Judge Sol Gothard on Family Court Corruption & PAS - Parental Alienation Syndrome

 

The Lucrative Business of Court Whores

Court Sanctioned Child Abuse

I found the transcription below while doing some research about parental alienation and child abuse.  I do not know any of the individuals involved in this meeting, so I have taken the liberty of x’ing out the names to protect their identities.  This meeting was several years ago, so I doubt attempting contact for permission to use this would be fruitful.  For the same reason I am not providing a link to the original document in which this segment is located.

I chose the below to highlight that protective parents have been fighting this battle for several years.  This is not something new.  Family Courts have been sentencing young children to lives of hell for far too long and nothing seems to be being done to put a stop to this.

Ordinary, everyday, citizen’s (for the most part) are not even aware that such atrocities are taking place in the judicial buildings that we as a society pay for with our tax dollars.  Most people never realize that child are being handed over to abusive criminals; until it happens in their small sphere of being.  Then it is an outrage for a time and they resume life eventually, never to think of it again.

Protective parents don’t get that luxury, if you will, to go on about life as if their children were not ripped away from them and handed to the very person that has abused them.  Those children don’t get the luxury of going on about their lives in a safe, loving and well cared for existence.

I ask you to read the below testimony and think about it.  What would you do in this situation?  What are you going to do now that you know this is happening to children around the world?  Will this be one more piece of information that you will half-way process and go back to life as usual; not to think of again...until it happens to you or someone you know?

 

Ms. XXXX XXXX (Nemesis Network): Good afternoon.

This committee has a wondrous responsibility and a magnificent possibility to relieve the silent agony of millions of Canadians. I wish you tremendous success.

I was savagely attacked and viciously beaten by my husband. He sodomized my baby girls. He cruelly and severely abused my son. He blew up pets with rifles in front of my tiny children. He shot at my son and pets and farm animals with an air pellet gun. He attacked men, got into fights, took drugs, smoked marijuana, and entered and stole from cottages.

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): Is all that material in a case report? It's in the context under which we meet. Can you give us that reference?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: Yes. I have to finish the paragraph.

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): It's better to give the reference and then you can finish the paragraph.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: This is my case.

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): Have you the name of the case and the jurisdiction in which it took place?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: The judicial jurisdiction is Terrebonne. I don't have the number of the case with me.

Committee Member 1 XXXX XXXX: It's just for the record.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: The divorce judgment?

Committee Member 1 XXXX XXXX: No, your case. So-and-so versus whom?

Ms. XXXX XXX: XXXX v. XXXXX. Sorry about that.

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): That's fine. When you make this kind of statement, we need to know that it's on the record.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: I understand.

Committee Member 2 XXXX XXXX: Is what you have just stated on the court record?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: Some of it.

Committee Member 2 XXXX XXXX: Please limit your comments to what was on the court record.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: Okay. I will eliminate anything that is not on the court record.

I made my first call to the police in early 1979. We subsisted with a cruel terrorist. I don't know why we didn't all die. But here I am, and what I need you to understand is that my story is the story of millions of muted mothers and silent children. Because I didn't die, I have an awesome responsibility to make audible our souls' silent screams.

The majority of even minimally decent and responsible parents recognize the crucial importance of nurturing the young. It is the child abusers and wife beaters who most frequently sue for and often receive custody of or generous access to their small victims.

The most brutal abusers live in families scared to death of their terrorists. No one tells. It would be worth their lives or that of their protective parents. Often the most severe abusers become known only after the death of the protective parent and/or the children. The rest and those who report are silenced and live a noxious existence, for the destruction pervades every aspect and detail of a lifetime. This is the legacy of sanctioned abuse under our present laws.

Of course, I lost custody. My xxx tiny hurt girls were wrenched from their protective parent and sent to live with their abuser. He subsequently disappeared with them. They are registered in the Canadian registry of disappeared children.

I cannot imagine a surer way to destroy children and their mothers. I cannot imagine a greater cruelty or a more unnatural behaviour than to destroy the young of a species and the mothers who bear them. This is a tactic of war.

Protective parents who stay alive exist in society-imposed exile and poverty, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible and attempting to survive the horrendous agony of knowing what their children are enduring. It is hard for decent people—and most of us are—to imagine that a human could so choose to destroy and dehumanize their own children and their mothers. Many if not most of us naturally recoil and choose to believe more comfortable and frequently dangerous theories. The mind cannot accept what the soul cannot imagine. In our inability to confront ugly realities, we actually promote and sanction reprehensible child exploitation and abuse.

I have used an example to explain a point I want to make. Do I need to refer also...?

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): What point do you want to...?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: At one point, having once again managed to get an appointment with the head of the local youth protection team, the man accusingly and acidly spat at me, “You are obsessed”. At the time, I did not take it as a compliment but rather as evidence of his madness and hatred for children. Now I also see his comment as a compliment, for his statement placed me firmly in the camp of the civilized and he solidly with the savages.

