other is forced to defend him/herself. Judges are lawyers elected into their respective position. Lawyers make donations into election / re-election funds of Judges. Are you aware that a Judge can continuously rule in favor of a firm and then get hired by that firm after they leave the bench? How much of this scenario defines “Justice” to you? Time=Money. Your money. The Family Court is a multi-BILLION dollar industry which goes unaudited and for the most part, unchecked.

  1. Missouri needs to proactively define it’s position for the Family Court, through law, regarding the complete protection and support of equal rights regarding the parent-child relationship before, during and after all divorce proceedings and modifications. Doing so, puts all parties “on notice” that the court will not tolerate anything but an amicable and fair solution if the case goes to trial, based on custody time requested by each party (except where certain custody restrictions are already in place due to statute).

  1. Creation of the “Fair Parent Initiative” requiring the courts to take a proactive stance to uphold the parent-child relationship with each parent through respective custody time. This includes requiring all parties involved (Spouses, Lawyers and the Judge) to sign a document explaining Missouri’s position and protection of the parent-child relationship. The document would also inform the parties of the commonly referred to “Ziegenthaler custody plan” (every other weekend, one night a week, plus holidays and vacation… etc).

Continue reading “Take The Bait”

A Neglected Public Issue

A Neglected Public Issue

The trauma of waking up without my child

afla:

American Fathers Liberation: The trauma of waking up without my child

Find Cause Bigger Than Self

About

Fighting to preserve Parent–Child relationships to improve the lives of children and strengthen society by protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation/divorce.

“Children’s Rights” is not just about Fathers, it’s also about Children, Mothers, Families, Public Advocacy, Civil Rights and Liberties. This Children’s Rights Facebook Group, Page and Cause have been created for positive outreach, networking, distribution and discussion of information related to our cause.

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
• A continuing relationship with both parents.

• Be treated not as a piece of property, but as a human being recognized to have unique feelings, ideas, and desires consistent with that of an individual.

• Continuing care and proper guidance from each parent.

• Not to be unduly influenced by either parent to view the other parent differently.

• Express love, friendship, and respect for both parents: freedom from having to hide those stated emotions or made to be ashamed of such.

• An explanation that the impending action of divorce was in no way caused by the child’s actions.

• Not to be the subject and/or source of any and all arguments.

• Continuing, honest feedback with respect to the divorce process and its impact on the changing relationships of the family.

• Maintain regular contact with both parents and a clear explanation for any change in plans and/or cancellations.

• Enjoy a pleasurable relationship with both parents, never to be employed as a manipulative bargaining tool.

• The obligation of being a parent does not end after a divorce.

It is extremely important to understand that the bond of marriage is completely different from that of parents. This is the most common downfall in today’s society, as a dissolution of marriage takes place so does that of parenting.

 

A WORD ABOUT SELF REPRESENTATION ~ The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice, or abuse.

Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right. Self-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one’s due process rights.

Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice, or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case’s outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.

Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE CITIZENS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly — with or without a lawyer.

Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living.

Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.

We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain “paid” access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.

http://www.iloveandneedmydaughter.blogspot.com

 

Be the first to know when FFCA Live opens for our National Families and Fathers 17th Annual Conference, and stay up-to-date on on other news and promotions.

This week, we will announce our full online conference schedule… Over the past several years, we hosted virtual attendees from Japan to Ireland, Pakistan to Colombia, Russia to Africa, Hawaii to Brazil, Australia to America and of over 90 nations!

2016, Can’t make it to the conference this year? No problem! You can watch every session — including Q&A’s, plenary sessions, workshops and other exclusive content — on-demand from the comfort of your office or living room…

Sign up for FFCA Live email updates and RegisterFeatures

  • High-definition live stream with pause / rewind capability
  • An archive of all your conference passes for future on-demand viewing of all sessions
  • A PDF of the official conference program guide.
  • PowerPoints from all sessions
  • Q&A for all workshops and through our eVerfication
  • Attendance Certificate

malicious-mom-syndrome-2015

contact-denial-is-child-abuse-20161

Dr. Jennifer Kane, sociologist at the University of North Carolina, discusses her recent study regarding the non-monetary support provided by low-income non-custodial fathers and how the research further debunks the deadbeat dad myth.

Title IVe Fraud Investigation Demand Letter Delivery to COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM.

no2bgreater2bheartbreak2b-2b2015

Linda Gottlieb Quote Parental Alienation - 2015

parental2balienation2baka2bchild2babuse2bis2ba2bcrime2b-2b2016

Stop Emotional Child Abuse - 2015

CONTACT DENIAL IS CHILD ABUSE - STAND UP FOR ZORAYA - 2016

Child support needs to catch up to reflect new roles for fathers, say experts

Why should a custodial parent be allowed to deny access to the other parent?

Child Visitation Hits the Internet

Fatherlessness is the root cause of at least 20 other social problems.

Children Need Both Parents

Family Court Stress Disorder (PTSD)…

Malachi’s Law ” We The Families

Stop Child Abuse for Profit Cause

A Year Without My Daughter Zoraya. Here’s to you Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr.

