Parental Alienation is a problem. It is a problem when it is true, and a problem when it is falsely alleged as a weapon to win custody.
And in fairness, there is probably a twilight area where it is partly true and partly false, where one parent exaggerates the oafish behavior of the other to persuade the children to feel disdain or fear of the other parent.
Attorney Brian Mayer presents his views on YouTube, and the following is an edited transcript.
Attorney Mayer speaks about how to prove parental alienation.
He does not discuss the possibility that parental alienation can be falsely alleged.
Mayer’s opinions are his own.
But just as there are selfish parents whose hatred for the other parent is so great that they will hurt their children to harm the other parent, so there are protective parents who see the abusive nature of the other parent and need to literally alienate or sequester the children for their own protection from abuse.
For clever child abusers, if they use some of the tools discussed by Attorney Mayer, they can, especially if they have money, flip custody away from the protective parent and have the children exclusively for thier abuse. Obscene family court, without juries, without the people involved in the decision-making process, leaves all decisions up to the government.
Funny, the people get the right to a jury on even small monetary disputes or minor crimes, but when it comes to the fate of children, the people are content to let the government unbridled decide the fate of their children.
Of course, there are monstrous parents who alienate their children against the other parent. We saw this in the brutal case of Anna Maria Mongillo, who repeatedly falsely accused her husband of abusing the children, and successfully alienated his six children from their father, Dr. Luigi DiRubba – and essentially bankrupted him.
How to Prove Parental Alienation in Court
Quite simply, it is when one parent or caregiver intentionally attempts to interfere with the relationship between the other parent and their shared child. Oftentimes, this is done out of malice, and often part of a campaign, a long-term effort to interfere with that relationship.
It is a campaign to undermine and disrupt the relationship between the child and the other parent.
How do you prove that?
Legally, it’s significant when you can prove it.
In every state in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, child custody is determined based on the “best interests of the child”.
In some cases, like California, where I’m licensed, it’s actually codified that the court shall consider the extent to which one parent interferes with the relationship between the child and the other parent when making custody orders.
Parental Alienation is Relevant
Whether actually written into a statute, the fact is everywhere it’s relevant if one parent is interfering with the relationship between the other parent and their child, because that interference goes to the core question of what’s in the best interest of the child.
If you have a parent who’s unjustifiably making that sort of interference, or who’s simply doing it out of malice, then that is relevant to what the custody order needs to do to protect the child from that disruption.
Proving it can be difficult.
The Body of Proof
Ultimately, it gets down to the question of ‘how can you show a judge, who’s a human being, what’s going on?’
You have to go into court with the theme of “I am being alienated. The other parent is responsible, and here’s how you, the court, can know that it’s happening.”
A) Text messages,
B) Witness statements,
C) Professional’s opinion.
You have that theme, and everything has to relate to that theme: “I am being alienated by the other parent. It is intentional, and here’s how you can know.”
Your own testimony is relevant and admissible. If you have a personal experience dealing with the other parent, you can talk about that, but most people want something more concrete.
Written Communications
Any written communications to the other parent that can be authenticated can be absolute gold. If you have something from the other parent who says ‘I never want you to see the child again’, that’s worth a million dollars in court.
The other parent will say, “Oh, I was just joking,’ or they said this out of anger.
Well, it ties in nicely to your theme.
Any text messages that articulate a malicious intent to interfere with the relationship between the child and the other parent, you want that to be part of your message.
Secondly, your testimony.
Third, if there are witnesses who can testify to things sent by the other parent or caretaker, or who have observed obstructionism, anything that’s gone on that has made it more difficult for you to have a relationship with your child.
You want to bring those people in as witnesses.
If you’re dealing with older kids, and if the kids have not been completely alienated from you and will cooperate, you may have to make the difficult decision to bring your children in to court.
Ask the court’s permission to bring the children in, to explain exactly what they’ve seen and what has gone on.
Witnesses are relevant.
Deposition
Another tool I recommend is to conduct a deposition of the other party. It typically costs about two thousand dollars, but it can be worth a million dollars.
A deposition is where you can sit the other party down, and basically grill them without a judge present. The questions you ask don’t necessarily have to be relevant to what’s going on, but you can just sit them there as long as you need them.
You can watch them squirm, contradict themselves.
Most people can’t keep their story straight when dealing with lies. When they’re engaged in misconduct, they make excuses, and the more you get into them, they get weaker and weaker.
The advantage of a deposition is that the limits are wider than what you face in a courtroom. You can double back to questions, you can ask them in any particular order. You don’t have a judge there, to whom the other side can raise objections, a judge, who often just wants the day to be done, and close out the case and will shut you down.
Professionals
Another option I think is fantastic, but requires some skill to ensure you’re dealing with the right people, is to bring in a professional.
One option is a professional child custody evaluator. That can be hit or miss. Although custody evaluators tend to have at least a master’s level, usually a PhD level training in child psychology and experience, if they are unfamiliar with parental alienation, if they can’t detect it, then often they just don’t come to the right conclusions. But if you can back up what you’re saying and present it to the custody evaluator, then this can be an ace in the hole for you.
The cost varies. Usually you can expect to pay at least $5,000 and it can go up to $15,000. That can be out of reach for many people.
Another option is to have the court order the child to attend therapy sessions to deal with the question of your relationship with the child and how it’s impacting the child.
The reason that that can be so effective is because the therapist will be a neutral party. They’re not going to have a stake in the outcome. They are educated and experienced, and you ask them to look at the issue and figure out what’s going on. They can usually quickly figure out if the other parent is responsible for the disrupted relationship. More importantly, is the process essentially, without necessarily the therapist even knowing it, tends to put the therapist in the position of rooting for the relationship to mend. They’re basically looking for ways to try to make that happen.
If you can make yourself available to the child, if you can make yourself available to the therapist, and the therapist is tasked with treating how the child is dealing with your relationship, the therapist will almost always to try to work on improving the relationship between the child and the parent. That can benefit you, first of all, toward your ultimate goal of having a good relationship with the child.
Secondly, it removes mom or dad as the savior and basically provides neutrality that the court needs to discern what’s going on in this case.
Recommendations
If you can, I strongly recommend asking the court to have a therapist assigned to the case. A court almost never says no to a child receiving therapy when the parents are in a high-conflict divorce and custody dispute, because in these situations, everybody needs therapy, especially kids.
So it’s a good way to get another person, the therapist, on your side.
GALs
Some lawyers recommend asking the court to appoint a guardian ad litem also called the GAL. Guardians ad litem are basically court-appointed attorneys for the children.
My opinion is that that is risky unless you know who the attorney will be. I’ve seen too many cases where the attorneys assigned as a GAL for children are overworked. They’re not focused on what’s going on, and they’re not that good at discerning between fact and fiction.
So you’re basically dealing with a neutral attorney, but they don’t have specialized training in dealing with kids or relationships.
Usually, they have some family law experience and maybe a few hours of a training class. But that doesn’t help them identify issues that come up with parental alienation.
Also, they tend to be expensive. Usually, you’re looking at at least a few thousand dollars, and the court usually wants to pass that cost along to the parents.
I’m not going to say it’s wrong for every situation, but if you want what’s best for your situation, if you have the choice between an expert child custody evaluator, a therapist, or a GALS, an attorney assigned to the child, the best choice usually is the therapist first, the evaluator second, and the GALS third, just in terms of the amount of control you can exercise and getting an outcome that truly is best for the child.
Don’t be intimidated by the process. Focus on what you can do to prove your case. You know what the facts are. You know the truth.
Just take that truthful information to court, and look at using some of these tools.
OPEN ACCESS
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/316
“the results highlighted the proper psychometric qualities of the questionnaire and the Parental Alienation Questionnaire (PAQ) seems to be a promising tool for clinical and judicial practice, but also for researchers.”
#parentalalienation #assessment #psychology #peerreviewed #parentalalienatingbehaviours #childabuse #familyviolence #coercivecontrol
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/316?fbclid=IwAR28hrU2boDaGkY789-rzvSL3tKECKWeDyYttsbRNUxlciLcAjG48mYPrTY_aem_th_AUsUkI2Zm_G4Rfo9sS9rHcCC36dpqEiTijDaBCIyhBWnJj3Yo8uwmbfVtquncoIc80I
https://youtu.be/Shovw0ryk6A
“… the human rights crisis is not contained to guardianship and probate court. The crisis which is insidious and under-reported by the media also manifests in custody proceedings where children are routinely taken from loving and protective homes and given to an abuser.”
https://ct.counseling.org/2023/03/child-abuse-in-disguise-the-impact-of-parental-alienation-on-families/#
Lots of insight
The comments are the best part.
Does Scott Gleeson know Jeffrey Leving?
“That client ultimately paid Leving’s firm $59,000 in legal fees, with the firm attempting to collect an additional $80,000 for less than three months of representation, the filing states.”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/3/16/23641843/jeffrey-leving-dads-rights-lawyer-ardc-accused-charging-unreasonable-fees
“Family Bridges” brainwashing sounds like ESP/NXIVM when they first started. Four-day “workshops” costing $20,000 – $30,000 … isolation … threats … that’s not mainstream psychological treatment.
Do they use Neurolinguistic Programming, too?
False Allegations of Abuse During Divorce: The Role of Alienating Beliefs
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/false-allegations-of-abuse-during-divorce-the-role-of-alienating-beliefs
“False allegations of abuse are an all-too-common phenomenon during divorce and child custody proceedings. One parent fabricates a false allegation against the other parent to gain leverage in court and to undermine the parent-child relationship going forward. The frequency of false allegations in custody cases is not fully understood, with estimates ranging from 2% to 35% of all cases involving children.1 Whatever the percentage, attorneys, judges, and mental health experts all know firsthand that it is a vexing problem in court cases. And nothing can disrupt, sidetrack, or impede a case more than an allegation of abuse that eventually proves to be false.”