Abused children and their protective parents in custody and access wars are forced to deal with the savagery of ignorance as well as the continued and escalated terrorism of the abuser. Although one cannot ensure an acceptable level of evolution in all who are in contact with children, one can mandate careful selection and appropriate ongoing training for all those who are and will be involved in deciding the fate of children in custody and access cases. Solutions are there, but one cannot begin to implement solutions unless a problem is perceived.

Inform the public with media presentations, for example, as they are doing now in the United States. There must be an immediate way to exclude those who are suffering from criminal ignorance and vested interests that have to do with exploitation and not nurture. They must be removed so as not to continue their contribution to the carnage.

Government must accelerate this evolutionary process by immediately instigating leadership in law-making and mandatory policy regulation that responds to the reality of desperate need and provides redress for those victims who never lost all hope.

Without retroactivity and accountability, the revictimization is lifelong and the perpetrators escalate and continue their reign of terror with the unwitting sanction of much of society.

Ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed by Canada in 1989. Mandate the selection of those who can learn with their soul's mind. Provide mandatory ongoing training and education for those who have been chosen. Create ethics codes and protocols and write them into nationwide laws. Make all laws and policies subject to scrutiny and accountability. Do all this and more retroactively and swiftly. Then Canada may begin to slow the heinous destruction and redress some incomprehensible wrongs.

Facilitate and accelerate the process by adapting programs already used in other countries. Inform the public of all changes and services available. Change existing laws and change the words. “Custody” and “access” are property law terms. The terms “best interests of children” and “friendly parent” are problematic. A protective parent, usually a mother, is most reasonably unwilling to send her traumatized children to spend weekends and more with their rapist/terrorist/abuser. Judges, lawyers, psychologists, social workers and others frequently interpret this sane reticence as unwillingness to cooperate and a desire to hurt the man, and so judges give children in custody cases to the perpetrators of terrible crimes.

Examine related laws. Privacy acts maintain the secret of abuse. Streamline and coordinate the fragmented and often fractious systems, courts and agencies. Increase and implement sanctions. Perpetrators abuse and continue because they can.

Expedite all changes. Speed is essential. Traumatized babies become lost children, tormented teens and agonized adults in the wink of an eye. Why not create a parallel system using existing resources, and the second there is even a hint of abuse this system swings into action?

Without laws there can be no justice—

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): Are you just about at the end?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: Yes.

Without laws there can be no justice, but if there is no justice, can we say we have laws? When the laws of society do not allow justice and even promote injustice, the law of the jungle fills the void.

It has often been suggested that if one is not able to face one's own past one will be consumed by it. This is the responsibility that Canada must immediately assume. Confront and acknowledge our reprehensible past record concerning children, for our society is already being consumed, as evidenced by the violence rumbling and erupting across our nation.

Allow Canada to join other nations and greet the next century with a modicum of morality and some hope of evolution in human rights ethics.

I welcome your questions.

The Joint Chair (Senator XXXX XXXX): Thank you very much.

Questioner: I just want to ask Ms. XXXX a question. What's very worrying in this pursuit of justice is when somebody with a story such as yours says, “Of course, he got custody”. The “of course” is something that's very upsetting. I'd like it if you could put on the record how that ends up as “of course”.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: I put the words “of course” in on purpose. Over the years it grew like Topsy. I started to receive phone calls from women, and I discovered to my horror—and it still horrifies me and always will—that my case is not, as I said at the beginning, unusual.

I'm still getting phone calls from women who have gone to court, naively, as I did, and said this is not really good for the children and myself; I want out—and they lost custody. I think it's almost automatic. We have a sort of black humour in the different conversations that sustain us, and it's like this is automatic. You're accused of wanting to hurt a nice man.

I have problems with the parental alienation syndrome. I have a lot of problems with that, and it feeds into this. I don't have a problem with the fact that what our grandmothers called brainwashing exists; it does exist that people do this. Where I have a problem is when one reads Dr. Gardner's works, when one actually reads them and analyses them, they are his theories, ideas, opinions. They grew out of Dr. Ralph Underwager's theories, opinions. There's no research. It's not scientific. In the psychologists' manual there are already syndromes listed on a continuum, and what some people call parental alienation syndrome fits into that already. It's already known.

The problem with the parental alienation syndrome is that when one reads Gardner's works, and one just has to read one book of his, he refers to mothers as causing it to the children. He does not use the word “parent”. It's very highly slanted when you actually read it and analyse it. But it's a comforting theory. It's comfortable, and it fits in with Freud's theories when he reneged on the sexual abuse part and said that these women are all hysterical. It fits into all of that, and it's comfortable and it works. And the books are available; they're sent free.

The word passes, word of mouth, if you're going for a divorce and you're from an abusive situation.... I must clarify: only abusive situations. I'm not talking about the majority of decent people here. The word is don't report it; don't report it or you'll lose everything. You'll probably lose everything anyway, but if you report sexual abuse, you will surely lose everything. That's the reality.

Questioner: Do you have any suggestions as to how we in this committee can change that and make sure that isn't the case?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: I'm not a lawyer. Maybe because I'm an educator—no, not only because of that.... People I speak with, and I mean people who have doctorates and big degrees and fancy people, which I'm not, are all saying the same thing: educate, educate, educate.

