Joan Dawson: Parental alienation and domestic violence

Joan Dawson

Posted: January 20, 2011 02:36 PM

Parental alienation and domestic violence

"I hope there's more cases just like this, where people don't want to let their spouses see their kids...I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids."

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.

But was his ex-wife 'alienating' the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?

This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.

Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.

Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.

Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."

More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating," vindictive" mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse - interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child - are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?

The behaviors can be indistinguishable.

Indeed, it's not just domestic violence survivors' advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, "PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."

That hasn't stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.

Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.

She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, "One of you is lying," and later, "Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part." Garcia also referred to it as "little stunts and games" that she used to deny him access to his son.

Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, "Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not." And finally, "My suspicion is that you're lying" (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD

This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It's easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association's 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation - even of professionals.

Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.

Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to "get over" the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins' Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom's fear was "interfering in his relationship with us." Jennifer's mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)

58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That's over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm's way.

Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to "solve" the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.

Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who've been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called "toxic" to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn't until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.

A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter's Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.

To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.

It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it's referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence - rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who've lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.

I wouldn't hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.

For more information, visit:

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Stop Family Violence

Center for Judicial Excellence

CHILD CUSTODY SCAM: THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR RELEASES REPORT ON SACRAMENTO AND MARIN SUPERIOR COURTS

Courtesy RightsForMothers

Ha!  Both of these courts are busted!  It didn’t work trying to shed documents as fast as they could and stall allowing the auditors into their files!  Thank you to all the California activists that worked hard to get this audit started and completed.

To download the report “Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts” by the California State Auditor, please click here.  Here is the synopsis of the report:

Date: January 20, 2011
Report: 2009-109

The California State Auditor released the following report today:

Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts

Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules

BACKGROUND Every superior court in each of California’s 58 counties has jurisdiction over family law matters typically within their family courts. Judges assigned to the family courts decide various family law matters, such as the dissolution of marriages, and where child custody or a determination of the legal relationship between natural or adoptive parents and a child is at issue, the family court may issue an order for child custody and visitation. At the Sacramento family court, where more than 92,500 family law cases were filed during the four-year period we reviewed, its staff conducted mediations and certain evaluations that the family court ordered and the court appointed private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel. In contrast, the Marin family court, which opened 2,352 cases that involved child custody and visitation during the same four-year period, had staff who performed only child custody and visitation mediations and it appoints private evaluators and minor’s counsel to contested child custody and visitation cases. The Family Code requires family courts to design all child custody and visitation orders to reflect what is in the best interest of the child.

KEY FINDINGS Our audit of the Sacramento and Marin County Superior Courts’ processes for identifying, assessing, and evaluating court appointees in child custody disputes during the four-year period—from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010—revealed the following:

• The Sacramento County Superior Court could not demonstrate that its staff performing mediations and evaluations and the private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel it appoints are qualified or trained.

•The Marin County Superior Court could not demonstrate that the mediators always met the minimum qualifications or training requirements and that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain training requirements. Further, the family court did not ensure that minor’s counsel were qualified before making appointments.

• Although both family courts have a process for reviewing and resolving complaints about their mediators or evaluators, neither court kept logs of complaints received. In addition, both family courts did not consistently follow processes for dealing with complaints about their mediators.

• Even though courts may pay for minor’s counsel when it determines that the parties cannot pay, both courts need to improve their processes. The Sacramento family court did not always make the legally required determination about the parties’ ability to pay and the Marin Superior Court did not have a policy outlining the costs it reimburses.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS We make numerous recommendations to the Sacramento and Marin County Superior and Family Courts to ensure that the individuals who provide mediation and evaluation services and who act as minor’s counsel in cases before these family courts are qualified and trained. Further, we recommend that both the Sacramento and Marin family courts track all complaints properly and review them promptly and keep a log of complaints they receive. Moreover, both family courts need to improve their policies and rules for receiving, reviewing, and resolving complaints. We also recommend that the Sacramento Superior Court improve billing procedures and for determining and reviewing parties’ ability to pay appointing minor’s counsel costs.

And what was the court’s response to this report?  Read here:

Agency Comments

The Sacramento Superior Court stated that it was largely in agreement with the report’s recommendations and has already begun the process of implementing the great majority of them. The court also stated that it is taking other recommendations under consideration, but some of them will likely prove difficult to implement due to a lack of resources.