Would you support social security title IV D and family law reform? Asks ChangePolitics

The myth of the primary parent

It’s often said divorce brings out the worst in people. This is undoubtedly true, but in many cases well-meaning judges often inadvertently make a bad situation worse.

Two recent cases illustrate this problem. Co-Parent - 2016In the first case, a stay-at-home mother in a small town had an extra-marital affair, which led her husband to file for divorce. Their neighbors ostracized the mother to such an extent she decided to move 150 miles away and take the kids with her. Shared Parenting Train - 2015Due Process Right TFRM - 2016The father, who had been an active part of the kids’ lives, understandably didn’t want this to happen since he would now see his children only infrequently.

While the judge was very troubled by the facts before the court, the mother was allowed to move and take the kids with her.

Not only will the kids now see their father only infrequently, they also were uprooted from the only home they had known as well as from their schools, friends and extended family.

The judge’s decision relied heavily on the fact that the mother had been a stay-at-home mother and, in the judge’s eyes, had historically been the “primary” parent.Equal Parents - 2015In the second case, a military father deployed overseas returned home to discover his wife engaged in an extra-marital affair. He filed for divorce and, even though he had been an active parent, the court awarded sole custody of his children to his ex-wife. He now sees his children only every-other-weekend. The judge in this case also based his decision on the notion that the mother had historically been the “primary” parent.

Many people are troubled by these cases because it appears the guilty party was rewarded and the innocent parties wronged. The initial outcomes certainly seem unfair. However, this isn’t the worst part of these decisions. Not only are the initial outcomes unfair, these decisions put the children at risk for very negative long-term consequences.contact-denial-is-child-abuse-stand-up-for-zoraya-20161

Children affected by divorce fare worse, on average, on nearly every measure of health and emotional well-being including a greater risk of academic problems, alcohol and drug use, poor social skills, depression and suicide, delinquency and incarceration, and poorer physical health and early mortality. The reason for all this has much to do with the fact that one of the two most important people in a child’s life is often relegated to the role of an infrequent visitor, as the above examples illustrate.

This problem may have far-reaching repercussions for all of us. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook school shooter, is reported to have gone downhill when divorce separated him from his father. One leading researcher calls this issue “a serious public health problem.”

These cases are based on the myth that one parent is the primary parent.

Judges often decide cases this way even though there is no legal or mental health basis for it. More than three dozen studies over the past 20 years have found that when both parents are loving and competent, which is the case most of the time, a shared parenting arrangement — with joint decision making and near-equal parenting time — provide the best outcomes for their children.

This myth seems to have arisen from a legal presumption called the “approximation rule,” which was proposed more than 20 years ago and eventually rejected. parent_child_quality_child_parental_alienation_pas_12Nonetheless, many lawyers, psychologists and judges still follow it because of its superficial neutrality and simplicity. Like many simplistic solutions, however, it’s simply wrong.

Besides creating bad outcomes for children, the approximation rule also encourages the very thing it originally hoped to prevent — parental conflict. This pernicious myth is so destructive that many states have now moved away from it.

In Arizona, for example, that state’s custody law previously allowed judges to consider “whether one parent, both parents or neither parent has provided primary care of the child” when making custody decisions. The Arizona legislature has repealed this language and now directs courts to maximize the parenting time of both parents whenever possible.

baby-mama-2015In Nebraska, unfortunately, sole custody is still the norm. Mothers are awarded sole physical custody in 62 percent of cases and fathers in 10 percent of cases. Joint custody is awarded in only 25 percent of Nebraska divorces.

There is no legal or medical basis for the primary parent myth. Scientific research shows that every-other-weekend parenting time arrangements are harmful to children, yet they still are ordered routinely in many cases. The Legislature should stop this public health crisis and make shared parenting the norm in Nebraska as it has become in other states.

Dr. Les Veskrna is a family physician and executive director of the Children’s Rights Council of Nebraskasad_man14

Source: Local View ~ The myth of the primary parent – Opinion

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Why won’t the Judge let me see my Daddy

I Love You Zoey - 2016

Can a Custodial Parent Ever Deny Visitation?

Visitation rights are taken seriously by courts, as it is generally felt that it is in the best interest of the child to spend time with both parents. Because of the importance that courts place on the child’s best interest when determining custody arrangements, child visitation rights can rarely, if ever be legally denied by the custodial parent.Project Fatherhood FL 6- 2015

The denial of child visitation rights are most commonly thought of as situations in which a custodial parent blatantly refuses to allow the non-custodial parent to see the child. A typical example of this scenario would be when the custodial parent, who has full custody of the son, refuses to let the son get into his other parent’s car when arrangements were made to come to pick him up for his visitation period. However, visitation rights can also be illegally denied in more subtle ways.2015-02-05 22.40.38

Facebook.com/StandupforZoraya
Facebook.com/StandupforZoraya

For example, it is also illegal for a custodial parent to refuse visitation rights on the basis that they don’t like the non-custodial parent’s significant other; the child is sick; the child is visiting relatives; the child is out of town or at another scheduled activity; or for almost any other basis. Further, in cases where there is an emergency just before a scheduled visitation, such as when the child must be taken to the hospital, the noncustodial parent should be notified so that they may visit the child there.