I personally believe, and I'm not alone, that most people know that sexual abuse breeds on secrecy. I think it also breeds on ignorance, like many other things. So I think one of the keys is, as I think I mentioned, mandate training and a media blitz. The United States has short advertisements now on television and radio; it's a blitz right across the country. And it's known that there is a very high statistical correlation between men who beat women and those same men who abuse their children. The correlation is very high. The States has begun this. It's been going for a while.

I think education.... Judges are supposed to know about the law and how to apply it. They don't know about child development and child abuse. The average decent person doesn't know about this. When it happens to you....

Questioner: I guess that's why there's been a suggestion to go to...maybe we wouldn't call them a mediator, but we'd call them early judicial intervention or somebody with the expertise you've referred to. That is the first stop before people get to the judge. Lots of them only want to judge; they don't actually want to do this other....

Ms. XXXX XXXX: Yes, and that's okay.

Questioner: I guess I'm worried that.... Are you seeing that even in people where the perpetrator has been in the criminal justice system, or is it only the ones where it's secret?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: The ones where it's secret. Those are frequently the worst cases.

Questioner: And where it's secret it's not safe to tell the truth because of the climate that everybody knows about.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: Exactly.

Questioner: And if this were done in a different milieu, in a clinic kind of setting rather than the judge's chambers or the courtroom, do you think maybe it would be safer for people to tell what's really going on?

Ms. XXXX XXXX: That is my personal opinion. I think Canada does have already some judges, some lawyers, some psychologists, some everything who are already informed and who are tough enough to take it. I guess “tough” is the right word, because it's not a pleasant task. It must be excruciating for you people to listen to this, but you have to. I think if you could take those people and say okay, we're going to have a separate cadre corps, and you're all lawyers and you're psychologists and everybody that's used anyway.... We have obligatory mediation in Quebec. The minute there's a hint of abuse, conjugal violence or other, a hint, you go to this parallel—

Questioner: Special place.

Ms. XXXX XXXX: —using the existing facilities and the people who are already there, except they have indicated a willingness to take training and go with it at least for a while.

In Montreal they have a special sex crimes unit. They're all crown prosecutors, everybody. It's all the same courts, the same rooms, the same buildings, the same people; but they have special training, which is ongoing, and they deal with it. It just shifts kind of to the left and works.

Randi James-- Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

I found the below on Randi James’s blog...I thought it was well put together and is information that others should be aware of.

Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

The psychology community said it wanted to move closer to science by providing evidence-based research and practices, however, it continues to permit its members to promote pseudoscientific theories and utilize pop-therapies which harm children. Dr. Amy J. Baker is one of those members.
Via her website,

Dr. Baker has a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Teachers College of Columbia University.
Her areas of research include parental alienation, child welfare, parent involvement in their children's education, early intervention, and attachment. She is the Director of Research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection.
She is the author or co-author of 3 books and over 45 peer reviewed articles.
Dr. Baker is available as an expert witness and for print, radio, and television interviews.

And you can find her all across the internet, especially on news publications that touch on, or allude to, parental alienation syndrome (see Every Child Has Parental Alienation Syndrome). She promotes her book heavily while expressing sympathy for victims...of PAS. She is touted as a major authority on the subject matter . With all the education she has received, you'd think that she recognizes what is, or is not, developmentally appropriate; and furthermore, that she recognizes the lack of science in her "research."
According to Francoise T. Bessette's thesis, The Social Construction of Parental Alienation Syndrome:
(emphasis mine)

In 2005, Amy Baker conducted a study of adults who self-identified as having been alienated from one of their parents during childhood. Thirty-eight adults (14 males and 24 females) were recruited by word of mouth and from over one hundred advertisements placed on the internet message boards for people who had been victims of parental alienation syndrome.
Through one hour semi-structured telephone interviews, Baker learned about the participants’ perceived relationship with their estranged parent. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a content analysis program coding for “impact of the alienation on the participant” (Baker, 2005:292). All but seven of the alleged alienators were mothers. The findings showed that the alienation perceived by the participants negatively affected several areas of their adult lives and relationships. The participants reported high rates of low self-esteem/self-hatred, believing themselves unlovable because of the alienation from one parent, which they interpreted as rejection (2005:294). This self-hatred accounted for the guilt they felt because of the role they played in the alienation (2005:294). Over 70 percent revealed episodes of depression that they attributed to the separation from their alienated parent, and the lack of opportunity to mourn this loss while children (2005:296). Thirty-three percent of the participants had drug or alcohol addictions that they associated with their childhood circumstances. Some of these participants confessed to having a conflicted relationship with their alienating parent during their teen years because of their mental manipulation; they had turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape (2005:297-298). Sixteen people talked of their difficulties trusting others as well as themselves and of falling into the same divorcing and/or alienating pattern as their parents (2005:294). Sixty-six percent of the participants were divorced and of the twenty-eight who were parents, half were alienated from their own children (2005:300). All the participants believed they had been victims of parental alienation syndrome.
Baker qualifies her study by stating it represents only a fraction of the data collected and that many of the 38 subjects reported having positive life experiences not included in her results. She only reported negative outcomes, presenting the subjects as unhappy, maladjusted individuals, and did not address possible confounding variables that could account for her results such as poverty and lack of opportunities. Instead, she presents the results as a package combining all the participants’ responses together under different headings such as “low self-esteem”, depression, and drug/alcohol problems, referring to the number of participants in the various categories as “some” or “many”. Baker based her study on the premise that parental alienation syndrome was a conclusive element in her subjects’ lives and drew on Gardner’s theory to analyze their retrospective stories. She does not volunteer the list of questions asked during the interviews and little information is provided regarding the content analysis of the transcripts. She does not offer any scale of reference to help the reader judge the extent of the impact on the subjects. The reader is expected to accept the author’s conclusions as “true”.