Here are 7 common alienating beliefs that occur in false allegations:
1. “I am afraid our child will love you more than me and will want to live with you.”
2. “I want my child all to myself.”
3. “If you don’t want me, you don’t get our child, either.”
4. “I want to exact revenge on you, and what better way than to deprive you of your child.
5. “I don’t want my child to be anything like you.”
6. “I’ve been the real parent in this family, not you.”
7. “I don’t want my child to love their new stepparent because I might be pushed out.”
The phrase material gate keepers can be found in the fatherhood initiative information. It originally was used to describe protective Mothers. As well as to describe difficulties father’s were having co parenting with the Mothers of their children. It has appeared to have morphed in to parental alienation. A huge money maker. Especially for AFCC members The most often used family court reason for reversal of custody to fathers.A reason to Continue to drag mother’s into family court. There appears to be a significant amount of money and insensitive attached to continue use of parental alienation in family law case. Stripping mother’s of their parental rights. Solving the problem of the fathers having to pay child support and co-parenting with the Mothers. Billions of reasons not to fix the family court system.
What is the Difference between “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and “Parental Alienation”?
“Parental Alienation Syndrome” and “Parental Alienation” ~ These two terms have at times been used interchangeably to describe the same phenomena. Child psychiatrist Richard Gardner introduced the term “parental alienation syndrome” in 1985 referring to a psychological disturbance observed in some children who became “obsessed with deprecation and criticism of a parent” they formerly loved for “unjustified and/or exaggerated” reasons (Gardner, 1985, p. 3). Research into parental alienation syndrome revealed that the most common cause of the phenomena was a child’s exposure to parental alienation behaviors (Baker & Darnall, 2007) and brainwashing techniques (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013). Darnall (1998) classified parents who engage in alienating behaviors as either “naïve,” “active,” or “obsessed” (Darnall, 1998, pp. 8-9). Darnall also clarified the difference between the terms parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation when he wrote:
“The distinction between the two is that parental alienation focuses on how the alienating parent behaves toward the children and the targeted parent. Parental alienation syndrome symptoms describe the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the targeted parent after the child has been effectively programmed and severely alienated from the targeted parent” (Darnall, 1998, pp. 3-4).
Thus, the term parental alienation refers to both the processes involved with a child being naively, actively, or obsessively alienated (i.e., psychologically manipulated to dislike or reject a loved parent) and the signs and symptoms of parental alienation syndrome that manifest once the alienation has taken hold of the child’s mind. Parental alienation can be identified whenever there is documented evidence that a child has been exposed to one or more parental alienation strategies (Baker & Darnall, 2006) and/or brainwashing techniques (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013) and the exposure is the primary cause for the child to:
Engage in a “campaign of denigration against the target parent” [The child often present complaints in a litany, some trivial, many false or irrational]
Utilize “frivolous rationalizations” to justify the denigration [The child’s reactions of hatred or disdain are unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances they describe. They may claim to be fearful, but they do so easily and without typical fear reactions] and
Manifest two or more of the following attitudes and behaviors as observed in the child:
“lack of ambivalence” [The child manifests all-or-none thinking, idealizing the alienating parent and devaluing the target parent]
“reflexive support for the alienating parent” [The child immediately and automatically takes the alienating parent’s side in a disagreement]
“borrowed scenarios” [The child makes rehearsed statements that are identical to those made by the alienating parent. Younger siblings may mimic what they have heard their older sibling say. They usually are unable to elaborate on the details of the events they allege]
“independent-thinker phenomenon,” [The child proudly states the decision to reject the target parent is his own, not influenced by the alienating parent]
“absence of guilt or remorse … for mistreatment of the target parent,” [The child may be oppositional, rude, disrespectful, and even violent toward the target parent, and shows little or no remorse for those behaviors]
“spread of the child’s animosity to the target parent’s extended family” [Expressed feelings and hatred often include the extended family or friends of the target parent, even when the child has had little or no contact with them] (See Lorandos & Bernet, 2013, p. 17)
Parental Alienation is child abuse.
https://psychlaw.net/what-is-the-difference-between-parental-alienation-syndrome-and-parental-alienation/
“… The racketeering activity includes startling coordination, kickbacks, and pattern and practice misconduct by court clerks, supervisors, and the Family Law Facilitator office …”
http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/p/temporary-judges.html
There are millions of reasons for screw the bitch custody bait/switch. Connecticut family court Cash cow dumpster fire 🔥.
http://www.stephenkrasner.com/articles-family-law.html
2016 – A Broken System Series
A Broken System: Halls of Justice
A Broken System: Motions for Money
A Broken System: Fighting To Be A Dad
A Broken System: Misconduct and Whistle-Blowing
A Broken System: Parental Alienation
A Broken System: Stewards of Fraud
A Broken System: Child-Parent Sanctity (CPS)
A Broken System: Veteran and Service Member Mistreatment
A Broken System: Court Sanctioned Legal Abuse
A Broken System: Contempt Of Family Court
2017 – A Broken System Series
A Broken System: Timed-Out Custody
Parental Alienation Is Erasing Family
A Broken System: Unconstitutionality Of Family Law
A Broken System: Oaths Betrayed In Family Law
A Broken System: Gatekeeping And Alienation
A Broken System: Court Of Parents
A Broken System: Web Of Enforcement
A Broken System: Wake Of Family Law
A Broken System: Fostering Abusive Dysfunction
A Broken System: Parental Voices Unsilenced
2018 – A Broken System Series
A Broken System: A Court’s Eye View
A Broken System: Obstruction of Parental Rights
A Broken System: Deportation of Innocence
A Broken System: Electing Judicial Bias
Lets open up the court house and let the evidence in. Let’s publish facts. Let’s let the department of justice look over the cases.
The Department of Justice is too busy.
Gather the evidence and present it to someone somewhere.
Who knows who will help.
No one has yet.
very weird that this has gone on for decades in so many countries doing the same damage to children and families in the exact same ways.
There is possibly a million reasons why Nichola Cunha was tossed in jail and disbarred . Lead into unfavorable comments.
There are possibly a billions of reasons the FBI had to investigate Calvery. There are possibly a billion reasons the bar association dismisses complaints. There are possibly abillion reasons the department of public health is ignoring complaints. There are possibly a billion reasons the attorney general’s office is not investigating the discrimination and gender bias in family court. There are possibly a billion reasons why women like Clair are labeled offenders when they are not. There is possibly a billion reasons the alienation industry is calling people on line crazys. There is possibly a billions of reasons the elected officials and judicial branch want to make it against the law to call them out on line. There are possibly a billion reasons the Department of justice and the FBI should consider taking the complaints seriously. There are possiblta billions reasons the alienation industry needs to be investigated. There are possibly billions of reasons to remove some judges from the bench. There are possibly billions of reasons women and children are at risk of being abused. Follow along and pay attention.
… Hidden camera catches lawyer boasting “we run the country.”
“They don’t send the lawyers to jail because we run the country. We’re members of a privileged class in this country. We make the laws and when we do so we make them in a way that is advantageous to the lawyers,” attorney Marc Koplik explains on hidden video in this 60 Minutes broadcast clip.
California Judicial Branch whistleblowers have made similar observations. Court reform advocates assert that many California judges abdicate their responsibility to enforce attorney misconduct laws, and therefore share blame for the problem. The California Code of Judicial Ethics requires judges to enforce attorney ethics laws and standards. Mounting empirical evidence, and court case statistical sampling and analysis indicate that judges ignore this mandatory self-policing law, especially in cases where one party is self-represented. …
“Marc S. Koplik, Managing Partner
Mr. Koplik attended Brown University, where he was a Dean’s Scholar, College Scholar, and Francis Wayland Scholar. He graduated from Yale Law School, where he was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale Journal of Law and Social Policy.
Mr. Koplik started his legal career at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and then at Debevoise & Plimpton, where he worked on financial and general corporate matters for large corporations. He now works on domestic and international transactions with smaller companies and individuals. Over the past three decades, Mr. Koplik has represented clients from every corner of the globe, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, Kentucky Tennessee, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Israel, China, India, Brazil, St. Vincent’s and the Grenadines, Tobago, and Malta.
Mr. Koplik is the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of Laidlaw Holdings Ltd., which owns subsidiaries engaged in brokerage, investment banking, asset management, venture capital, and private equity. He is legal advisor to Enclave Financial Group, which owns and is establishing a financial services business. Recently Mr. Koplik served as a manager and lawyer for special purpose vehicles that are active in the secondary market for pre-IPO equity. He served as General Counsel of Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd. and as the chief operating officer and chief compliance officer of an SEC registered investment adviser. He advises hedge funds, both domestic and offshore. He is a director of a merchant banking company focused on the “BRIC” emerging countries. Mr. Koplik has been selected to serve as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
Primarily in the New York City office, Mr. Koplik also practices from the upstate office in the Capital Region.