The Marin Superior Court stated that it believed many of the findings and recommendations were focused primarily on ministerial tasks. Further, the court expressed an opinion that eight of the 13 recommendations are suggested changes to existing practices that are not governed by laws, rules of court, or any other directives. The court stated that, although it intends to implement the recommended changes and has either already implemented a new process or is engaged in developing a new rule or protocol, it questions whether some of the recommendations actually enhance internal controls and accountability.

Here’s hoping that anyone with cases in these two courts can use this report to correct horrible actions that have happened to them.

Join us Tonight 1-20-2011 @5pm CST American Mothers Political Party BTRShow Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2011/01/20/still-standing

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Upcoming Show: 1/20/2011 5:00 PM  CST 6 PM EST 

Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party

http://vodpod.com/watch/1533683-evolution-of-propaganda?u=ampp&c=ampp

 

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

• We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.

•  We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute.

• We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.

• We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!

• We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.

• We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled.

Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.

Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.

Until Mothers and Children's voices are heard

we will never shut up, give up or go away!

ROBIN YEAMANS: DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND TAKING CUSTODY SCAMS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS

Interviews from the 2011 Battered Mothers Custody Conference

Robin Yeamans is one of three California attorneys certified as a specialist in both family and appellate law.   Her website at www.divorcecal.com features videos that help people without attorneys.  In this video, she answers Anne Grant’s questions about due process, equal protection, and taking custody scams to the federal courts.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/battered-mothers-custody-conference

 

THE WORST MISTAKES MOTHERS MAKE IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Some very good advice, from the Liz Library:

(1) Taking their children to therapists.  We have yet to see ONE case in which the mother is having continuing litigation mess that cannot be traced back to her choice or agreement at some point to her taking the child in for therapy. For whatever reason. Undoubtedly there are cases in which this is done and nothing bad happens (although we seriously doubt there ever is much benefit). However, in every single seriously fucked-up case we have seen, belief in psychology and bringing the child in for one reason or another is the first mistake, the domino that sets everything else in motion.

(2) Rocking the boat. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Women screw up by rocking the boat when it’s reasonably stable, usually by filing a petition for child support in a new paternity action, or for an increase in child support in a post-divorce action, and less often by filing a petition for modification for purposes of relocation or just because.

(3) Agreeing to joint custody or too much father custody (usually in mediation) at the time of the initial custody determination.

(4) Talking in conclusory language, rather than the language of the senses (what was actually seen and heard), e.g. “he’s abusive”, “the child was afraid”, and language of exaggeration (adjectives) and psycholingo, e.g. “very”, “disclosed”.

(5) Not looking at the big long-term picture. The immediate psychic reward of taking a negative action or saying something obnoxious isn’t worth it.

(6) Having discussions in writing with the ex. Writing should be avoided except to memorialize and confirm “what we agreed to” by telephone, and to send one- or two-sentence pleasant trivialities. “Hi Joe — Junior said he liked the movie you guys saw this weekend. Here’s a copy of the picture he drew of it…”

(7) Relying too much on the lawyer. Except in extraordinary circumstances, litigants should strive to never let the lawyer go to court for anything without being there. Litigants should insist that a court reporter be brought to all hearings and anything at which evidence otherwise is developed for a case. Litigants should never allow themselves to be pressured into making any agreement without time to sleep on it (if it’s really an agreement, it will still be agreeable tomorrow). Litigants should never give lawyers precious originals of any document. Litigants should inform their lawyers that -no- agreements whatsoever may be made which affect substantive claims in the case (as opposed to clerical and procedural issues) without their prior approval.

WATCH YOUR LEGISLATORS: DANGEROUS BILLS SEEM MORE PLENTIFUL THIS YEAR

Well, it’s that time of the year again.  Legislators are running amuck,  introducing crazy bills they are trying to get enacted into law.  One of the most important things you can do as a voting citizen is to be aware of the bills that are being introduced into your state house.  After all, change in the courts will need to come from these lawmakers.  Knowing what they are doing is very helpful, especially when they are trying to keep social workers and psychologists employed by trying to pass bills like the one below.  Google “legislative bills for 2011 in (insert your state here).”