In order for adults to self-identify with the concept of parental alienation syndrome, you'd have to assume they had some knowledge of what the term means.

• Who provided the definition to them?
• What did that definition consist of?

This is the first error of parental alienation syndrome: You cannot use the definition of the syndrome to diagnose the syndrome. This is circular reasoning. (ie, with a stomach ucler: the patient describes the symptoms, the practitioner observes the signs through testing measures, the diagnosis is then given based on the evidence. The practitioner does not tell the patient what constitutes an ulcer, and then have the patient verify that THOSE particular symptoms are present, and then confirm the diagnosis.)
Furthermore, it would be unwise to have an adult make a judgement about a situation that occurred during childhood because that adult is able to process and rationalize things in a different manner, which will be influenced by other life circumstances that may or may not be revealed to the researcher. Also, hindsight is 20/20, and some adults may be looking for an escape or excuse for behaviors for which they are indeed responsible. Their current perception of what once existed is not necessarily proof that it did [exist].

• How can this adult know the difference between a protective parent that alienated, and a malicious parent that is alienated unless all truth be known about what occured in the past?
• And how do you verify this without including the parents themselves?

This is another error of parental alienation syndrome: it is based on the victim's (just like the target parent) perception (although the victim of PAS is said to be the child) of what has occurred.
Is this moving psychology closer to science?
No.
But it is moving many psychologists toward behaviors that mimic charlatanism. Pop-psychology has become a lucrative industry not so much concerned with helping people than it is with overgeneralizing mental illness to the public by medicalizing normal behaviors and soliciting its specific ideologies. Book promotions, speaking engagements, and massive self-promotion through e-mail campaigns is required. Dr. Amy J. Baker performs in this role very well.

To: fathers-l@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Thu, 31 December, 2009 4:34:12 AM
>> Subject: FATHERS-L News from Amy Baker on Parental Alienation
>>
>>
>> Seasons Greetings,
>>
>> I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share a brief
>> end-of-year update on various parental alienation projects.
>>
>> 1) “I don’t want to choose” book and workbook were developed with Dr.
>> Katherine Andre, designed to help middle school children resist the
>> pressure to choose one parent over the other.
>>
>> 2) A school-based program “I don’t want to choose” was developed and
>> will be launched in half a dozen schools this school year.
>>
>> 3) Media attention to custody battles, international abductions, and
>> parental alienation has been high this past year including personal
>> appearances on WABC TV, WPIX TV, Good Morning America, and in U.S.
>> News and World Report. Most of the clips can be viewed from my
>> website.
>>

>> 4) I have been hired to train New York child protection workers about
>> parental alienation and to help develop the North Dakota custody
>> investigation manual.

>>

>> 5) I have been invited to participate in a plenary panel discussion
>> about parental alienation at the upcoming Association of Family and
>> Conciliation Courts conference in Denver.

>>
>> I hope that the new year brings targeted parents everywhere closer to
>> their children and that as a professional in the field I can shed some
>> light on this tragic problem and help heal alienated children and
>> their families.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>
>> Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D.
>> www.amyjlbaker.com
>> Author: Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the
>> ties that bind