… He advises hedge funds, both domestic and offshore. He is a director of a merchant banking company focused on the “BRIC” emerging countries. Mr. Koplik has been selected to serve as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) …”
The obsession with Connecticut family court. TANF block Grant funding. TANF block Grant funding and State MOE funds on programs or services that accomplish the broad purposes of the TNAF program. These sources of funding are potentially the largest source of funding for the fatherhood initiative. Pursuant to PI 114-53. As of 2015 16.5 billion dollars. Additional funding of Moe requirements (at the 75 0/0 level) is 10.4 billion annually. 69 0/0 reduction in case flow welfare cases load together with fixed block Grant funding means the funds that otherwise would have been spent for cash assistance now available for other purposes such as the fatherhood initiative. Connecticut fatherhood initiative becoming the first state to pass legislation on fatherhood legislation. In 1999. State and local agencies working together to make policies for father’s and families. With an emphasis on father’s who live out side the same house hold. A state wide effect led by the department of social services. . One such objective to assist father’s in preparation for LEGAL, financial and emotional responsibility of fatherhood partners in the state wide effect to promote father’s. CT department of child and family services. Department of corrections. Department of housing. CT department of labor. CT department of mental health and addiction. CT Department of public health. Connecticut state colleges and Universities. CT judicial branch court enforcement services. CT charities Archdiocese of Hartford. CT renewal team. CT clearing house. CT coalition against domestic violence. David Mandel and associates LLC. Family strides inc. CBAPP Inc. Madonna place inc. New England fatherhood conference. New Opportunities Inc. Real Dad’s forever. The consultation center at Yale. UConn health disartus Institute. UConn human development and family services. United way of Connecticut. Village for families and children. Well more behavioral health youth on fire. There are millions of reasons to discriminate and label women mostly as alienators. Tons of places that may have insensitive not to focus on the best interest of children when you have agreed to place fatherhood initiative above all else. There are millions of reasons to label any behavior parental alienation.
“MEYER ELKIN Interviewed at his home by David Kuroda February 27, 1992
Meyer Elkin, a social worker with an MSW from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, created the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles as a vehicle for the Court to provide mediation and counseling to families considering divorce. It became the prototype for other conciliation court programs elsewhere in the United States. David Kuroda, with an MSW from the School of Social Work, University of Southern California, succeeded Meyer Elkin in directing the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles.
ELKIN: Dave, what we’re talking about right now
ELKIN: … The clock was running in terms of money. If they sat in our waiting room for two hours, it would be more than if we took them right away. We’d always interview the attorneys first, and they liked that. We were interested in what they had to say just for a brief period, a couple of minutes. They’d get some impressions about the couple. As the years went by, more and more attorneys used us and more and more attorneys liked us.
KURODA: Now this was still for the marriage counseling?
ELKIN: Yes. When I talk to you, I’m not talking about investigation, I’m talking of only marriage counseling in the court. Now the court has expanded to other matters. I can only talk to you about the marriage counseling function and the Conciliation Court, not the family court. …”
https://libraries.usc.edu/sites/default/files/elkin_meyer.pdf
Key take-away: AFCC astroturfed on Meyer Elkin’s good nature and good will.
Meyer Elkin Did what he did for the right reasons.He wasn’t in it for profit. He didn’t purposely create adversarial and deceitful cottage industries to use quack theories and junk science to destroy children and families as so many AFCC, Inc. state chapter members do today.
From the AFCC “History” section on the website:
“The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) took root in California in the spring of 1963 with the creation of the California Conciliation Courts Quarterly, the first publication to promote the interchange of ideas between California’s conciliation courts. Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, wrote:
California has become a model for conciliation services as a part of the judicial function for other states to emulate and each year we find jurisdictions creating such services. It may well be that in the not too distant future this little publication may have a wider dissemination with similar courts in other states.
Judge Pfaff’s words proved truly prophetic.
https://www.jmichaelbone.com/blog/access-and-visitation-blocking-the-first-ingredient-of-parental-alienation
The first criterion that inhabits virtually all parental alienation cases is Access and Visitation Blocking.
I believe the most important thing to understand about this criterion is that it occupies a vast continuum of possibilities. On the most extreme end would be the overt and purposeful blocking of access to one’s children by what will end up being the alienating parent. This extreme and unsubtle version of this criterion would be that alienating parent refusing to deliver or produce the children when the allotted access time occurs. Perhaps surprisingly, this extreme expression of this kind of access blocking is more the exception than the rule, since it is easy to spot and confront.
If a court order states that child A will be delivered to the non-custodial parent on say Friday at 3:00 PM, and the child is not delivered and no warning or reason is given, that alienating and offending parent is placing them self in a position to be chastised by the court. While this does occur on occasion, it is my experience that it is rather rare. Most alienating parents are more savvy than this.
We must be reminded that the Family Law system throughout the land is biased towards the protection of children, which it should be. Children should and must be shielded from abuse and danger. It is important to understand that this default setting of protection does in fact constitute a bias. What this means is that even the most subtle suggestion that a child would be better off not seeing that (targeted) parent tends to be absorbed by this bias. The legal phrase “out of an abundance of caution” is often heard during these moments.
In other words, out of caution for making certain that the child in question is not in danger, the access time might well be at least postponed, if not cancelled all together, due to this bias. However, as we know in the case of parental alienation, it is precisely this bias that is manipulated and exploited. In other words, even when there is no articulated (false) allegation as to why a child should not see that other parent, the bias to protect that child from danger very often jumps into the thinking of the court, which causes the court to rarely act quickly and decisively to confront a violation of its own order.
Therefore we more often than not find that the access and visitation blocking represented by this criterion implicitly clothed in some suggestion that the child is better off not having their contact time with that parent passes muster with the court. “There must be some reason this child did not want to see that parent” is a phrase that hovers over these incidents, which causes the court to “lean back” out of caution, rather than “lean forward” in a confrontational posture. This caution and hesitation is the very ghost of this bias to protect. It simply is the default setting, so much so that little reason must be given as to why the court’s order was not followed. I stress this point so much here because I believe that the bias to protect – again, legitimate and necessary as it is – constitutes a powerful undertow that can easily wash a parent’s time with their child out to sea, so to speak.
Therefore, the alienating parents task is easy. Even the hint or suggestion of displeasure or danger tips the bias over the edge. And it is this pietre dish of bias to protect, where the bacterium of alienation can grow both quickly and easily.
The playing field is not level. It is slanted in favor of the alienating parent when alienation is present. We must simply recognize this if it is to be overcome.
So what forms of this access and visitation blocking might we see? The most extreme and unsubtle is noted above, but the more subtle yet still impacting must also be identified.
In today’s hyper communicative environment, replete with social media, text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, email and telephone, all of these media are subject to the expression of this criterion.
When it comes to social media, we might find that a parent is “unfriended” or perhaps an alternate identify is created for purposes of cutting off communication with that parent. In the case of the other digital media, we see alternate email addresses being created, and alternate cell phone accounts being opened. In the case of telephonic communication, we might see telephone calls not being returned or voicemail messages not being played.
Ironically perhaps, since we now have so many more communicative media available, they all represent opportunities to show to the court the presence of this criterion. I therefore make the strong recommendation that logs of calls, messages and all other data exposing this criterion be created and maintained. While it is unrealistic to expect that any trier of fact (Judge) is going to listen to many or any of these messages, the effect of having abundant documentation that carries the theme of access and visitation blocking, is significant.
Moving down the scale of subtly, one of the more common expressions of this criterion is that of the alienating parent scheduling a child for activities that occupy the time that the child is to see the targeted parent. This has the familiar theme of thereby causing the targeted parent to be in a quandary as to what to do. Should he or she insist on disallowing the child to participate in the activity in favor of contact, or should he or she alter their activities to attend the activity with the child, or should he or she simply allow the activity to occur and forgo contact? There are no pat answers to these questions as each set of circumstances must be assessed and weighed individually.
However what is clear is that this quandary as to what to do may be presented to the court as having been created by the actions of the alienating parent. The alienating parent must be shown to be the puppeteer who manipulates the child to be in the middle, and to act as their agent, and examples of using activities to block access can be a fertile ground to make this argument.
In my experience, when the court begins to understand the pattern of one (alienating) parent setting up circumstance after circumstance wherein this quandary occurs, the court begins to rule in a more productive direction. Until that is made clear however, the court most often fails to act in a curative direction, if it acts at all. As with my other posts, I invite comment and suggestion. I hope that this discussion helps.
The problem is not education. The problem is curruption. Until these Judges,GALs, family court services, DCF, psychologist and a hole host of agencies are legally held responsible this is never going to end.
100%
http://www.stephenkrasner.com/articles-family-law.html Enough information to make your head spin.
A Broken System: Halls of Justice
Stephen Krasner, Contributor
2016 – A Broken System Series
A Broken System: Halls of Justice
A Broken System: Motions for Money
A Broken System: Fighting To Be A Dad
A Broken System: Misconduct and Whistle-Blowing
A Broken System: Parental Alienation
A Broken System: Stewards of Fraud
A Broken System: Child-Parent Sanctity (CPS)
A Broken System: Veteran and Service Member Mistreatment
A Broken System: Court Sanctioned Legal Abuse
A Broken System: Contempt Of Family Court
2017 – A Broken System Series
A Broken System: Timed-Out Custody
Parental Alienation Is Erasing Family
A Broken System: Unconstitutionality Of Family Law
A Broken System: Oaths Betrayed In Family Law
A Broken System: Gatekeeping And Alienation
A Broken System: Court Of Parents
A Broken System: Web Of Enforcement
A Broken System: Wake Of Family Law
A Broken System: Fostering Abusive Dysfunction
A Broken System: Parental Voices Unsilenced
2018 – A Broken System Series
A Broken System: A Court’s Eye View
A Broken System: Obstruction of Parental Rights
A Broken System: Deportation of Innocence
A Broken System: Electing Judicial Bias
Litigating Parental Alienation Claims: Strategies, Investigation, Obtaining Evidence, Role of Experts, Intervention
A live 90-minute CLE video webinar with interactive Q&A
Thursday, June 22, 2023
1:00pm-2:30pm EDT, 10:00am-11:30am PDT
Early Registration Discount Deadline, Friday, May 26, 2023
… Ever more frequently, family lawyers are having to defend claims of alleged “parental alienation”, which supposedly occurs when a child is deliberately manipulated to align him- or herself with one parent and to refuse contact with the other. Counsel need practical strategies for investigating and litigating emotion-laden allegations in light of the law, science, and how various courts define the problem and deal with it.