Can visitation be denied to a non-custodial parents?

A denial of visitation rights by the custodial parent to a non-custodial parent, absent a change in an existing court order for visitation rights, is illegal. This is true both in situations in which the parents have agreed on a parenting plan outside of court, and in situations in which scheduled visitation has been ordered by the court. The legal phrase for this scenario is called frustration of child visitation rights, and in many states this can be cause to change the court-ordered child custody arrangement and hold the custodial parent in contempt of court.

What if the Non-Custodial Parent is Behind on Support Payments?

No you can't see your daughter - 2016

Continue reading “Why won’t the Judge let me see my Daddy”

Grandparents Need Access Too

Alienated Grandparents - 2015

A denial of visitation rights by the custodial parent to a non-custodial parent, absent a change in an existing court order for visitation rights, is illegal. This is true both in situations in which the parents have agreed on a parenting plan outside of court, and in situations in which scheduled visitation has been ordered by the court. The legal phrase for this scenario is called frustration of child visitation rights, and in many states this can be cause to change the court-ordered child custody arrangement and hold the custodial parent in contempt of court.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In its 1979 parental rights decision Parham v. J.R., the United States Supreme Court declared,

“The law’s concept of the family rests on the presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.”Unfortunately, a bill recently passed by the New Jersey legislature completely throws out this presumption.

Assembly bill 3435 (A3435), “The Boys and Girls Clubs Keystone Law,” adds to New Jersey law that “when a minor believes that he or she is in need of behavioral health care services for the treatment of mental illness or emotional disorders, the minor’s consent to treatment…shall be valid and binding as if the minor had achieved the age of majority.”

This is scary enough if it puts a 16- or 17-year-old in the position to make such a serious and difficult health decision. But under this irresponsible bill, a child of any age could give legally binding consent for such treatments. There is no requirement for parental consent or even notification – for any child!

Of course, when we learned of A3435 we urged New Jersey supporters to call for its defeat and, more recently, for Governor Christie to veto it. So far, he has not done so.

Sadly, this bill reflects the growing dangerous trend of cutting parents out of the lives of their children. The new “wisdom” seems to hold that children are best left up to government experts or, barring that, their own devices.

It is the same argument used by the internationalists who push for the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). They argue for children’s rights to make their own decisions and not be “burdened” by the superior wisdom and experience of their parents.

But that isn’t really the way life works. At some point, that decision is going to be made by an adult, whether it is the parent or an agent of the state.

The Parham Court recognized that dichotomy. “Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child, or because it involves risks, does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from parents to some agency or officer of the state,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the Court. “Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments” (emphasis added).

The internationalists recognize the dichotomy, too – and simply hope the rest of us don’t notice. In speaking of the CRC’s “best interest of the child” provision, international legal scholar and CRC advocate Geraldine Van Bueren writes, Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents’, providing it is based on considerations of the best interest of the child.”

So if the parents and the child disagree in court, the judge gets to make the final call – not the child. What’s more, under the “best interest” principle, the judge still gets to make the call even if the parent and child agree with each other, but happen to both disagree with the state.

In neither system, then, does the child get to make his own decisions. He lacks the mental and emotional capacity to do so. In the traditional American system, the parents are the safeguard to fill that lack and protect their child. In the new internationalist norm, the State is responsible to second-guess the child “for his own good.”

A3435 claims to let the child stand or fall completely on his own. But at some point, unless we protect the traditional role of parents, it will be an agent of the State who ultimately gets to decide. We agree with Chief Justice Burger: “Parents can and must make those judgments.”purple keyboard - A

Action Items

If you live in New Jersey, please take a moment to read our action alert here andcall on Governor Christie to veto this dangerous legislation.

And wherever you live, plan now to participate in National Parental Rights Week beginning July 20. To take part, plan with your family or friends how you can fill up one petition sheet (just 16 signatures!) of new supporters of the Parental Rights effort. Will you host a car wash? A barbecue? Or maybe just go door-to-door? Maybe you can reach out to folks at church, or sign up other parents of your child’s summer sports team.

However you choose to join in, know that standing together we can protect children – like those in New Jersey – by empowering parents to make those hard decisions with them and on their behalf. Parents, not bureaucrats, will best decide what is right for their child.

Thank you for standing with us in this all-important battle!

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

Parental Alienation

PAS petition to Scottish Executive by UKMM Chairman George McAulay has prompted the following article in the The Sunday Herald. Unfortunately, even though Neil Mackay of The Sunday Herald has produced a very good article he has failed to put the credits were credits are due, to George McAulay and UKMM for initiating the petition:

New law to stop divorcing parents turning children against each other

http://www.sundayherald.com/25120 2nd June 2002

Scottish parliament to amend Family Law Bill after a 13-year-old hires an advocate in fight to see her sisters
By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor

AT first Megan seems like any other 13-year-old girl from a middle-class home. She’s pretty, but a little conscious of the braces on her teeth, has a taste for tracksuits and trainers and tends to look a bit peeved with her dad, Jack, when he interrupts her.