Parental alienation syndrome charlatans fuel the public's need to feel justified in certain beliefs by introducing nebulous concepts to which a wide audience can seemingly relate. Yes, you've seen a child so angry that he/she hinders or refuses a relationship with one of his/her parents. No, you can't possibly know the depths of what is causing such animosity without a full investigation of the complexities in familial relationships (and apparently major PAS pushers Richard Warshak, Randy Rand, and Michael Bone don't feel the need to be thorough, or legal. see ANYONE Can Diagnose PAS). And even then, you are limited by the what the observer happens to observe, what the participants choose to reveal, combined with the observers biased "objective" interpretation.
Parental alienation purports that this child is suffering from mental disorder-- disorder meaning that when compared to a normal population, this behavior is abnormal. What its supporters fail to reveal upfront is that according to their research, this only happens in "high conflict" divorces (see Parental Alienation and "High Conflict" Divorce)--meaning you must compare this behavior to the behavior of others in "high conflict" divorce. Is it still abnormal?
Parental alienation syndrome is said to be caused by the child's own parent (FYI--Its supporters also claim there is foster parent alienation, and grandparent alienation). The child is the victim. But what people do not understand is that parental alienation syndrome begins with the supposition that the child's thoughts are not really his/her own--that the child is lying about his/her experiences. Are there any other medical diagnoses that can be made based off of the word of someone other than the victim? Let's utilize this medical example:
You go to the doctor with a complaint of stomach discomfort. You tell the doctor your symptoms are stomach pain, esophageal burning, and nausea. The doctor gets a full history and does an examination. The doctor is able to verify the signs of vomiting, and weight loss, and test results of an increase in a certain bacteria in the lining of your stomach. The doctor rules out various illness according to your signs and symptoms. The doctor makes a diagnosis.
At no time does the doctor tell you upfront that you have _______ disease. He/she must rule out the possibilities. At no time does the doctor tell you that your signs and symptoms aren't really your signs and symptoms--that another set of signs and symptoms are really your signs and symptoms. At no time does the doctor tell you that he must ask your parents, friends, or neighbors if they are able to verify what you reported. And at no time does your doctor force you to do something against your will. (Best case scenario!)
And so a parental alienation claim serves to obfuscate evidence of any intra-familial abuse that has occurred. Its purpose is to place blame on one parent and absolve the other. There is no resolution to the conflict, short of utilizing brainwashing to re-frame the parental alienation as the actual abuse and to marginalize the child's feelings. Anyone who recognizes a dysfunctional family knows that the only party that deserves absolution is the child, although child and parents play the role in the dysfunction. And still, this is no mental disorder.
If psychology thinks that they are moving closer to science with nonsense like this, it is our responsibility to let them know that they are wrong. The teachings of pseudoscientific parental alienation syndrome from persons like Dr. Amy J. Baker have infiltrated our family courts, child protective systems, and educational systems. Would you trust any system which based its theories from the work of someone who defended child sexual abusers? This type of science is scary.

See Also: Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask
Hell Must Have Frozen Over

DSM, medical fraud, New Jersey, New York, parental alienation fraud, psychological fraud

Randi James: Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

Domestic Violence by Proxy versus Parental Alienation Syndrome from RightsForMothers.com

Link for RightsForMothers which is where I found the below.  I rarely like to just re-cycle a post, but this one was worth it.  

I found this on Associated Content.  It is a good discussion by Elaine Doxie:

• Published: Fri December 18th, 2009
• By: Elaine Doxie
• Category: Dating & Relationships

From the time that Richard A. Gardner came out with his theory detailing Parental Alienation Syndrome, there has been a great deal of controversy over whether it was real or not. Parental Alienation Syndrome occurs when one parent pulls the children in as allies against the other parent. It may involve false allegations of abuse but is often abused as a defense where real abuse has occurred.When it is used as a defense in a case where real abuse has occurred, the children are the ones who suffer. They lose touch with a parent who was trying to protect them, and become pawns in the ongoing abuse of their other parent. This is when it becomes Domestic Violence by Proxy. The children are often forced into the position of becoming abusive themselves, although they probably do not see their own actions as being abusive.

Most often, the mother is the one in this unfortunate position. She may feel trapped into taking the abuse because she loves her children and doesn’t want to lose them. Her abuser, who is drunk on control, has found yet another way to control her by using the children. He thus continues his onslaught of abuse, making it domestic violence by proxy. The mother may have any number of reasons for having lost custody of her children. She may have given them up to him voluntarily, hoping that if she did, they would have a better life since he was more abusive to her than to the children. She may have been intimidated into giving up because he seemed to always win every battle, even when she knew she was right. She may not have had the strength and fortitude to carry on in what seemed to be a never-ending battle. He may have won in front of the judge because he seemed more in control of the situation.

The abuser may seem very charming to the children. All of a sudden, the children who were starved for attention by their father previously, have become the apple of his eye. He may tell the children that their mother never wanted them, while he was excited at the prospect of having children, when often, the exact opposite is true. He may shower them with expensive gifts that their mother cannot afford, and compare her gifts to his, finding hers lacking. He may prevent, or make it very difficult for the mother to see her children, then tell the children if she really loved them, she would be there. All of these things and more he uses to create the illusion that she does not love her children.

If she spends any time with her children at all, he will often stalk her during the time that she is with them. He tells the children that this is “for their protection.” They have no choice to believe him, although prior to the divorce they had no reason to ever be frightened when they were alone with their mother. Any information that the children bring back from their mother’s home is twisted in such a way that it can be used against her in attempts to get her in trouble with the law. This makes it dangerous for the children to be in her home, although she desperately wants to welcome them with open arms.

The biggest problem with domestic violence by proxy is that the courts all too often fail to recognize it or do anything about it. In fact, for all the lip service that we hear about helping victims of domestic violence in any form, there is very little done about it at all. Domestic violence is a huge problem that way too many people turn a blind eye to. It’s time to do something about it. Learn the signs, especially if you are in any kind of a position of power. If you are a judge, a lawyer, police, or anyone who can start the seeds of change, do so. Even if you are just the average layperson, report it when you see it. Don’t let your neighbors get away with it.