The concept of “parental alienation” is a controversial topic/label and the evidence in support of it is questionable. “Parental alienation” is frequently misused as a construct to counter allegations of all forms of child abuse. Experts, such as counselors or psychiatrists, may have an economic interest in both diagnosis and therapeutic intervention. Proponents of “parental alienation” often fail to recognize the multiple legitimate reasons children have for resisting/refusing contact with a parent. A genuine case of parental manipulation, however, can lead to a parent being deprived, without justification, of the fundamental right to a relationship with their child.
Listen as this experienced panel of parent and child attorneys guides family law attorneys from investigation through handling a parental alienation case in court.
Outline
Brief history and overview of the controversies about parental alienation
Type of situations where it arises
How courts define and address it
Proving or challenging parental alienation
Law
Investigation
Role of guardian ad litem
Role of experts
Selection
Examining the child
Admissibility
Remedies and intervention …
CANNOT ATTEND JUNE 22?
Early Discount (through 05/26/23)
You may pre-order a recording to listen at your convenience. Recordings are available 48 hours after the webinar. Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts …”
The problem with all of this is the courts. The GaLs and the psychologist. Judges , not every dad’s an abuser, not every mom is an alienator. Stop relying on the GALs. Please pay attention to your case not these attorneys. Too much financial insensitive to hide the truth. Children lives are depending on you. Sincerely the general public.
Family court: where the victim is abused and the ALIENATORS are rewarded
“… ACLU founder and Kinsey attorney Morris Ernst revealed the political strategy was to quietly insert the Kinsey data to draft penal changes from New York to California. Writing in “Law” in the Saturday Review, (March 13, 1948) Ernst explains;
Rockefeller, Indiana University, and the Kinsey staff have made an outstanding contribution to….law which touches on marriage, the home, and personal behavior patterns related to sexual drives or suppression. The Kinsey contribution must eventually affect all our sexual legal folkways…. Are we ready for a national pattern?….Kinsey and his staff are wise enough not to hint, even, at any answers …[and use] no adjectives. Not a single passing comment should be made on the effect of the data on present laws, or the effect of the existence of the present laws on the data. Others must take on that chore. It’s time now for a staff of lawyers, with zeal and wisdom equal to the Kinsey group, to study the material…the Kinsey Research Magnificent.”[6]
“A Staff of Lawyers:” The Revision Committee
In 1963, the “staff of lawyers” entitled, the California Joint Legislative Committee for the Revision of the Penal Code was organized, including 10 men, divided equally from both houses of the legislature. The revision staff was made up of “a staff of lawyers, with zeal and wisdom” law school professors from UC Berkeley, University of Southern California and Stanford University. In addition there was an advisory board of two district attorneys, two criminal defense attorneys, two judges, Professor Arthur Sherry, and a representative from the Attorney General’s office.
As was the case with the national ALI/MPC draft, no active prosecutors participated in either the California revision staff or the advisory board. Each member of the staff was assigned individual research and drafting responsibilities. When their product of 18 months work was brought to the California board, the board’s response was unfavorable. Sherry, indignant for himself and his staff, wrote:
[I]ts product at first inspection struck most of the members of the Board, unfamiliar with the Model Penal Code or any other contemporary criminal law revision as a strange and baffling departure from all of the familiar landmarks of conventional law. The style of the Model Penal Code, its rigorously logical order and its general abandonment of common law terminology does pose difficulties for anyone whose entire educational and professional experience has been circumscribed by the eighteenth century common law concepts still preserved in the criminal law of California. The staff, of course, was greatly influenced by the Model Penal Code.[7]
In 1969, the “staff of lawyers” were dismissed, and a former Deputy Attorney General was appointed to redirect the reform process. The UCLA Law Review devoted its April 1972 issue to a “Student Symposium on the Proposed California Criminal Code.” They described the current California Penal Code, which was based on an 1872 enactment, as “outdated, unmanageably lengthy, and internally inconsistent.”[8]
According to Professor Sherry, “it seemed apparent to the staff that the Model Penal Code provided the most useful and efficient base from which to attack this disorderly body of law.” (pp. 434-435). Their “efficient” draft on sex offenses “assumed that in almost all offenses, a maximum term of five years would be adequate and would best serve the goals of modern correctional practice” (p. 437).
To do this, sex felonies would be demoted to lesser crimes and/or penalties, while they proposed stripping the law of most if not all of its misdemeanor criminal sanctions, substituting the non-criminal offense of “infraction” punishable by fine, or some other non-custodial restraint. In fact, Kinsey’s friend, psychiatrist Karl Bowman, reported that by late 1950 the 1955 MPC view of sex offenders had been quietly gaining converts in California.
Bowman claimed that the average period of confinement for “child molesting, incest, exhibitionism, window peeping, sadism and certain homosexual crimes” was “about eighteen months.” Additional staff could reduce that “to fourteen months” opined an optimistic California Mental Health Progress Report 4, in 1963. Sex crimes of sadism, incest and child abuse were pronounced trivial in the larger scheme of things. …”
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/10/the_fall_of_cal.html
‼️‼️‼️Facts on Parental Alienation
If you are aiding someone in parental alienation you are assisting in mentally abusing that child and therefore you are inflicting abuse to that child as well.
#parentalalienation #parentalalienationawareness #parentalalienationischildabuse #parentalalienationisacrime #parentalrights #FamilyCourt #familycourts #FamilyCourtReform #abuse #abuseawareness #abuseisabuse #AbusedChildren #enoughisenough
Convincing a child to abandon one of the most important relationships in their lives is no flex- it just means your character is weak enough to enjoy manipulating the most vulnerable demographic and feeling no guilt for the harm caused.
When a dog bites a child, the child becomes fearful of the dog. They stay away. Why do we refuse to believe that when a parent abuses a child they don’t become fearful. Avoid the parent who is abusing them? We counsel adults to get out of abusive relationship. Why are we teaching children they have to deal with and stay in abusive relationship with a parent? As a result of the alienation industry all cases no matter what are forced into reunification. Even when abuse is proven. The alienation industry has become substantially unregulated, undefined, leading to a dangerous family court system.
The alienation industry would not even be a significance if there wasn’t the uprise of false allegations, false, DV, false reporting’s, all with the intent to coerce the courts for financial and custody gains… hence cash flow for the pathological parent and the swine attorneys, GALs profiting from this scenario. you’ll see how quickly the false claims would disappear if you made the punishment of false DV Abuse and false alienation equipment to allegations claimed
When there are consequences and accountability people even some distorted ones won’t even have to think twice
Touché pussycat
Curruption. Too much money to allow evidence. Forced reunification and camps. Until the oversight and open court. It will continue. Either way false claims of abuse and parental alienation. Funding state agencies for programs for abusers. No statistical data collected tracking judge, gal and psychologist. No tracking out comes. False documents filled with the clerks office. The courts need same federal over sight as DCF.
“Over the past 32 years, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families has made organizational and operational changes that have dramatically improved the way the agency provides services to children and families in Connecticut,” the motion indicates. The agency is “now well-positioned to move forward without judicial oversight.”
Originally filed in 1989, the lawsuit sought “prospective declarative and injunctive relief” on behalf of the “plaintiff class” of children involved in the Connecticut child welfare system as they were the subject of maltreatment allegations or placed into the care and custody of the department.“
https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/03-2022/Governor-Lamont-Announces-Joint-Motion-Filed-for-DCF-to-Exit-Juan-F
when there is no oversight , let the party begin! When the cats not home the mice will play.
Alienation would be almost non existent if the4 bar was raised for punishment and incarceration for False allegations of abuse/child abuse and associated debris that is thrown in.
https://www.jmichaelbone.com/blog/access-and-visitation-blocking-the-first-ingredient-of-parental-alienation
The first criterion that inhabits virtually all parental alienation cases is Access and Visitation Blocking.
https://www.jmichaelbone.com/articles.html
Titles
Parental Alienation Syndrome Passes the Frye Test
by J. Michael Bone, Ph.D
Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody Problem
by Michael R. Walsh and J. Michael Bone
Parental Alienation Syndrome: How to Detect It and What to Do About It
by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh
Parental Alienation Syndrome: Examining the Validity Amid Controversy
by J. Michael Bone, Ph.D
When Children Get Caught in the Middle
by Kelly Burgess: iParentingMedia
Lost Children: Parental Alienation
by John Sedgwick: Best Life Magazine
Treatment Considerations with Children Diagnosed with PAS
by Robert A. Evans: Florida Bar Journal
Parentectomy in the Crossfire
by David & Collette Summers
The Kidnapper’s Trick
by Nathan Thornburgh
It looks like John Michael Bone, LMHC relinquished his license in 2007 …
“Case No. 2005-66289 and 2005-66637
(PCP: Zachary, Shyers, Adejokun-Ojo / Lobnitz, Sherrard, Roberts)
Mr. Bone was not present and was not represented by counsel. A four-count administrative complaint filed May 11, 2006 alleged violations of s. 491.009(1)(w), F.S., by violating Rule 64B4-7.006(2)(a), F.A.C., by providing an evaluation of a minor when respondent had a prior relationship with one of the parties; Rule 64B4-7.006(2)(b), F.A.C., by failing to interview minor’s treating mental health professions, family physician, immediate relatives, teachers, and school counselor; Rule 64B4-7.006(2)(b), F.A.C., by failing to use testing methods in data gathering; s. 456.072(1)(j), F.S., by aiding, assisting, or procuring a person not licensed to practice psychology or psychotherapy, to practice psychology or psychotherapy.
A two-count administrative complaint filed on October 2, 2006 alleged violations of s. 491.009(1)(t), F.S., by violating Rule 64B4-7.006(2)(b), F.A.C., of failing to use multiple avenues of data gathering including testing and interviewing all persons central to evaluation of a minor; and s. 491.009(1)(h), F.S., by failing to perform a legal obligation of including psychological evaluations and substance abuse evaluations of the parties as part of evaluation by order of the Circuit Court.
A voluntary relinquishment of license was submitted to the department in lieu of further administrative/disciplinary action, in which respondent agrees to never reapply for licensure under Chapter 491, Florida Statutes.
Following discussion, the board took the following action: to accept the voluntary relinquishment of license ….”
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/bone.pdf
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/bone2.pdf
False Allegations of Abuse: The Second Ingredient of Parental Alienation
This is the second in a series of four posts devoted to the four criteria that are found in parental alienation cases.
As a reference point to this, I would remind the reader that this series of posts is related to an article authored by myself and a Florida Attorney, Michael Walsh.
The original purpose of the article was to provide Family Law attorneys with a kind of template as to what to look for in these cases. It was written in such a way that one could potentially review the file and make a fairly good speculative guess as to the presence or absence of parental alienation. I made the point in that article that some or even three of these criteria could be found in high conflict cases of divorce and post divorce, and still not be parental alienation.
My point was that, in my opinion, all four must be present for there to be parental alienation.
Even though this article was written from a qualitative point of view rather than from a quantitative perspective, I still believe that it is accurate. I have yet to see a parental alienation case without all four being present. That is the back story. The subject of this post is the second of these criteria, which is False Allegations of Abuse.
As with the first criterion, access and visitation blocking, this one also has a wide range of expressions.
On the most extreme and unsubtle end is the frank but false accusation that a parent has abused a child physically, emotionally and even sexually, when no such abuse occurred.
This is perhaps the most heinous expression of this criterion. In these cases, various agencies will typically become involved wherein an “investigation” will occur. I put this word in quotations due to the fact that these investigations also have a very wide range of quality and expression.
I have seen very good and thorough investigations having been completed where the agency charged with protecting the child from danger actually becomes a voice to expose the alienation.
In these cases, the investigator actively accesses the accusing party in terms of their credibility, obviously recognizing that false child abuse accusations do occur within the divorce context. Any seasoned agency investigator will quickly point this out, and as a result, will be open to the possibility that the accusation might be false and motivated by the hope of a tactical advantage in the divorce process.
That said, the investigator actively and thoroughly considers as an equal possibility, that the abuse did in fact occur. In pursuit of this, the investigator will question the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator and as many collateral sources as the fact pattern might warrant. As with any investigation or evaluative process, the goal is to develop multiple hypotheses about whatever is being investigated and then to apply the data to these various hypotheses and see which comes closest to matching. To properly investigate any allegation of harm to a child (or to an adult) requires thorough and painstaking work, which cannot be accomplished with a single visit or videotaped interview.
Here is where we come to the problem. The above model of a competent and thorough evaluation, while vitally important, is an extreme rarity. More often than not, the alleged victim, the child is interviewed perhaps once, often at a school, or perhaps at the parent’s home, and some sort of report is filed based primarily, if not exclusively on the comments of the alleged victim and his or her reporting parent. Very often, the alleged perpetrator, in the case of parental alienation, the other parent, is not even contacted. I have heard countless descriptions by parents who learn after the fact that such an investigation even occurred.
Equally, when this is somehow stumbled upon, I have heard countless descriptions of that parent trying to meet with the investigating agency, to learn about what they are being accused of, only to be turned away. The sad state of affairs, in many of our state run agencies charged with the protection children, is that if a child even suggested that some adverse event occurred that it simply must be true. This perspective is perhaps three decades old and the belief that children do not lie about such things is no longer subscribed to by any researcher in the field.
Just to be clear: a child making an accusation may be telling the truth, or they may not be. The possibility that the accusation might be false is supported by a great deal of research. This does not mean that, especially in the context of divorce and post divorce, that all such accusations should be considered as being false, only that this should be considered. In 1995, a research psychologist at Cornell University, Steven, Ceci, PhD published a book entitled “Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony”. If any of you are not familiar with this book and have an interest in such things, I would highly recommend it.
In it Ceci describes all of the many an myriad ways that children’s statements, testimony and such like are so easily influenced. They are very easily influenced, and therefore any interview that can be used as evidence must be done in a painstaking and delicate manner. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to this readership that these interviews, even nearly two decades after the publication of this book, are not done carefully at all. I have reviewed countless such videotaped interviews and have been shocked by their tone-deaf quality and their unsubtle violation of the rules of such interviews.
Sadly however, this is the state of things. This extreme end of the spectrum of this criterion is well known to this readership and makes up many of the nightmarish tragedies of wrongly accused parents being removed from their children. There is a great deal of information and countless examples of this, and I fear that I cannot add much further to an understanding of this in this post. Suffice it to say, the injustice of such tragedies is immense and beyond words, and parents and children who have suffered this deserve our unending support and compassion. These are true tragedies.
However, as we move down the spectrum of the expression of this criterion however, we find more subtle but still potent examples of it. These examples are the broad category where a parent is portrayed as anything from incompetent, to disinterested, to selfish, to unstable, to potentially dangerous, to “not to be trusted”. These messages, we should be reminded are messages that the alienating parent sends out to virtually anyone who will listen, in their effort to vilify the targeted parent to the world at large.
While we know that this is the target audience of these alienating parents, the most significant subset of the audience is, of course the children, who are absorbing the poison regarding their now largely marginalized or absent other parent, with whom they once had a loving relationship. When one considers the role of this criteria, coupled with the first one – Access and Visitation Blocking – it is clear that this second criterion operates as a justification for the first one.
As has been noted, given the court’s sensitivity towards the protection of children, it should not be surprising to see that the function of this criterion is to provide a reason for the court to err of the side of caution.
Put simply, it is not at all difficult to get a Family Law Judge to pause “out of an abundance of caution” in re-uniting a child and a parent who has, in all likelihood, been falsely accused of some form of abuse. The bar is simply not set that high.
Put another way, the deck is stacked against the falsely accused parent. This is perhaps unavoidable, but such bias should be met with active investigation, which it very often is not. Such accusations should be equally tested for legitimacy just as the real danger to a child should be judged. Very often, only the second half of that equation is accomplished
The Role of Parental Alienation in False Allegations of Child Abuse
When marriages end acrimoniously, children are often caught in the crossfire. One way that a vengeful, possibly psychologically unbalanced spouse can sabotage an ex-spouse is through parental alienation. Parental alienation is a real and growing problem, and it can play a significant role in false child abuse allegations.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS): Definitions and Parameters
According to Dr. Debra Dupree of relationshipsthatmatter.com, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is “the deliberate attempt by one parent (and/or guardian/significant other) to distance his/her children from [the] other parent. The parent engages the children in the process of destroying the affectional ties that once existed.”
Estrangement differs from parental alienation in that estranged parents behave so badly toward a child that the child refuses contact. Estranged parents often accuse their co-parents of practicing parental alienation when, in reality, their own unacceptable behavior triggered the problem.
Some common indicators that point to parental alienation include:
Saying negative things about the other parent on a regular basis
Sharing an inappropriate amount of information about the divorce with the child
Withholding contact information
Leaving it up to child to decide whether or not to visit the other parent
Twisting the other parent’s good intentions
Bribing the child with gifts and/or lack of rules or boundaries
Forcing the child to choose one parent over the other
In a 2018 Psychology Today article, Dr. Susan Heitler notes that an alienating parent often manifests narcissistic, borderline, or antisocial tendencies. Self-absorbed narcissists expect the world to revolve around their wants, needs, thoughts, and beliefs. Although narcissists dismiss others’ desires or ideas, they can be so disarmingly charming that it’s hard to discern this lack of empathy through a casual encounter. Indeed, it can take years to unmask a narcissist.
On the other hand, people with borderline personality disorder exhibit emotional hyper-reactivity, which is often expressed as anger. This type of alienator is particularly vicious about seeking to destroy the other parent’s relationship with the children. Worse yet, the alienator often enlists the child in this battle.
Alternatively, those who engage in severe alienation may have an antisocial personality disorder. These people lie convincingly and without remorse. They may also act in ways that harm others, including their own children, without feeling guilty.
The effects of parental alienation linger long into adulthood. A child may feel guilty about loving a parent hated by the other parent, and they fear being abandoned by the alienating parent. The child may never regain a close relationship with the persecuted parent, and frequently has an impaired ability to form healthy, intimate relationships in adulthood.
Parental alienation was first described by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985. As such, the clinical understanding of parental alienation is still developing. Some researchers consider parental alienation to be a form of emotional child abuse and family violence.
How Parental Alienation Syndrome Relates to False Child Abuse Allegations
Mild to moderate cases of parental alienation are bad enough. However, in a severe parental alienation scenario, the alienating parent may turn a child against another parent to such an extent that the child believes the target parent committed abuse. When a child tells someone about the alleged abuse, Child Protective Services must get involved.
Overworked and undertrained caseworkers tend to accept abuse allegations at face value. Authorities focus their attention on separating the accuser from the accused and may not consider that an alienating parent coached the child. Therefore, the falsely accused parent and his or her legal counsel must present evidence of parental alienation.
How to Fight Back Against False Abuse Allegations Fueled by Parental Alienation
The evidence that a child has been molested or abused is often just the word of an accuser. However, the child’s testimony may cause the target parent to lose the case and his reputation. Therefore, the alienated parent must expend an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources to gather evidence that discredits the accuser.
One delicate part of this proceeding is that nobody wants to undermine the credibility of his or her own child. However, when the preponderance of the evidence points to severe parental alienation, a case can be made that the child is simply the puppet of the real accuser, which is the parent who has manipulated the accuser. This is most often seen where a parent (usually a mother) suffers from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSP).
According to a Researchgate article, MSP is a complex form of child abuse in which an adult fabricates evidence that her child is ill or even induces symptoms in the child. The modern-day version of this syndrome occurs when the mother insists that her child has been abused by somebody else, usually her ex-husband.
An alienated parent must fight fire with fire and gather what evidence he can to undermine the accuser’s credibility. Social media posts, text messages, emails, and all manner of evidence are fair game.
In addition to obtaining expert legal counsel, the unfairly accused parent may need to employ expert psychological help to build a case for parental alienation and/or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. He may also need to hire a private investigator.
In addition to attacking the credibility of the real accuser (the alienator), the target parent must boost his own reputation. If called upon to testify, his statements must be believable. To accomplish this, he can obtain character witness statements, tell the truth, and maintain consistency in all statements. Passing a lie detector test and a psychological evaluation may also bolster the falsely accused parent’s case.
There are several other ways an alienated parent who is falsely accused of child molestation or abuse can fight back against his accuser and the legal system. in this excellent article here.
Conclusion
Parental alienation is real. In the most severe form of parental alienation, parents brainwash children into thinking that the other parent has abused them. These false allegations cause the target parent to have to fight to clear his name.
Understanding parental alienation, however, can help the falsely accused parent fight against it. Unfortunately, it will require a great deal of time, effort, and resources to clear an accusation of child abuse motivated by parental alienation.
False alligations of parental alienation are a larger problem in family court than alligations of abuse. The wind blows and the other parent is accused of alienation. It’s a money maker and the attorneys are only too happy to jump on board. Being angry is apart of the grief process in divorce. Accused parents are abused by the legal system increasing abuse . Often people who are accused of alienation or abuse become angry . Inflamed by of the treatment from the court. Often gals behave in such a manor to agitate the accused parent. Giving perceptions about the parent being accused of alienation. It’s a calculated system. The players in the game inflame these cases. As you can see in the multiple stories you have read. The AFCC and the alienation industry is highly trained in psychological warfare to decline the mental health of the parent accused of alienation or abuse. There is a difference between mental health and mental illness. . It is well beyond time to shut down the court system. It’s a highly skilled game targeted towards parents. Emotionally and psychology damaging human beings. Placing children in harms way.
Harm to children starts with incentivized latitude of the DV industry which no bar at all… when false DV and false child abuse claims are held to the same scrutiny/punishment of the charge claimed you will be see false PA diminish significantly… but that wont happen BECAUSE everyone profits from it.
Parental Alienation is alive and well.You will believe it when it happens to you. It is a very insidious form of child psychological abuse and these child abusers that inflict this on children and the Target parent should be behind bars and that includes colluding attorneys, GAL’s, inept CPS caseworkers, psychologists and Judges. Slam the Gavel Podcast, Maryann Petri
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRKQGKQK/
From The United Nations Human Rights Council …
“… Conclusion and recommendations
The report demonstrates how the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe. It also shows how the standard of the best interest of the child is violated by imposing contact between a child and one or both parents and by prioritizing it, even where there is evidence of domestic violence. Predominantly as a result of the lack of training and gender bias and of access to legal support, the custody of children may be awarded to perpetrators of violence, despite evidence of a history of domestic and/or sexual abuse. The risks of such consequences are compounded for women from marginalized groups in society. The report elaborates on systemic issues that lead to additional barriers to justice. Judges and evaluators need to move away from focusing on the identification of behaviours that are contested within the discipline of psychology and towards a focus on the specific facts and contexts of each case. …”
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G23/070/18/PDF/G2307018.pdf?OpenElement
Happy Mother’s day to all the Mothers. The recognition of the alienation industry crimes committed is a beginning. The legal discrimination against women and children is a crime. Let’s hope the appropriate people will get prosecuted. Keep speaking up. Keep fighting for your rights. Keep fighting for your children. We are more than a birthing person. We are parents and not second class citizen! We don’t have to stand for being labeled nuts , crazy, gate keepers, alienators and liars. We deserve due process. Rights to evidancery hearings. The ability to have our experts witness and not forced to use the alienation industry expect. Stop the civil rights violations going on in the family courts! We have the right to zealous represention. We have the right to have attorneys disbarred or sanctioned for violating the standard of practice. Stop the abuse and harm of innocent children for profit and funding!
I attempted to open the UN Document but was unable. How else can I get a copy of this document? Thank you!
Very interesting. The link was working a few days ago. Now it says:
“There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
– Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
– Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
– You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.”
Here is the “Call for inputs – Custody cases, violence against women and violence against children
ISSUED BY Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls”
https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-inputs-custody-cases-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children
Most everyone following what’s been happening wouldn’t be surprised if the same kind of Big Shots who pushed around Catherine Tatge, Dominique Lasseur, and Connecticut Public Television (CPTV) also pushed around the UN Special Rapporteur.
https://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2005/12/introduction_and_breaking_the_silence.html
“ All submissions will be published on the mandate webpage on the OHCHR website, unless otherwise indicated in your submission.“ …
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-violence-against-women
“UN to investigate use of ‘parental alienation’ tactic in custody cases
This article is more than 4 months old
Fears an increase in allegations, particularly against mothers, of deliberately alienating a child against the other parent in domestic abuse cases may put victims at further risk …”
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/dec/14/un-to-investigate-into-misuse-of-parental-alienation-tactic-in-custody-cases
From APO (formerly ‘Australian Policy Online’) …
“Custody, violence against women and violence against children
11 MAY 2023
Reem Alsalem
PUBLISHER
United Nations Human Rights Council”
“ The present report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, Reem Alsalem, is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 50/7. The Special Rapporteur, along with the other members of the Platform of Independent Expert Mechanisms on the Elimination of Discrimination and Violence against Women, has voiced concern about the pattern of ignoring intimate partner violence against women in determining child custody cases across jurisdictions. Since raising specific concerns to Brazil and Spain, the Special Rapporteur has received reports of cases from countries where such violence has been ignored and where mothers making such allegations have been penalized by law enforcement and/or the judiciary responsible for determining custody cases.
The tendency to dismiss the history of domestic violence and abuse in custody cases extends to cases where mothers and/or children themselves have brought forward credible allegations of physical or sexual abuse. In several countries, family courts have tended to judge such allegations as deliberate efforts by mothers to manipulate their children and to separate them from their fathers. This supposed effort by a parent alleging abuse is often termed “parental alienation”. The report examines ways in which family courts in different regions refer to “parental alienation” or similar pseudo-concepts in custody cases, ignoring histories of domestic violence, which may lead to the double victimization of victims of such violence. The report also offers recommendations for States and other stakeholders on how to address the situation”
https://apo.org.au/node/322692
The above Australian site offers the same link to the same UN page where the report was just a few days ago — still down for some reason.
This one works, just select your preferred language and it will go to the document:
https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?DeviceType=Desktop&FinalSymbol=A%2FHRC%2F53%2F36&LangRequested=False&Language=E
Parental alienation or alienation is an abusers tactic. GALs and shrinks do the dirty work for the court machine. Find me a protective parent (usually mom) who wouldn’t deplete all assets to save kids? What better way to continue conflict for Court derived incomes and enable abusers to continue to abuse? It’s a tactic- if it weren’t a tactic, people would call the actions alleged to indicate it what it really is: neglect, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, domestic violence by proxy. Then it’s no longer a family court issue. Never heard of a kids in child protective services services being removed for parental alienation. Abuser/pedi scam
I wish it was that simple
I’m sorry to say that it is not
Therapists constantly get bought off or black mailed or intimidated
It’s all a useless money drain
The professionals don’t give one hoot about the children
It’s all a bad joke
Anonymous,
You are absolutely correct. The Connecticut Family Court system could not care less about the children or the innocent parent being accused. What they care about is which parent can pay the most to take the children away from the other parent. Parental Alienation in one case I’m familiar with, the parent accusing the other parent of Parental Alienation is projecting exactly what he’s doing. The Connecticut Family Court system is as corrupt as our current Department of “Justice”.
Parental Alienation is strictly pseudo-science and it has nothing to do with proper child custody. This fake notation is solely used to guide the children to the parent with the most money. It totally ruins children’s lives by placing them usually with an abusive parent. The GAL (Gangster at Large) is a mouthpiece to the judge who never talks to the children but puts forth false summaries of the children’s wishes making them look as though they want to be with the abusive parent. And so it goes in so many Family-Not Courts in destroying many lives. This pandemic disease is in almost all of the states, it is in Canada, the UK, Australia and many more countries. The Italian Supreme Court just recently banned the use and any application of “Parental Alienation” in child custody cases.
Special reach out to Nichola Cunha. There are several women in Connecticut who support your alligations about family court. Not that it’s a problem with in the Jewish community in the law profession. It’s a global state problem. Can anyone tell us how to reach her? Just so everyone knows. Norm may represent people who we don’t like. There are attorneys such as gal’s who deserve punishment and don’t get it. Norm was intentionally benched so he wouldn’t be available for civil and constitutional rights. Nichola and Norm were benched and disbarred to cover up the B.S.
Norm takes on
then erases
the most significant cases
that would have set precedent
for all that is good.
paltry: adj. … trifling; insignificant; practically worthless; contemptible; petty
From CBS News May 19, 2022: “On the Friday leading into Memorial Day Weekend 2019, Jennifer Dulos vanished … When New Canaan Police arrived to Jennifer Dulos’ rented home, they found blood on the floor of the garage. A little over an hour later, detectives found Jennifer’s Suburban SUV — also containing blood evidence — abandoned by nearby Waveny Park …
Suspicions were raised after police found (a) surveillance video of Fotis Dulos discarding black garbage bags and other items along Albany Avenue in Hartford the evening Jennifer disappeared … Detectives descended on Albany Avenue and began digging through the trash. They found clothing in Jennifer’s size, ponchos and zip ties. The items were covered in blood matching Jennifer’s DNA, convincing detectives of what they already suspected — they had a homicide …”
WFSB 3 News, September 4, 2019: Fotis Dulos was released from custody after being rearrested in connection to the disappearance of his estranged wife …
FOX 61 Reporter: … What are we here for today?
Norm Pattis: Well that’s an existential question I’m not prepared to answer. Why are you here?
FOX 61 Reporter: Well, we’re here because we understand that Mr. Dulos has been charged with an additional court of tampering with evidence. What can you say to that?
Norm Pattis: Not a whole lot at this point. I mean, if – – if this were Christmas morning, I’d be saying, “I waited all these months for this paltry gift?” Um, there’s not much here that we haven’t heard before and I question the wisdom of these charges at this late date … We’ve pled not guilty to the pending charges. We intend to plead not guilty to these charges and we look forward to a full day in court.
FOX 61: When do we expect Mr. Dulos to be in court to answer to this charge?
Norm Pattis: We will plead not guilty at an arrangement in Norwalk on the 12th – – next Thursday I believe.
The FOX 61 News Reporter then speaks with the man seen in Hartford surveillance camera footage throwing clothing in Jennifer’s size, ponchos and zip ties covered in blood matching Jennifer’s DNA into several city garbage bins in Hartford, Connecticut state capitol, the evening Jennifer Dulos disappeared.
ABC 7 Reporter: Where’s your wife? Where’s Jennifer?
Norm Pattis, speaking in a threatening, condescending way toward the
ABC 7 Reporter: We wish we knew. And, we – – we – – we – – it was very – – I don’t know if you got a chance to see us talking to the State Police. I have a very friendly relationship with them. I wish them well. And I wish you’d ask yourself why you have the nerve and the audacity to ask him that question. Because if you know something the police don’t know you should go tell them. We don’t know where Jennifer is.
ABC 7 Reporter: Police seem very interested in him.
Norm Pattis: What?
ABC 7 Reporter: Police seem very interested in him.
Norm Pattis: They do, but where’s the murder charge? And where’s your objectivity? Shame on you!
Norm Pattis then walked away.
Interesting
Frank–no more Swami stories?
Frank-no more salami stories?
Which guru is most worthy of discussion?
The one who most smartly and most ethically branded his followers
Or
the one who told a boy to suck his tongue
Or
the one who wears Speedo swimsuits and eyeliner
Or
the one who channels disembodied spirits?
If anyone would like to see how to use false alligations of parental alienation in a family law case. I would be more then happy to show them a three year out line with documentation to support false claims. Withheld from the court. Locked out of the court room and family relations meeting. . I can also show proven documentation of the accuser sending alienating text messages to the minor in the case. Bad mouthing me the mother. All emailed to the GaL and my attorney. The answer I got was it was not relivent because it didn’t effect my relationship with the child. Apparently alienation is only relievnt when it’s engaged in by a woman. Red flag warning for those engaged in high conflict custody case in Hartford family court. These cases are not just reserved for the rich folks in Connecticut. They are middle class and lower income residents. According to the health and human services. Mothers are often referred to as gate keepers ( alienatiors) . Even if there is no proof of alienation and the other parent the Dad is engaged in it. No protection from your own attorneys and family court support for the opposing counsel to continue the alligations until the child aged out. All swept under the rug so that this situation can continue. If anyone needs documents and testimony just post your attorney name and I will contact them. This absolutely needs to stop. There is a pattern. The GaL has been appointed to at least 2 other cases with out choice for the Mom. Pushed by Dad’s counsel or the judge. Heads up for cases out of Hartford
It’s not just CT
So incredibly bizzzzzarrrreee that there is the obsession with CT
Actually, it’s Connecticut, California and Minnesota.
So bizarrrrreee, right?
Look up: Jessica Pearson, AFCC, Dr. Richard Gardner and Tim Salius
“The Tim Salius President’s Award is presented annually to an AFCC member who has provided exemplary service to the association. In 2015, the award was named in honor of the late Anthony “Tim” Salius, the only two-term president in AFCC history. Under his leadership in the mid-1980s, AFCC expanded to a truly national and ultimately international organization. Mr. Salius served as Director of the Family Division of the Superior Court, Connecticut Judicial Branch, for 36 years during which time Connecticut became a leader in providing court-connected mediation services and in collaborating with the domestic violence advocacy community.”
https://www.afccnet.org/About/Awards/tim-salius-presidents-award
“… Connecticut Avenue is a major thoroughfare in the Northwest quadrant of Washington, D.C., and suburban Montgomery County, Maryland. It is one of the diagonal avenues radiating from the White House, and the segment south of Florida Avenue was one of the original streets in Pierre (Peter) Charles L’Enfant’s plan for Washington. …”
“… In 1911, a monument was placed on top of L’Enfant’s grave during a dedication ceremony at which President William Howard Taft, Jusserand, and Senator Elihu Root spoke …”
“… Elihu Root also worked with Andrew Carnegie in programs for international peace and the advancement of science, becoming the first president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Root was also among the founders of the American Law Institute in 1923 and helped create The Hague Academy of International Law in the Netherlands. Root served as vice president of the American Peace Society, which publishes World Affairs, the oldest U.S. journal on international relations …”
From the late Dr. Judith Reisman in 2002 regarding the role of the American Law Institute Model penal Code in family law: “ … Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (JA Reisman) provides an overview of the development of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Penal Code (MPC) at the national level. In January 2001, under the direction of researcher Dr. L. Jeffrey, RSVPAmerica, began to examine in greater depth the history of the ALI Model Penal Code (hereafter cited as the ALI/MPC) and its impact on state penal reform. The evidence of Kinsey’s role in deconstructing the rights of women, children and the family in state laws began to dramatically emerge…” http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/10/the_fall_of_cal.html
The problems with family courts started long before family courts were established.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
“… The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a model act designed to stimulate and assist U.S. state legislatures to update and standardize the penal law of the United States. The MPC was a project of the American Law Institute (ALI), and was published in 1962 after a ten-year drafting period. The chief reporter on the project was Herbert Wechsler, and contributors included Sanford Kadish and numerous other noted criminal law scholars, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code
“… There was one other person who, while he never took up residence in Laurel Canyon, had a profound influence on the scene. That guy was Augustus Owsley Stanley III, the premier LSD chemist of the hippie era. No one—not Ken Kesey, not Richard Alpert, not even Timothy Leary— did more to ‘turn on’ the youth of the 1960s than Owsley. Leary and his cohorts may have captured the national media spotlight and created public awareness, but it was Owsley who flooded the streets of San Francisco and Laurel Canyon with consistently high quality, inexpensive, readily available acid. By most accounts, he was never in it for the money and he routinely gave away more of his product than he sold. What then was his motive? …”
https://archive.org/details/weirdscenesinsidethecanyonlaurelcanyoncovertopsthedarkheartofthehippiedream2014b/page/n106/mode/1up
“… Twitter was abuzz over a picture posted on Twitter of Gov. Ned Lamont rocking a ‘Dancing Bears’ belt Friday as he was trucking on East River Road in Barkhamsted, where he announced updated health and safety guidelines for state parks and forests for the 2021 park season.
‘Almost like a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac … dancing bears on Polo Ralph Lauren pants,’ one retweet said.
‘They cost $175, it’s expensive to be a deadhead,’ another Twitter wag retweeted.
‘Ned the Deadhead,’ someone else declared.
One envious soul asked, ‘How and where do I get one of these?’ …”
https://archives.rep-am.com/2021/04/11/brass-tacks-gov-lamonts-belt-earns-him-the-nickname-ned-the-deadhead/
I agree that the jury is the answer to family court. Scrutiny and checks and Balances.
“… “Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) criteria are vague and subjective, nondiagnostic, and inconsistent with good child-centered evaluation. As a result, PAS proponents frequently draw conclusions based on pure speculation, correlation without demonstrated causation, and inference without any foundation other than their own beliefs about how children should think and behave during a stressful divorce.
Current proponents of parental alienation, including Bernet (2008) and Warshak (2015), have attempted to circumvent widespread condemnation of PAS by replacing it with parental alienation disorder (PAD) or simply parental alienation.
While they have attempted to imbue their viewpoints with the mantle of science, the criteria used to determine alienation are the same ones offered by Gardner …” https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/0dab915e/files/uploaded/10.16%20Jrnl%20Child%20Custody%20Reunif%20Harm%20copy.pdf
“… The coercive and punitive “therapies” recommended for children diagnosed with parental alienation constitute an ethical minefield and are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child. Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and rather than helping their well-being, could cause lasting psychological harm, particularly when imposed upon children who claim the parent they are being forced to reunify with is abusive. … https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15379418.2016.1219974
“He does not discuss the possibility that parental alienation can be falsely alleged.“
Only the most heroic attorneys are brave enough to help protective parents and abused children in those cases. And, only the most evil attorneys help perpetrators use false allegations of “parental alienation”.
Those are niche markets. The new pediatric “transgender surgery” market is now another. Once it gets started, it might be as lucrative as the “parental alienation” set-up.
All of the above cases don’t belong in for-profit, purposely adversarial “family court“ boxing rings.
Maybe Attorney Brian Mayer knows about non-profits like The Center for Judicial Excellence and would be willing to work with others in his field to help his industry to evolve. Most family courts are still as they were in the 1970s – 80s. Now that the border is open, and the economy is tanking, California family courts will be more swamped than they already are.
Anyone tracking family court fatalities in the largest cities has probably already noticed that trend.
https://centerforjudicialexcellence.org/
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/false-allegations-of-abuse-during-divorce-the-role-of-alienating-beliefs
FORENSIC PRACTICE
As a clinical and forensic psychologist, I have been involved in hundreds of cases of divorce and child custody. The topic of false allegations of abuse is a complicated and thorny one that deserves much attention. In particular, there needs to be a focus on the alienating beliefs that often underly and compel false allegations.
False allegations of abuse are an all-too-common phenomenon during divorce and child custody proceedings. One parent fabricates a false allegation against the other parent to gain leverage in court and to undermine the parent-child relationship going forward. The frequency of false allegations in custody cases is not fully understood, with estimates ranging from 2% to 35% of all cases involving children.1 Whatever the percentage, attorneys, judges, and mental health experts all know firsthand that it is a vexing problem in court cases. And nothing can disrupt, sidetrack, or impede a case more than an allegation of abuse that eventually proves to be false.
Parents never admit to their conniving and harmful behavior during a legal action. As such, proving an allegation is false can be extremely challenging. Why? Because a false allegation is hatched in the mind of the offending parent, who then enlists the help of their child to unwittingly carry out the plot. The intent is to harm the other parent, but to do so as if the offending parent is the real victim. Parents know that an allegation of abuse has the potential to help them win their case, which is their ultimate goal. Unfortunately, being honest and fair is not always a virtue in a contentious child custody case.
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/the-weaponization-of-false-allegations-of-abuse
Adversarial child custody battles are fertile ground for the lodging of false allegations of abuse. All too often, 1 parent will make a false allegation of abuse against the other parent as a way of gaining leverage in a court proceeding. In fact, it is an intentional and purposeful attempt by the accusing parent to throw the other parent under the bus and thereby gain all power in their custody dispute. As such, false allegations of abuse are a weapon of destruction in a family.
False allegations of abuse become more disruptive and weaponized if they turn into criminal charges. They then become a sinister plan by the accusing parent to totally sever the child’s relationship with the “dangerous” parent by sending that parent to prison. That is the extent to which some parents will go to extricate themselves from an ex-spouse or ex-partner. But they do not understand or care that they are causing great harm to their children by removing 1 of their parents under false pretense.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201810/two-classic-cases-courts-failing-alienated-parents
Two Classic Cases of Courts Failing Alienated Parents
When lawyers and judges are uninformed, the results can be harmful.
https://themindsjournal.com/narcissism-parental-alienation/
Narcissism in Parental Alienation
Co-parenting with your ex after getting divorced can sometimes get tricky, and even more so if they are prime examples of narcissism and parental alienation. If your ex is indulging in the toxic practices of narcissism and parental alienation and is trying to destroy your relationship with your child, then it’s a huge cause for concern.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/children-with-narcissistic-parental-alienation-syndrome
Is your child being coerced into disliking you? This is known as narcissistic parental alienation syndrome.
You may have found that your once-healthy relationship with your children has become increasingly strained after your difficult divorce. Your children are now avoidant, disrespectful, or even cruel.
You may have noticed your kids have started to sound like your ex-partner when they criticize you. As a result, you might suspect that your ex is bad-mouthing you and possibly even manipulating your children into disliking you.
This phenomenon, known as narcissistic parental alienation syndrome, is a severe issue many parents worldwide have experienced.
“narcissistic parental alienation syndrome”? Such total hogwash.
“this is known as” is proof of its existence? Who’s doing that knowing? 🤔
There’s such a thing as “narcissistic”.
There’s such a thing as “parental”.
There’s such a thing as “alienation“.
There’s such a thing as a “syndrome”.
Just as …
There’s such a thing as “green”
There’s such a thing as “a sharp blade”.
There’s such a thing as “grass”.
And, there’s no such thing as a blade of grass strong enough to slice an entire loaf of French bread.
The only time there’s such a thing as “narcissistic parental alienation syndrome” is when an opportunist wants to make money in a child custody case in “family court” from sin and crimes and the resulting suffering of others.
Some of your tips seem solid, but you completely gloss over the corruption in the courts. This reads like tips how to illegally obtain custody from a judge friendly to your case. If you are in pro per against a court insider, who also trades pro tempore appearances, the court no longer cares what anyone says, and wont even bother to read your filings – even if your filings are better than the lawyer’s. I have been abandoned by lawyers immediately after they talk to this pro tempore 3 times now, and she got a permanent, lifetime restraining order with only presenting emails from me seeking relief from her obvious malpractice and fraud. I have witnessed enough felonies to put this attorney in prison for the rest of her conscious life, but the court has already stated, Judge Ueda in fact, that they will use their powers to protect that lawyer – because they openly acknowledge her as a coworker.
Last year, Judge Ueda denied a visitation change when she has never complied with orders, I was never declared unfit as a parent, nor accused of abusing him. I haven’t seen him since after that hearing. My file went missing from the courthouse, my file btw that didn’t include my orders on visitation.
Her lawyer, Carla Harms (who has no advertisements or social media, gee I wonder why) refuses to produce any documents, has not once cced me on ex parte communications, refuses to produce them, and destroys evidence of cyberstalking and evidence tampering a the then one day trial I never agreed to, when my one lay witness was canceled, and she said on stand she wanted me dead. A deposition was not filed, and the reporter that recorded refuses to respond to a purchase request for a full transcript. No contentions were filed. An expert witness I paid for was bribed for a set of orders out of LA county, I live in Sacramento. I was inexplicably kept out of the pretrial conference, and then Carla Harms wagged her finger at Judge Mize, her supervisor and trainer off site for the pro tempore program and said “Don’t forget our deal”. Harms then signed up for several “volunteer” pro tempore appearances. After trial, and being threatened by Judge Mize to have the bailiff take me into another room for moving around too much for his liking, the video recording and transcript, which the reporter asked me if I wanted a copy of at the end of trial and my criminal colluding lawyer Anne Bonfiglio tried to tell me wasn’t worth it. I asked to purchase it. Harms appeared 30 minutes later while my lawyer stalled me, and produced new orders, snatching the old ones from my lawyer’s hand. The new orders said there was no court reporter, no video taken, and were clearly rubber stamped with laughably a real rubber stamp. The case against me was non existent, and rule 3044 wasn’t even applied to me.
I am currently and have been unable to act at all in the court since August, since my lawyer abandoned me mid appeal and Judge Ueda refuses to substitute out my lawyer so I can file anything. I haven’t seen my son in almost a year, despite having orders to see him 3 times a week. I am sanctioned regularly for laws that don’t exist, or Harms own intentional misenterpretation of the law (verbatum). Harms also blocks out availability months at a time, and only makes herself available when Judge Ueda can appear for her. Judge Ueda went to department 127, a completely different department to hear a matter that consisted of overreach and sanctioned me, claiming my wife was forced to take me to court for my vehicle she is embezzling because I refused to approve insurance payout on repairs for a vehicle I didn’t approve of her driving, and for which SHE HAD CANCELED THE POLICY.
This is how family court REALLY operates. Being an insider, you know this, and you know most judges do not give 2 shits about your kids. Get real man.
GALS are the worst possible option. The “best interest of the children” is used to undermine the 14th amendment and eliminate our God given – unalienable rights.
Never get a gal or any court appointed therapist. They are hired guns.
Court appointed anything are judge puppets. They only keep their job, because the judges let them. If a court reporter refuses to alter records, they are inexplicably laid off for “budget reasons”. It’s so obvious they are corrupt, everyone in leadership knows, but they do NOTHING.
on point
Consequently, this lay off thing actually happened to a court reporter at William Ridgeway, that wouldn’t alter a partial record I obtained. She notified me she was being laid off after working there less than a year. Her notes were impeccable, though.
On this record, Harms asked a coworker, a commissioner, to make orders blocking me from ever *REQUESTING any continuances. This is after she got a rushed hearing date and I was given less than 7 business days to prepare for a restraining order hearing. A doc preparer handed in documents saying I agreed to the orders. I had to refile and continue, because that document preparer had contacted Carla Harms. There are no end to the crimes this person commits and will continue to commit to enrich herself and retaliate against anyone who dares catch her, even when she is stupid and glaringly obvious about it. Oh, and she didn’t file for the rushed hearing date. She works there, so she probably just had her clerk pen it in the day after I pointed out I had evidence of ongoing abuses and constant ATROs violations by her client and that I would be seeking orders when hers ended.
John,
You know about Dr. Richard Fine’s work to reform the courts, right?
People on both “sides” of politics believe this:
“Some justices are politicians in robes who thrive in a system where access and influence are for sale.”
In America’s states, most good legislators judges and family court lawyers who practice in family courts are afraid to speak up.
They know they need a paycheck. They also know if they speak up and tell the truth about what’s been happening, key players in control of “family courts” will have them “reap the whirlwind” from those who “have six ways from Sunday at getting back at” anyone who dares to speak the truth about the nightmare that is America’s “family courts”.
The family court system is that rigged. It will be that rigged until enough people have the courage to fully investigate and reform the family courts, together. It’s gong to take good people from all sides of all American politics to get it done.