Megan, however, is no ordinary teenager. Although she…

View original post 6,288 more words

I have seen the worst of Parental Alienation

Sometimes when parents are divorced or unmarried parents are no longer together, one parent decides that she does not want the child‘s other parent in his life. She may go to vast lengths to turn the child against his other parent by telling lies, denying visitation and convincing the child he doesn’t need his other parent. This is called parental alienation syndrome. The effects of this can be damaging to children and may be very difficult to reverse.

Having had my Sons withheld from 19th September 2007 till 15th February 2012 I have seen the worst of Parental Alienation! During 2012 I have sought to rekindle my relationship with my Sons now aged 16 and 13 and believe me it ain’t easy!
  • Encourage the child to talk about how she feels about the alienated parent. Listen for words or terms that are not typically used by children, such as words beyond their vocabulary level and those that are likely to have originated with the alienating parent. Statements such as “he touched me inappropriately” or “she abused me” are examples. Young children, especially, do not commonly use words such as “inappropriately” or “abused” without being taught them specifically.
  • Ask him why he feels that way about the alienated parent and when he began to feel that way. Use his answers to determine the cause of these feelings to determine whether he has been coached by the alienating parent. For instance, if the child claims that he is afraid his father will hurt him, ask him why. If he cannot give an answer, lead him gently by asking more direct questions, such as whether his father has ever been hit him before and if not, why he thinks it is possible now. If a child cannot answer these questions or seems confused, parental alienation is likely the cause.
  • Give the child examples of how his alienated parent has been there for him and done nice things for him. Show him that the alienated parent really does love him and wants to be a part of his life by showing him pictures of him with the alienated parent and projects they did together. He may have been told that the alienated parent doesn’t care about him, love him or want to see him.
  • Approach the alienating parent for help if you feel she will cooperate. Some parents do not realize what they are doing and if you approach the subject, they may be willing to change and help. Let her know what the consequences of parental alienation can be and ask her to help the child develop a good relationship with his other parent.
  • Allow the child to spend time with his alienated parent without interference from the other parent. This includes no phone calls or emails during the visitation. If the child can spend time alone with the alienated parent, he may change his mind on his own.
  • Seek out the help of a professional who specializes in parental alienation. You may need to search around a bit to find a therapist willing to take on a parental alienation case, but a therapist may be necessary in extreme cases when nothing else has worked. The therapist often sees the alienated parent and the child together to gauge their interactions and to help the child speak to the alienated parent. The therapist leads the discussion and helps the alienated parent show the child that he loves her and that they were once happy together. The therapist is also likely to hold individual sessions with each parent and with the child. However, unlike typical therapy, the therapist must be firm and forceful in his approach to effectively reverse the effects of parental alienation. The therapist will also use a combination of reasoning and emotional exploration to get through to the child.
  • Petition the court to remove the child from the custody of the alienating parent if the case is severe and it seems as though the alienating parent is not going to change. In some cases, the alienating parent has so much control over the child that no amount of help can reverse the effects as long as that parent is in the picture. This step should only be taken as a last resort, and there is no guarantee that the court will agree to remove the alienating parent from the child’s life completely.

References

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Other People Are Reading

Parental Alienation

Criteria for Differentiating Between PAS and Bona Fide Abuse-Neglect in Children

Inducing a PAS in a child is a form of abuse. After all, it can result in the attentuation and even permanent destruction of the psychological bond between loving parents and their children. It is a form of emotional abuse, however, that is different from physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse. Here the term abuse will generally refer to physical abuse and, to a lesser degree, sexual abuse. Included also in such abuse would be such behaviors as frequent menacing, threatening, hovering, and other forms of child intimidation.

Taken from DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME AND BONA FIDE ABUSE-NEGLECT

View original post

Brainwashing Children In Parental Alienation

Brainwashing Children Parental Alienation - 2016Brainwashing in Custody Cases:
The Parental Alienation Syndrome

by Kenneth Byrne

Introduction

Parental Alienation Kidnapping the Mind of a Child - 2016Divorce is one of the most stressful experiences that most people in our culture will experience in a lifetime. It is often accompanied by strong feelings of bitterness, betrayal, anger and distrust of the former partner. Each party often feels that they are “right” in many of their views on issues about which the couple disagree. When they have children the picture becomes infinitely more complicated. Among many other reactions, there is often a tendency for each partner to want the support or agreement of the child (or children) on critical issues. The more difficulty and intensity of negative feeling between the two adults, the more likely is this to be the case.

In some cases, the desire to have the agreement of the child can become strong enough to verge into brainwashing. By brainwashing I mean an effort on one parent‘s part to get the child to give up his or her own positive perceptions of the other parent and change them to agree with negative views of the influencing parent. At this intensity the motivation of the parent goes beyond simply getting the agreement and support of the children. Commonly, brainwashing parents are motivated by an opportunity to wreak a powerful form of revenge on the other parent -diminishing the affections of the children.

Typical examples include mentioning obvious weaknesses of the other parent and blaming those as the major source of difficulty between the parents. Nothing is said about the other parent’s positive traits. The fact that both parents have contributed to the problem is also omitted.

This kind of communication has at least two psychologically destructive effects. First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who is the preferred parent. No matter what choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, what the child wants and needs is to continue a relationship with each parent, as independent as possible from their own conflicts.Parental Alienation is a CRIME STOP THE HATE- 2015

Second, the child is required to make a shift in assessing reality. One parent is presented as being totally to blame for all problems, and as someone who is devoid of any positive characteristics. Both of these assertions represent one parent’s distortions of reality. It is as if the child walks outside on a sunny day in summer clothes, and feels quite comfortable. Then one parent says, “Billy, it’s raining right now, and it’s cold. You have to wear a raincoat and jumper”. To appease that parent. the child must act in accordance with that statement, and bend his own perceptions of reality.

Some may argue that such behavior is simply accommodating to the directions of a parent, something that children have to do all the time. However, in healthy interactions, the child is encouraged to accept a view of reality that is both accurate and adaptive. (“I know you don’t want to study, but unless you do you might very well fail the test.”)

Adults in the midst of a divorce are not famous for their objectivity, especially regarding their spouse. Typically, over weeks, months and years, the child is exposed to a long series of such distortions. In many cases, directly opposite information is being presented by the other parent. Children caught in this cross-fire inevitably end up with a significant degree of psychological disturbance, not the least of which is a distortion in basic reality testing about the world around them.

In divorces where the parents are unable to find any way to mediate the questions of custody and access, they typically turn to the legal system. In most cases, each seeks the advice of their own solicitor, setting in motion a legal duel. One of the effects of this duel is that each parent senses the need for a list of “horror stories” about the other. The intuitive feeling is that if it can be shown that the other parent is “worse” through a longer and more vivid list of horror stories, then “victory” in the form of physical custody (or greater access in some cases) will be won.

persuasive-rhetoric-parental-alienation12The Parental Alienation Syndrome

In cases of contested custody and access, mental health professionals have been seeing with increasing frequency an extreme form of brainwashing which has been called The Parental Alienation Syndrome (originally described by Dr. Richard Gardner, “Recent Developments in Child Custody Litigation”, The Academy Forum Vol. 29 No. 2: The American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1985). Children who are suffering with this situation have been subjected to an intense and persistent form of brainwashing by one parent against the other. The overt goal is almost always – at a minimum – to dramatically reduce contact by the child with that other parent. Commonly, the goal becomes to virtually eliminate the other parent from the child’s life.

Example: Mrs. Litigious complained to her solicitor that her two children, aged five and eight, kept refusing to see their father on access visits, and that with each passing week, they became more tearful and resistant as the visit approached. She wondered whether the mid-week visit couldn’t be reduced to every second or third week, or eliminated altogether, in order “to spare the kids all this pressure”.

Mrs. Litigious had been married to her first husband, Mr. Cross, for ten years. She divorced four years ago, and is now remarried to Mr. Litigious. The solicitor asked for consultation from a forensic psychologist, Dr. Neutral.

Mr. Cross, father of both children, complained to his solicitor that his former wife was making it increasingly difficult to see his children. It started with him being kept waiting for increasingly longer periods of time when he would pick them up. Recently they had been pouting and saying he was “mean”, with the younger echoing the older’s complaints. On weekend visits this would last through Friday night and Saturday morning. By lunch time, both children began to seem happier, and the rest of the visit would go fine, until the drive back to mum’s house. At this point the kids would again begin to disparage the father, saying for example, “We don’t really like you – we only pretended to have a good time”.

During his first visit with Dr. Neutral, Joe Cross, aged 8, said that he disliked his father very much, and did not want to seek him as often. When questioned about his reasons for this, he said “He hits me and doesn’t let me watch television”. The youngster could say nothing positive about his father, yet found a wide variety of praises for mum, with virtually no complaints about her.

Lisa Cross, age 5, virtually echoed her brother’s words. Her reasons for not wanting to see her father were that “When I go there he justs sits around and he makes me cook dinner!” She too could find nothing positive about father, and had no complaints at all about mother.

In a joint visit with father and the two children, Joe’s complaints were aired. Mr. Cross readily acknowledged that what his son had said was correct, but put it in further context. He limited television to two hours, and made Joe stop when that time was up. On a recent Saturday morning, Joe had balked at this limit, an argument developed, and father slapped him once on the bottom.

In individual visits it soon became clear that Mrs. Litigious despised her former husband. Since the initial separation there had been a continuing feud, with bitter accusations on both sides. She argued strongly that whilst she encouraged and even forced her children to accept access visits, it was they who were now reluctant and unwilling. Her proposed solution was less access time. Her husband, when seen alone, echoed her bitterness. In his opinion it would be better for the children to never see their father, since he had no positive virtues whatever.

Psychological evaluation of Mr. Cross indicated that he was an argumentative and rigid man, who many would see as being somewhat difficult to deal with. He was also seen as a quite adequate father, who offered his children a good deal of love and support, and who was deeply attached to them.

Evaluation of Mrs. Cross found her to be a devoted and competent mother, but a rather immature woman, prone to let her emotions override her judgement.

In a report tendered to the court and to all parties, Dr. Neutral made the diagnosis of Parental Alienation Syndrome, and made specific recommendations for resolution of the matter.