If I can change the world in one way, it will be that no person will ever lose their children to domestic violence again. This is the most painful loss as the children are still there, but unable to be a part of a loving mother’s life. The men that perpetrate this need to be held accountable for their actions.

Judge Reverses Parental Alienation Ruling After Warshak Admits He Hadn’t Met Children

hhhmmm...

http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/judge-reverses-parental-alienation-ruling-after-warshak-admits-he-hadnt-met-children/

Judge Reverses Parental Alienation Ruling After Warshak Admits He Hadn’t Met Children

Setback for PAS  pushers.  No wonder Warshak is pushing it so hard, along with the other Whores of the Court that make a very nice income off of this. They  chase after the blood money in family courts.  From the Law Times:

Judge reverses parental alienation ruling

Controversial trend continues because opposing parents lack funds: lawyer

By Heather Capannelli | Publication Date: Monday, 09 November 2009

In another case underscoring the controversy over parental alienation workshops, Justice Thea Herman of the Ontario Superior Court struck down part of an arbitrator’s award earlier this year that would have removed two teenage boys from the custody of their father and sent them to Texas. The decision follows a series of judgments in which Ontario courts have ordered a change in custody and sent the custodial parent along with the children to participate in the workshop.

In S.G.B. v. S.J.L., the court set aside part of an award concluding that the workshop was in the best interest of the boys because the arbitrator relied too heavily on an assessment of them prepared by Richard Warshak, who admitted he hadn’t met them personally.

In his testimony and written evidence, the psychologist and author explicitly declined to make recommendations with respect to the children because he had never observed them before.

Yet the arbitrator ordered that the remedy was “necessary for the children in this case and completely consonant with their best interests.” Herman, however, decided that in making such a finding, the arbitrator’s order amounted to a “fundamental error.”

Another issue arose prior to the hearing when the father asked the arbitrator to order an assessment to determine the appropriateness of the workshop for the children.

The arbitrator declined to do so, instead relying on his own experience as a custody and access assessor. But Herman rebuked that decision, saying “the arbitrator’s experience can only be brought to bear on the evidence. The arbitrator cannot create evidence.”

In addition, Herman said the arbitrator failed to consider the psychological impact the workshop would have on the younger boy. He suffered from Klinefelter syndrome, a genetic disorder that, among other things, caused a language delay.

The facts of the case were as follows. The applicant, the father, and the respondent mother entered into the arbitration to help resolve issues surrounding their two sons L.B. and J.B., aged 17 and 14 respectively. The parents had been divorced since May 1999 and since then, the mother experienced an estranged relationship with both of her children.

After several attempts to resolve disputes about custody, access, and raising the children, both parents agreed to what turned out to be an unsuccessful arbitration in August 2007.

The proceedings were due to continue on Nov. 20, 2007, but the father brought a pre-hearing motion to prevent the arbitrator from making an order that might result in the children leaving the province given that the mother had been in consultation with Warshak for several years despite the fact that he had never met the boys. The motion was denied.

The arbitration took place in February and March 2008 and, based on Warshak’s report that the children were suffering irrational alienation towards their mother, the arbitrator awarded sole custody of both children to her and ordered that they participate in the workshop to help to restore their ties with her.

Logistically, this meant no contact with their father for the three months that the boys were in the program. Once the workshop concluded, communications could resume as long as those in charge authorized them.

The order also allowed the mother to use transporting agents to take her children to the workshop in Texas if they were unwilling to go on their own volition.

“The work of Dr. Warshak has been submitted for peer review so it’s not as controversial as the media hype may lead some to believe,” says Jaret Moldaver, counsel for the mother. “Dr. Warshak has successfully worked with children who have been alienated, and in cases where conventional approaches don’t work, it’s the only viable option to save the child from abuse.”

A larger issue, however, is that often these cases come down to a battle of costly expert evidence, says the father’s counsel, Jan Weir.

“My concern is that in most of these cases, it appears that one parent has the financial means to retain high-end counsel and experts like Dr. Warshak, but the other parent seems to have modest means and never retains an expert, meaning that they can’t lead evidence against the findings or methodology of Dr. Warshak.”

A week at the workshop costs about US$40,000.
According to Warshak, parental alienation syndrome is “a child’s unjustified campaign of denigration against, or rejection of, one parent, due to the influence of the other parent combined with the child’s own contributions.”

It is recognized as a form of emotional abuse that happens when parents get so caught up in their own problems that they lose sight of their children’s needs.

In an interview in 2008 with Maclean’s magazine, Warshak said the workshop “teaches children how to stay out of the middle of adult conflicts and how to maintain a compassionate view toward each parent” and that it helps the child “recapture a major part of his identity.

When the child no longer feels the need to pledge allegiance to one parent by rejecting the other, that’s enormously liberating.”

But Weir says the test in law for admissibility of expert evidence is whether it’s generally accepted by the profession. That’s because courts don’t interpret the evidence of experts on their own. “Is this a method that’s generally accepted by the profession at large?” says Weir.