If a woman (or man) is trying to escape a bad situation, the worst thing they can do is force the couple into counseling.  The situation can become dangerous…it did in my situation.  It is not in the best interest of the children to have them abused after the abusive parent leaves a forced counseling session frustrated.  The bill below, LB 408, is in Nebraska.  If you are from Nebraska, and think this is a dangerous bill (hint: IT IS), watch for any committee hearings on this bill.  Speak out about it.  It may be your own life you are saving.  Those in other states…please look into what your elected officials are doing, and see if they are doing their job for all the people they represent.

Divorce counseling bill introduced

By John Schreier
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

Published Thursday January 13, 2011

LINCOLN — The road to divorce for couples with children might become a lot longer under a bill introduced Thursday in the Legislature.

State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln introduced Legislative Bill 408, which would give judges the option of sending married couples with minor children to marriage counseling before being granted a divorce.

It’s one of three judicial options that Fulton proposes in LB 408. The others are continuing divorce proceedings for no longer than six months, in hopes of reconciliation, or taking other actions deemed in the best interests of the parents and children.

Fulton’s desire to address divorce stems from his view that family stability is important to society.

“A strong marriage is healthy for the children who are brought up in that marriage, certainly,” he said. “A strong marriage is also healthy for those two who are in the marriage.”

However, Stephanie Payne, a Lincoln lawyer specializing in family and divorce law, says most couples ­she deals with — especially those with children — have already taken steps to save their marriages.

“I believe Nebraskans should freely enter marriage and have the good sense to know when to end it,” she said. “I don’t think people end marriage lightly, especially those with children.”

In 2009, 6,084 couples divorced in Nebraska, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, and 51.5 percent of divorcing couples had children younger than 19 years old.

Dr. Dave Robinson, a family therapist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, said he was intrigued by the bill’s potential.

“The idea behind it sounds interesting, sounds helpful,” said Robinson, the president of Nebraska’s chapter of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. “But we need two people really willing to work for it.”

The bill also would give courts the authority to require marriage counseling in divorce actions where no minor children are involved, if one spouse believes the marriage can be saved.

While Fulton expects opponents of his bill to cite the costs of therapy, which can run as high as $120 per hour, he points to increased violence in Omaha as a societal toll of broken families.

“Certainly one of the factors has to do with a stable family environment,” Fulton said. “I hope folks in Omaha see there is some wisdom in having strong marriages and healthy marriages.”

Contact the writer:
john.schreier@owh.com

GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? LEARN TO BLOG!

In keeping with the spirit the BADASS Bloggers (Bloggers AgainstDeprivation, Alienation Science, and junk Syndromes) had during their presentations at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, I want to help any mom learn how to blog if she has something to say.  As Randi Jamessaid in her presentation, you can blog about what is going on…take any asshole in the news (i.e. Alec Baldwin, Mel Gibson, etc.) and compare to your case or another protective mom.  Write to your children.  You can blog anywhere, anytime.  You don’t have to say anything that would endanger your case…leave it very generic, don’t use last names or images of your children.  At the very least, it would be a record for them someday of what you have been going through, and how much you love them.  Best case is that they could read it and have a real connection with you.  I have seen children lifted by knowing their mother cares for them and loves them very much, and mostly that they know mom is still out there.

So let’s get to work and help you start a blog!  Start by getting yourself a GMail e-mail account.  Go to their website and set up an e-mail account.  By having a GMail account, this will make setting up a blog a lot easier.  We are going to start with BLOGGER, which is a Google partner.  I prefer BLOGGER because once you learn how to blog, it will be easier to do different things with it.

Next, send your e-mail address to rightsformothers@gmail.com, with “BLOG Conference” in the subject line (doesn’t have to be the new GMail address).  Send only your e-mail address please.  You will receive an invitation back giving you the telephone number to dial in on, and the pin number.  You will also receive some preliminary “homework” to do also, involving selecting a template for your blog.  This is the code giving the blog your own special look.

I will hold two conference calls.  The first will be Saturday, January 22nd at 2:00 p.m. EST.  The second will be Thursday, January 27th, at 9:00 p.m. EST.  We will work together at our computers to set up your blog.  There are 96 callers allowed on a call, so when the spots fill up, any other requests will returned with an invitation to register at a later date.  If there are additional requests, I will schedule further conference calls.

The conference calls will be recorded and will be available to those who registered for the time slot to review anything that needs to be listened to again.

This will be my first time holding a conference call, so hopefully it will go off well.   I think this is great therapy for moms out there that are hurting…I know it has been for me and other bloggers that I am friends with.  I hope you will be able to make it, and be able to grab your part of the internet for yourself!