This case illustrates all of the diagnostic symptoms of this disorder in its fully developed form. These symptoms are:

  1. The child shows a complete lack of ambivalence one parent is described almost entirely negatively, the other almost entirely positively;

  2. The reasons given for the dislike of one parent may appear to be justified, but investigation shows them to be flimsy and exaggerated; with younger children, the reasoning is even more transparent;

  3. The child proffers the opinion of wanting less contact with one parent in a way which requires little or no prompting. The complaints have a quality of being rehearsed or practised;

  4. The child seems to show little or no concern for the feelings of the parent being complained about;

  5. The alienating parent, while seemingly acting in the best interests of the children, is actually working to destroy the relationship between them and the other parent. It is not uncommon for this to be further fuelled by new spouses or de factos;

  6. Most importantly, while the children will verbally denigrate one parent, they retain an unspoken closeness and affection for that parent. However, if the syndrome is allowed to develop unchecked, this can be all but erased by the alienating parent.

These symptoms are seen exclusively in children where parents are engaged in a legal battle for custody or access. The more protracted and bitter the dispute, the more this is likely to occur.

The Parental Alienation Syndrome represents the intertwining of a complex series of factors. It certainly goes well beyond simple brainwashing. It is begun and propelled by a host of factors in the alienating parent, including both unconscious and subconscious elements. The child, independent of the brainwashing parent, can have a vested interest in maintaining an overt position against one parent for both conscious and unconscious reasons.

The case above describes the syndrome in a relatively “pure” form. More often, the case is complicated by a host of other factors. For example, allegations of child sexual abuse are being lodged with increasing frequency during custody battles. Often the child will report details of how the other parent (usually the father) has abused the child. Some of these claims are legitimate; many more are manifestations of this syndrome embedded in charges of abuse. Kidnapping of children, often across state or national borders, is being reported with increasing frequency; (speaking at The Bicentenary Family Law Conference at Melbourne in March, 1988, Lawrence Stotter provided the following figures. Between 1973 and 1979, 85 cases of international child abduction were reported to the United States Consular Affairs Office. For the years 1983 to 1988, this figure had jumped to 1,516). On top of the web of legal challenges which these cases present, there is the added element of this syndrome operative in most, if not all, cases.judge You Failed - CRBlog2016

Professional Misjudgement

I have encountered several cases in which mental health professionals have allowed themselves to become embroiled in these scenarios without appreciating what they were dealing with.

Case 1: At the request of the court, a psychiatrist, Dr. Eager, conducted a custody evaluation concerning Mary, age 6. After one interview with each parent, he recommended that the father have custody and the mother be granted limited access. The court followed this recommendation. The mother lodged an appeal against this decision. After the court made its initial decision, the father asked the psychiatrist to accept his daughter for treatment. Dr. Eager agreed, seeing the girl once weekly with occasional visits with father. However, he did not involve mother in the treatment, and neither father nor Dr. Eager even told her the daughter was being treated.

During the next hearing, the father produced a letter from Dr. Eager which indicated that he was now treating Mary. His letter described how the child told him how frightened she was of her mother, and quoted the girl, then aged six, reporting memories from when she was three about how her mother had hit her. He concluded that “In my opinion Mary’s emotional state is still not stable enough to allow her to have access to her mother. I cannot estimate how long it will be before the child would be well enough to begin any sort of regular access.” He then commented that “If access must commence, I believe it would be best done in a supervised setting with an independent third party, such as a representative from the State social work department.”

Here Dr. Eager treats a child without involving the mother, whom he has already met. He accepts unquestioningly the memory of a six year old of events she couldn’t possibly recall, and overlooks any possibility of programming of the child by the father. Perhaps most importantly, based on only one interview with mother, he concludes that the child is too unstable to visit her.

Several questions could be posed. If the mother is so destructive and frightening, wouldn’t a natural part of the treatment be the re-uniting of the mother and child in a safe, controlled environment, such as the therapist’s office, where there would also be an opportunity to explore more carefully her parenting ability? If deficiencies were found, wouldn’t it help the child to have the therapist teach the mother how to parent this girl more effectively? Finally, how can one treat a six year old without involving the mother?

Case 2: A mother brought her two children, aged 5 and 7, to the family GP and described how reluctant they were to see their father during access visits. The doctor provided a letter to the mother’s solicitor which said “I have interviewed Billy and Sally at 2:10 pm in my surgery. I have a videotape of the interview if required.

“Both children have indicated they do not wish to see their father. It is my opinion that it is the individual and personal wish of Billy and Sally to decline their father’s access. It is also my professional opinion that if such access were granted it would be detrimental to the welfare of the children.”

The doctor accepted at face value the statements made by the mother and children. Without consulting the father, who was known to him, he offered this professional opinion to the solicitor for one side. His reasoning appears to be that these children of five and seven are able to determine a matter of the magnitude of whether or not it is in their best interest to visit and thereby maintain a relationship with their father.

In each of these cases a medical professional, using the weight of that authority, offered a written opinion for one parent’s “cause” without a careful assessment of the other parent or of the underlying situation between the couple. As closely as I can determine, both professionals seemed well motivated, though naive. In my opinion, their efforts only aggravated already difficult situations. Each seemed to be led into this error by being manoeuvred by one party into becoming an advocate for one side, instead of serving as an impartial examiner.Fight Against The Family Court System - 2015

Guidelines for Solicitors

  1. When faced with parents or children who want to reduce or eliminate access visits, maintain a healthy degree of scepticism. Remember that even children who have unquestionably been physically or sexually abused are usually extremely reluctant to discuss this with a stranger. When a child easily volunteers mostly negative criticisms to a solicitor, mental alarm bells should go off.

  2. Do everything possible to hear both sides of the story. This requires remaining more flexible on occasion. Legal training is designed to instil an adversarial spirit, and parents who use children in this way can quickly stir up one’s “mental juices” to “fight for this child”. To hear both sides of a story doesn’t mean that you can’t be adversarial later, if need be. Try to arrange a without prejudice round table conference of the parties and their solicitors.

  3. Chose experts who insist on being involved only as an impartial examiner from the outset. Such experts are less likely to be drawn into becoming advocates. Selecting these people means that you risk getting an opinion . on which doesn’t favour your client, and perhaps losing the fight the client is paying you to win. However, it greatly enhances the possibility that you will obtain an opinion which is genuinely in the best interests of the child. Should the opinion favour your client, the evidence of such an expert is far more likely to be found credible by the judge.

  4. Use courtroom litigation only as a very last resort. Litigation is psychologically damaging to children. The more times that the couple goes to court, the more damage is done to children. Aren’t there times when court is the only answer? Yes, but they aren’t nearly as frequent as the number of cases which actually end up in court.

  5. Consider alternative solutions to the courtroom. When the couple will agree to counselling, this is obviously the preferred solution. However, by the time the couple reaches solicitors, the likelihood of their selecting such a recommendation is only modest. A thorough evaluation by a truly impartial examiner often helps to settle cases before getting to court. Another option is court-ordered counselling, to which all parties agree. To be successful, certain prerequisites are essential. The plan must have the support of both solicitors. Certain changes to the usual rules of confidentiality need to be agreed upon in writing. The therapist must be able to see all parties in whatever combination is considered warranted. New spouses or de factos must be available for involvement. The therapist must have sufficient time to work with the family – these cases aren’t worked out in just a couple of visits. It is not essential that the parties want counselling. It is only essential that they agree to a court order, and that they see this as being preferable to a courtroom battle.

Conclusion

The Parental Alienation Syndrome represents an extreme form of brainwashing of children by one parent. It is always seen in the context of disputed custody or access situations. The goal of the brainwashing parent is to get revenge. There is no greater revenge than blocking the other parent from playing a meaningful role in the child’s life. The syndrome has clear signs and symptoms and, with appropriate procedures, can be diagnosed and treated. This syndrome is also seen in more complex forms, when it is embedded in situations of alleged child sexual abuse or child kidnapping. It can easily be misdiagnosed by professionals who have not educated themselves about these situations, and misguided efforts at helping can worsen an already bad situation.

Dr. Byrne is a clinical and forensic psychologist in full time private practice in Clifton Hill, Victoria, and is an Honorary Lecturer in the Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash University.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Parental Alienation

Brainwashing children is a crime executed by a dysfunctional parent willing to strip children  of their self- esteem to accomplish  their own revenge against an ex-lover. Those of us impacted by Parental Alienation know that memories can be changed.  We have seen it happen. We have helplessly watched as our children’s self-identity is vengefully pulled from them, twisted, manipulated, and reprogrammed until a new person emerges that is consumed by hate.

Parents and children are both victims of mind manipulation by an ex-spouse obsessed with revenge and a burning need to assuage their injured ego.  They are motivated by avenging their sense of abandonment and their narcissistic need for adoration.

We have lived with our children and powerlessly experienced the deterioration of our loving bonds.  But, we rarely know why and how hate replaces the familial love that had always defined our relationship.  The complete reversal would seem unimaginable  if…

View original post 617 more words

Never Stop Fighting

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Petition for Family Law Reform, each year parents both mothers and fathers are denied contact to their children by an unjust system, we thank you for your continued support and hope that one day we will achieve a fairer family law system in which the best interests of the children are taken into consideration, where we hope to end the rulings on false allegations, where we hope parental alienation will be acknowledged and a system is put into place so that this can no longer take place unpunished, where contempt of court is stamped out in the first instance, please support, like and share this page and together we can make a difference.

The Time is Now for Change!

We need stronger legislation that protects the rights of our most precious and vulnerable resources: Our children.

The Family Court System is failing to protect our children. Each year, countless children are sent into unsupervised visitation, or worse, with an abusive or personality disordered parent. The most tragic cases involve situations where the protective parent is demonized and custody is awarded to the offender.

How do we know unequivocally that this happens? Each year, more and more children are coming forward to report about how the system has failed to protect them. The Courageous Kids Network is but one of the groups that offers a voice to these victims. Some studies have estimates as many as 58,000 children each year suffer due to our broken family court system.

In a recent Tn Appellate Court Decision, state Judges have ruled that a “trial court is not obligated to consider all of the (best interest) factors” when making an initial determination of child custody. They also went on to say that it is okay for the trial court to consider a parent’s right to a relationship with the child as being more important than any other factor. This is true, even when there is irrefutable evidence of abuse and mental illness.

This is a call to our legislature to enact bills that will protect our children. It is a call for disambiguation of the law and Justice!Legislative Support - 2016

1. Judges and Attorney’s need mandatory education about personality disorders and a child’s age appropriate developmental needs- particularly Antisocial and Narcissistic since these are the most damaging to children.
2. A Trial court should be mandated to consider ALL statutory factors in weighing a child’s best interests.
3. A trial court must place child welfare above parental rights.
4. The law should require that a judge must articulate how he weighed each factor in determining custody. It is not just protective parents who take an issue with this- many attorney’s and appellate court judges would like to see this happen.

Double Standards in Family Courts - 2016Political freedom does not have age limit

What makes the United States a harbinger of freedom that has beckoned millions of immigrants and continues to summon millions more? It is our system of government, which is fundamentally based on our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

Which is why I am deeply concerned about an international treaty called the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. If this treaty is ratified, all children younger than 18 would not be allowed to participate in political activities. It is, therefore, an abridgement to their First Amendment right!

This fact was illustrated recently in a speech made during World Children’s Day and Child Rights Week 2009 by Sheikh Hasina, prime minister of Bangladesh, in which she said, “Children would be aware of politics but should not be used in political activities.” Bangladesh is a country that has already embraced this seemingly harmless treaty, which when looked at more closely, actually supersedes the political freedom of anyone 18 and younger. Whether that’s attending a political rally or a city council meeting, American children’s right to political free speech would be stymied if this treaty is passed. The only way to prevent this from happening is by passing the Parental Rights amendment to our Constitution. This amendment already has 120 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives! I would like to encourage all of you to investigate this issue for yourselves and find out more about the Parental Rights amendment because political freedom does not have an age limit!

Deidra McCall,
communication studies department,
Colorado State University
FILED UNDER – Opinion Letters at http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20091012/OPINION03/910120306/1014/OPINION/Political+freedom+does+not+have+age+limit

Over the years I have been most inspired by the work of Omar and David Inguanzo from their group Children’s Rights and would call o all like mined folk to join us and make the break through 3000th member by this Easter!

I am also honoured to be regarded as a cause leader within the group.purple keyboard - A

A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
“A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.” ~ MLK Jr.

Along with other campaigners such as Donald Tenn, David Carlin, Anthony Lemons, Second Class Citizen.org and many more who know the massive challenges that still lie ahead through out the USA. Here in the UK there seems a modest groundswell towards reform and feel I would like to see this hope extended to other associated fighting for justice in Family Courts and reforming child welfare organisations to start acting as they are expected to !

www.facebook.com/events/1301235423269917/

Along with everyone throughout the USA I would call on those in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Greece…….and beyond to use this group as an umbrella organisation to promote our causes generate information not only among ourselves but that can be lobbied through the media , local and national press and radio ,and onto our reluctant political masters!
I am Half of You - 2016

Fighting to preserve Parent–Child relationships to improve the lives of children and strengthen society by protecting the child’s right to the love and care of both parents after separation/divorce… See More

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS - CAUSES - MAIN - 2015Children’s Rights – Causes.com

Which presidential candidate is best for dads?

Few social policies seem to do as much universal good as paid paternity leave: Study after study has shown that when a father plays an active role in a child’s early years, he or she will end up healthier, achieve greater academic success, and even make more…Read More

Fatherlessness is associated with almost every societal ill facing our country’s children.

An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father. We asked Democratic and Republican Primary Candidates ~ How can you address the fatherlessness epidemic? ~ Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39 percent (17.7 million) live in…Read More

Children are being ripped from the arms of fit and loving parents by Family Courts!

The Family Court System in our country is failing our children at an alarming rate, children are being ripped from the arms of fit and loving parents every minute of every day, all to fill the pockets of the “system!” Judicial Kidnapping is rapid, CPS has…Read More

Children Deserve Two Parents.

Divorce should not alienate children from either parent, absent proven legitimate abuse. Children with involved parents do better in school, less likely to get into trouble. Being a single parent is difficult work, 2 parents allow for both parents time…Read More

Someday Family Court Systems will be free of gender bias and free of the financial corruption inherent in Title IV-D

Bias and abuse of discretion cannot be tolerated when it comes to the “Best Interest” of our children. More eyes are needed on the Judges to ensure they are doing the work of the Court, any nothing more. Reform is needed on many levels, especially in the…Read More

The Family Court System is failing to protect our children.

1. Judges and Attorney’s need mandatory education about personality disorders and a child’s age appropriate developmental needs- particularly Antisocial and Narcissistic since these are the most damaging to children. 2. A Trial Court should be mandated to…Read More

Make Family Justice Reform a Key Election Issue throughout the United States using the media to win public opinion and to lobby the politicians.

Why do we remove fit parents from the lives of children every day? Is it because the Courts have remained stuck in outmoded thoughts or is it because we have a current system of law that punishes fit parents for no wrong doing? A single question that has…Read More

sad_man1

Child Custody Arrangements News

fight1fight2fight3fight4fight5fight6

Never Give Up On Your Child.  They Need You In Their Life. 

child custody arrangements

View original post