“This kind of evidence is getting in because the parents who are on the receiving end just don’t have the funds to retain an expert to say that it’s not, that it’s untested.”

http://mediamisses.wordpress.com

Painfully Precious

Precious may get people to start believing that lower income children, and/or children with darker skin are getting abused, maybe. But what about higher income children with lighter skin? When abuse is discovered there, especially sexual abuse, the abuser PAYS unethical lawyers and psychologists to claim the child has a fictitious mental illness called "Parental Alienation Syndrome" and that the child has somehow been "infected" with this PAS "disease" by the protective parent, usually the mother. No mother should ever allow what happened to Precious, but with advocates for fictitious mental illnesses such as Parental Alienation Syndrome are mothers going to be forced to go along with abuse of the child or risk losing custody? If you think this couldn't happen, think again. It's already happening in the United States, Canada, UK, Australia, and this terrible trend is spreading to the rest of the world as the unethical purveyors of a fictitious syndrome makes lots and lots of money covering up child abuse for the wealthy.

There is one case that I’d like to point out where a mother, Joyce Murphy, lost custody of her daughter after leaving the state to protect her from sexual abuse by her father.  She was accused of PAS and charged with kidnapping.  After six long years, the father was caught and the mom turned out to have been right all along.  You can read more about that here:  http://batteredmomslosecustody.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/joyce-murphy-testifies-in-support-of-california-ab-612/  This daughter is back with her mom now and safe from her abusive father.

Ed Koch

Mayor Ed at the Movies

Nov 10 2009, 1:38PM

Painfully Precious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5FYahzVU44&feature=player_embedded
This is an extraordinary story with an exceptional cast.  The painful life burdens of the movie's main character, a teenager named Precious, will cause you to weep.

In the beginning of the film, an extremely obese teenager, Precious (Gabourey Sidibe), is caring for her Down Syndrome baby whom she has named Mongol.  She is soon to deliver birth to a boy who will be named Abdul. The horror is that both children were fathered by Precious's own father who is the boyfriend of her mother, Mary (Mo'Nique), with whom she lives.

Mary, who has stood by and allowed the raping of her child, has only ill-will approaching hatred towards her daughter. One of the most poignant and dramatic scenes in the film depicts a meeting at the office of a social worker, Ms. Weiss (Maria Carey), where the mother states why she resents her daughter. I was pained by the plight of both mother and daughter and wept for both of them.

Precious is shown in a classroom with a half-dozen other girls who become her substitute family. Without the positive interaction of her social worker, Ms. Weiss, her teacher, Ms. Rain  (Paula Patton), and her classmates, I have no doubt she would have been living on the streets.

The performances of Sidibe and Mo'Nique are extraordinary and spellbinding. In fact, the entire cast, including Lenny Kravitz in the role of Nurse John, does a wonderful job.

I believe everyone in the audience must have felt the way I did: how could God allow this to go on and what can our schools and society do to address the problem? The obvious answer is to provide more educational and training programs as well as money for programs to care for those in need who may never work, notwithstanding the prodding of their social worker. Clearly, however, we are not doing enough. The ending of this film, while conveying the possibility of change and a better outcome down the road, does not leave the audience with an unrealistic expectation and happy ending.

According to The National Center for Victims of Crime:

"Incest has been cited as the most common form of child abuse. Studies conclude that 43 percent of the children who are abused are abused by family members, 33 percent are abused by someone they know, and the remaining 24 percent are sexually abused by strangers (Hayes, 1990). Other research indicates that over 10 million Americans have been victims of incest.

One of the nation's leading researches on child sexual abuse, David Finkelhor, estimates that 1,000,000 Americans are victims of father-daughter incest, and 16,000 new cases occur annually (Finkelhor, 1983). However, Finkelhor's statistics may be significantly low because they are based primarily on accounts of white, middle-class women and may not adequately represent low-income and minority women (Matsakis, 1991).

Victims of incest are often extremely reluctant to reveal that they are being abused because their abuser is a person in a position of trust and authority for the victim. Often the incest victim does not understand - or they deny - that anything is wrong with the behavior they are encountering (Vanderbilt, 1992). Many young incest victims accept and believe the perpetrator's explanation that this is a learning experience that happens in every family by an older family member.  Incest victims may fear they will be disbelieved, blamed or punished if they report their abuse."

I saw the picture at the Regal Union Square Stadium Theater on 13th Street and Broadway which I like very much because of its stadium seating. The audience was made up largely of young black women. This film concerns problems affecting both blacks and whites and should be seen by every racial group in our country. It took enormous courage to make and participate in this film. Those who did should be rewarded with the honors of the industry and the applause of the nation.  http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/ed_koch/2009/11/painfully_precious.php

What a mother goes through to save her child from neglect and abuse

I received this email from a mother that is desperately trying to free her daughter from an abusive father... I posted yesterday on this case as well:  Butterflies & Hurricanes

I have done nothing wrong, but try to protect my daughter against a flawed system and now I am prepared to be possibly jailed for my crime,  "protection". If I am incarcerated for this I want to bring awareness to the Family Court system by standing up against it, I need help.

I have been involved in several groups of other mothers who have been in my same situation and some that have lost more horribly than I, with their children dying at the hands of their father. We have a common thread of nightmares of cold, uncaring court officials.

Family Court throws women and children off of the sinking ship of custody disputes with an abusive man. They continue to make the wheels of abuse go round and round. I have been ignored, chastised, intimidated and now I am not going to take it anymore. I will not allow my daughter or I become a statistic.

All my friends and family will agree with me that the characteristic I most employ is strength and the will  to do what is right.

I am a mother who is helping her child in pain, to comfort my child and keep her safe, I am no different than any other loving mother who would also never allow their child to be hurt  or tormented by a man who is suppose to love and protect her or anyone else for that matter.

I have been stalked in Family Court by my ex abuser, Craig Hensberger. His court actions against me have escalated since I met and married my best friend, the man of my dreams, my husband, Chad Tipton. Now that I have found true happiness I am certain that my ex abuser is not as happy and since he can no longer abuse me the way he use to, he now resorts to several devious tactics towards our daughter, Michaela.

My ex abuser has now taken another action to  have me jailed for contempt as our daughter does not want to live with him and his mother. My child has admitted that they make her sleep on the floor in the living room or the basement. My daughter is 11 yrs old who is leaving adolescence, she is a pre-teen, she is a young woman who needs to have her own room and bed, like she does here. 

My ex abuser continues to accuse that I have "brainwashed" our daughter against him. That all the abuse she witnessed against her and myself are a distant memory. That the time that she was videotaped by a child advocacy center and told about the way that he would touch her inappropriately and where and how many times is just a lie.

This man has done nothing but lie, cheat and steal to make my life and his daughter's living hell. Including fraudulently signing her up to win money in a fishing derby.

I intend to stand up once again in Marinette County Family Court with presiding Judge David Miron. I am hoping that my plea for the court to help protect my child from the ongoing harassment and abuse.

She does not want to be forced to live with her abuser, I do not blame her, I've been there.

I intend to expose the insanity of Family Court and how a mother can be jailed or punished for allowing my child to stay in a stable, sober, loving environment.

All that know me I mean what I say and I say what I mean. If on September 24, 2009 at 10:00am I am required to appear before Judge Miron to answer why my daughter has once again refused visitation I will, with dignity and respect, fight for what is right.

If this judge follows through with his threat that the next time a motion of contempt was brought before him I would be "put in jail" and that if our daughter was so stressed and having emotional problems that maybe she does need to be placed in foster care.

If jailed I will not take food until the judge releases me, I will hunger strike for justice.

I hope that my family, friends, and other advocates will also help expose by contacting local Green Bay TV media as well as national.

My husband, Chad, can be reached at ottobooboo@yahoo.com or (920) 785-0328. He is in possession of several documents and recordings proving the corruption of a small county with a God Complex, which is also a non-clinical term that does not appear in the DSM but neither does the pseudo scientific theory, Parental Alieanation Syndrome (PAS) or "brainwashing" from which I am accused.

I thank each and everyone of you that have advocated for me in the past and hope for your continued support as I face a fight for life, me and my daughters'.

With Good Grace,
Lorraine Tipton
a.k.a. Mama Liberty

Oconto County Case #99-PA-06
Judge David G. Miron
1926 Hall Avenue
Marinette, WI 54143-1717
(715) 732-7655

Shared Parenting with an abuser is like playing Russian Roulette

I came across this and it really hit me...this IS what shared parenting is like.  With all of the murder-suicides that have happened this year and with so many abusive fathers killing their kids...this is it...

If you aren't convinced please start following these blogs:

Dastardly Dads     The Shared Parenting Disaster  

Intimate and Domestic Violence Homicides in the News

I have always been told that a picture is worth a 1000 words.  In this case I do hope this makes someone (hell even several someone’s) open their eyes and SEE why child around the world are dying daily!

Is America really this gullible? Parental Alienation Syndrome

 

From RightsForMothers.com 

Parental Alienation Syndrome: How Gullible Are We?

Up for inclusion in the new DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the most widely used psychiatric reference in the world) is the so-called “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” a syndrome invented by the pedophile-loving psychologist Dr. Richard Gardner, who committed suicide eventually.  Also up for inclusion again is making women’s menstrual cycles a psychiatric syndrome. Geezzzzz.

Money-grubbing nutcase lawyers and/or psychologists (in some cases they have both degrees!) work to get these so-called syndromes included so they can use them as a basis for taking children from protective parents (and make more money).  They use this twisted science as a basis for their claims…just how gullible do they think we all are?  Apparently many judges are, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges are trying to correct this: see Family Courts are Warned They Should Not Accept So-called “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.

Here is a good example of how gullible people can be when you start throwing out so-called “scientific claims”:

Dihydrogen Monoxide

A student at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical “dihydrogen monoxide.”

And for plenty of good reasons, since:

1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting 2. it is a major component in acid rain 3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state 4. accidental inhalation can kill you 5. it contributes to erosion 6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes 7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

Forty-three (43) said yes, six (6) were undecided, and only one (1) knew that the chemical was actually just plain old water.

The title of his prize winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?”

He feels the conclusion is obvious.

http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp