Sunday

Ernie Allen of NCMEC Makes a Milli for "Rescuing Children." How Much Do You Make?

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a non-profit agency based in Northern Virginia.

NCMEC gets at least half of its money from tax payers.

NCMEC president Ernie Allen makes in excess of ONE MILLION DOLLARS per year.

NCMEC, being private entity, is NOT subject to FOIA requests.

Not all of the children listed by NCMEC are or were "missing."

NCMEC and John Walsh are on the constant hunt for child sexual predators via computer traps, search, and seizure...but where are the children?

From Hank Asher's blog:
NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) ONE (1) -conversation with the founders of NCMEC, John and Revé Walsh!!! -and NCMEC in action to reunite children with their families!!! NCMEC reunited 5,500 children with their families after Katrina. GO NCMEC! They're on the ground, waiting for clearance to start operations with over 1,000 volunteers and people paid from private funds. I am on the board of NCMEC. It's the only Board I'm a member of. Help them! They protect our most valuable asset in the United States every day. OUR CHILDREN... www.NCMEC.org Seriously, I've given them over $10 million in cash and my products for free since 1993. They do God's work. And they're under-funded.
I do not currently possess the appropriate word set to be able to express what needs to be said. So, I leave the following as an explanation:



And this:

Wednesday

The Fathers' Rights Co-opting of Issues Affecting Families of Color

Several times now I have written about how the fathers' rights movement tries to hi-jack issues affecting families of color through the manipulation of the historical struggle of Black people. They claim to stand in solidarity. I have also noticed that there are several Black organizations that pledge allegiance to the rights of fathers'--and that those organizations have been targeted and subsequently infiltrated by the largely White fathers' rights groups. Their goals are not the same and I wish that Black organizations would understand this. Fathers' rights groups are using Black organizations to further their own agenda of the subjugation of women. They do not seek to understand the complex issues facing families of color. We are being used.

This post at Dastardly Dads does an excellent job putting them in their place:

Not having mandatory 50/50 custody is the same as "the legacy of slavery"? Spare me.

Going around the Internet today is a self-pitying little column designed to capitalize on (exploit) Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for the benefit of the fathers rights movement.

In florid prose, Don Mathis dares to compare the plight of fathers in modern family court to "the legacy of slavery." In case we miss the intended horror, a gratuitous quote from a Holocaust survivor is also thrown in, just so we thoroughly get how awful daddies have it in modern America. And why is the plight of daddies so horrible? Because they don't get always get mandatory joint custody! And because some judges still try to take into account the best interests of the child, not just the demands of egotists. Oh, the horror.

So are we really to believe that child protective services and divorce courts that give fathers visitation (but not always 50/50 custody on demand) are the just the same as slave drivers and slave owners? Slavery, an institution that for hundreds of year removed millions of Africans from their homeland, forced repatriation of entire families and ethnic groups, separated countless families from their children, murdered, tortured? Spare me.

This is really, really offensive. I'm a dedicated mothers advocate, but you won't hear me saying the plight of mothers today is just the same as what mothers experienced under slavery or under the Holocaust. Because it's not. That's trivializing horrible moments in history for a cheap political point. But then these guys have compared themselves to the victims of narcotraffickers at Men's News Daily, so no hyperbole is beyond them.

Obviously, this is not the first time Fathers Rights people have tried to coopt genuine progressive movements (abolitionism, anti-fascism) to prove their point.

But let's address the real history of abolitionism. Take one of my heroes, Frederick Douglass. What did he say about separation of parents and children? Read this excerpt from his 1849 Autobiography:

"My mother and I were separated when I was but an infant—before I knew her as my mother. It is a common custom, in the part of Maryland from which I ran away, to part children from their mothers at a very early age, Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off, and the child is placed under the care of an old woman, too old for field labor. For what this separation is done, I do not know, unless it be to hinder the development of the child toward its mother, and to blunt and destroy the natural affection of the mother for the child. This is the inevitable result.

I never saw my mother, to know her as such, more than four or five times in my life; and each of these times was very short in duration, and at night. She was hired by a Mr. Stewart, who lived about twelve miles from my home. She made her journeys to see me in the night, travelling the whole distance on foot, after the performance of her day's work. She was a field hand, and a whipping is the penalty of not being in the field at sunrise, unless a slave has special permission from his or her master to the contrary--a permission which they seldom get, and one that gives to him that gives it the proud name of being a kind master. I do not recollect of ever seeing my mother by the light of day. She was with me in the night. She would lie down with me, and get me to sleep, but long before I waked she was gone. Very little communication ever took place between us. Death soon ended what little we could have while she lived, and with it her hardships and suffering. She died when I was about seven years old, on one of my master's farms, near Lee’s Mill. I was not allowed to be present during her illness, at her death, or burial. She was gone long before I knew anything about it. Never having enjoyed, to any considerable extent, her soothing presence, her tender and watchful care, I received the tidings of her death with much the same emotions I should have probably felt at the death of a stranger."

At the age of six, Douglass was once again forcibly separated from the grandmother who had been raising him, and relocated to another plantation, where he and the other slave children were forced to eat out of a common trough. After a series of other moves and dislocations, Douglass was finally sent at age 16 to a “slave-breaker” who viciously beat him on a daily basis, which was perfectly legal and socially acceptable by the traditional standards of the time.

And all of this by the order of his slave owner/father, AARON ANTHONY.

Because during the times of slavery, only fathers had rights over children.

Unless they were Black fathers, then the property rights of the white slave owner took precedence. The great white fathers in power made a special racist exception for black fathers, see.

Sometime after Douglass finally managed to escape into freedom in 1838, he met the William Lloyd Garrison, who encouraged him to become an anti-slavery orator. Throughout his life, Douglass adamantly supported the rights of all people, especially the poor and down-trodden, whether African American, Native American, or immigrant.

Douglass was also fully committed to the nascent women’s rights movement and participated in the 1848 Seneca Falls convention, which is generally credited as the first women’s rights movement convention in the United States. In addition, Douglas was a signatory of its Declaration of Sentiments.

Significantly, among the Sentiments included in that document was the following: “He [Man] has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women--the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.”

So I would suggest that the fathers rights movement try to do some real research before they start the cheap histrionics. In reality, the fathers rights movement has NEVER been allied with any genuine rights movement, whether it's abolitionism, civil rights, the labor movement, the women's movement, or anything else.

The real allies of fathers rights, both historically and today? Other supremacist movements, like the white supremacist movement (many fathers rights leaders have been and are currently involved in both, a dirty little secret that doesn't get press play).

And that is the historic truth.


And check this out, if you don't believe me. This is what father's rights groups think, behind closed doors...an all too familiar behavior:

From: dave_074_2004
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 17 January, 2010 7:42:40 AM
Subject: [Shatteredmen] Re: Salon.com: In Haiti, Women Need Help; Men? Not So Much



It could be, that it is only a certain minority that are complaining. One video I saw showed several men running around waving machetes. Instead of carrying on in such a manner, why don't they get busy, and help! Most of the videos show Haitians being rescued, or receiving provisions, which clearly shows they are being helped.

Only so much can be done at a time such as this, and we do have a responsibility to our own citizens too! These people need to remember who is bringing them food, water, temporary shelter, and other needs of life. They also need to remember who will help them clean up, and rebuild their island nation. We all know it will mostly be the United States!

I have had customers who were Haitian, and known missionaries to Haiti, as well. They tell of a people who really don't care to live as a modern nation, but are content to live in simple poverty. It appears they are not easily motivated to improve their lot in life. Could it be, we have pampered them, and supplied them with too much in the past, and now they expect us to cater to them. Yes, they desparately need help right now, but also need to be greatful for what they are receiving. Hopefully, the help they are receiving might become a motivational example to them.

Dave

--- In [email protected] yahoogroups. com, EMBARQ Customer wrote:
>
> The HAitians are already starting to resent us for helping because we are getting americans and europeans out of rubble first.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: G A MARKS
> To: [email protected] yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:42:03 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Re: [Shatteredmen] Salon.com: In Haiti, Women Need Help; Men? Not So Much
>
>
> Ahhhh, More truth on this site! It is so wonderful to read the truth, as it is a rare commodity in this PC secular progressive country! Haiti is a needy country from day one. Has anyone addressed Pat Robertson's Theory here? This is the land of Voo-Doo folks! When I was there, young girls were marketed openly along with dope! Yes, some Christians had made inroads in missionary service, but the government and majority were corrupt. Think about this, we(the US) built most of these buildings, how long before the barristers sue us for helping in the first place!
>
>
>
> Bubba
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/15/10, EMBARQ Customer wrote:
>
>
>
> From: EMBARQ Customer
>
> Subject: Re: [Shatteredmen] Salon.com: In Haiti, Women Need Help; Men? Not So Much
>
> To: [email protected] yahoogroups. com
>
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 7:25 AM
>
>

>
> I support the aid whole heartedly. NOTTTTT 100,000,000 dollars or 5000 troops. Dumb--- Democrats havent realised how bad things are financially yet in America nor that all indicators are that we havent seen the worst yet.


Is this what you call solidarity?

Tuesday

Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

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

Via her website,
Dr. Baker has a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Teachers College of Columbia University.

Her areas of research include parental alienation, child welfare, parent involvement in their children's education, early intervention, and attachment. She is the Director of Research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection.

She is the author or co-author of 3 books and over 45 peer reviewed articles.

Dr. Baker is available as an expert witness and for print, radio, and television interviews.
And you can find her all across the internet, especially on news publications that touch on, or allude to, parental alienation syndrome (see Every Child Has Parental Alienation Syndrome). She promotes her book heavily while expressing sympathy for victims...of PAS. She is touted as a major authority on the subject matter . With all the education she has received, you'd think that she recognizes what is, or is not, developmentally appropriate; and furthermore, that she recognizes the lack of science in her "research."

According to Francoise T. Bessette's thesis, The Social Construction of Parental Alienation Syndrome:

(emphasis mine)

In 2005, Amy Baker conducted a study of adults who self-identified as having been alienated from one of their parents during childhood. Thirty-eight adults (14 males and 24 females) were recruited by word of mouth and from over one hundred advertisements placed on the internet message boards for people who had been victims of parental alienation syndrome.

Through one hour semi-structured telephone interviews, Baker learned about the participants’ perceived relationship with their estranged parent. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a content analysis program coding for “impact of the alienation on the participant” (Baker, 2005:292). All but seven of the alleged alienators were mothers. The findings showed that the alienation perceived by the participants negatively affected several areas of their adult lives and relationships. The participants reported high rates of low self-esteem/self-hatred, believing themselves unlovable because of the alienation from one parent, which they interpreted as rejection (2005:294). This self-hatred accounted for the guilt they felt because of the role they played in the alienation (2005:294). Over 70 percent revealed episodes of depression that they attributed to the separation from their alienated parent, and the lack of opportunity to mourn this loss while children (2005:296). Thirty-three percent of the participants had drug or alcohol addictions that they associated with their childhood circumstances. Some of these participants confessed to having a conflicted relationship with their alienating parent during their teen years because of their mental manipulation; they had turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape (2005:297-298). Sixteen people talked of their difficulties trusting others as well as themselves and of falling into the same divorcing and/or alienating pattern as their parents (2005:294). Sixty-six percent of the participants were divorced and of the twenty-eight who were parents, half were alienated from their own children (2005:300). All the participants believed they had been victims of parental alienation syndrome.

Baker qualifies her study by stating it represents only a fraction of the data collected and that many of the 38 subjects reported having positive life experiences not included in her results. She only reported negative outcomes, presenting the subjects as unhappy, maladjusted individuals, and did not address possible confounding variables that could account for her results such as poverty and lack of opportunities. Instead, she presents the results as a package combining all the participants’ responses together under different headings such as “low self-esteem”, depression, and drug/alcohol problems, referring to the number of participants in the various categories as “some” or “many”. Baker based her study on the premise that parental alienation syndrome was a conclusive element in her subjects’ lives and drew on Gardner’s theory to analyze their retrospective stories. She does not volunteer the list of questions asked during the interviews and little information is provided regarding the content analysis of the transcripts. She does not offer any scale of reference to help the reader judge the extent of the impact on the subjects. The reader is expected to accept the author’s conclusions as “true”.
In order for adults to self-identify with the concept of parental alienation syndrome, you'd have to assume they had some knowledge of what the term means.
  • Who provided the definition to them?
  • What did that definition consist of?
This is the first error of parental alienation syndrome: You cannot use the definition of the syndrome to diagnose the syndrome. This is circular reasoning. (ie, with a stomach ucler: the patient describes the symptoms, the practitioner observes the signs through testing measures, the diagnosis is then given based on the evidence. The practitioner does not tell the patient what constitutes an ulcer, and then have the patient verify that THOSE particular symptoms are present, and then confirm the diagnosis.)

Furthermore, it would be unwise to have an adult make a judgement about a situation that occurred during childhood because that adult is able to process and rationalize things in a different manner, which will be influenced by other life circumstances that may or may not be revealed to the researcher. Also, hindsight is 20/20, and some adults may be looking for an escape or excuse for behaviors for which they are indeed responsible. Their current perception of what once existed is not necessarily proof that it did [exist].
  • How can this adult know the difference between a protective parent that alienated, and a malicious parent that is alienated unless all truth be known about what occured in the past?
  • And how do you verify this without including the parents themselves?
This is another error of parental alienation syndrome: it is based on the victim's (just like the target parent) perception (although the victim of PAS is said to be the child) of what has occurred.

Is this moving psychology closer to science?

No.

But it is moving many psychologists toward behaviors that mimic charlatanism. Pop-psychology has become a lucrative industry not so much concerned with helping people than it is with overgeneralizing mental illness to the public by medicalizing normal behaviors and soliciting its specific ideologies. Book promotions, speaking engagements, and massive self-promotion through e-mail campaigns is required. Dr. Amy J. Baker performs in this role very well.

To: [email protected]
>> Sent: Thu, 31 December, 2009 4:34:12 AM
>> Subject: FATHERS-L News from Amy Baker on Parental Alienation
>>
>>
>> Seasons Greetings,
>>
>> I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share a brief
>> end-of-year update on various parental alienation projects.
>>
>> 1) “I don’t want to choose” book and workbook were developed with Dr.
>> Katherine Andre, designed to help middle school children resist the
>> pressure to choose one parent over the other.
>>
>> 2) A school-based program “I don’t want to choose” was developed and
>> will be launched in half a dozen schools this school year.
>>
>> 3) Media attention to custody battles, international abductions, and
>> parental alienation has been high this past year including personal
>> appearances on WABC TV, WPIX TV, Good Morning America, and in U.S.
>> News and World Report. Most of the clips can be viewed from my
>> website.
>>
>> 4) I have been hired to train New York child protection workers about
>> parental alienation and to help develop the North Dakota custody
>> investigation manual.
>>
>> 5) I have been invited to participate in a plenary panel discussion
>> about parental alienation at the upcoming Association of Family and
>> Conciliation Courts conference in Denver.
>>
>> I hope that the new year brings targeted parents everywhere closer to
>> their children and that as a professional in the field I can shed some
>> light on this tragic problem and help heal alienated children and
>> their families.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>>
>> Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D.
>> www.amyjlbaker.com
>> Author: Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the
>> ties that bind
Parental alienation syndrome charlatans fuel the public's need to feel justified in certain beliefs by introducing nebulous concepts to which a wide audience can seemingly relate. Yes, you've seen a child so angry that he/she hinders or refuses a relationship with one of his/her parents. No, you can't possibly know the depths of what is causing such animosity without a full investigation of the complexities in familial relationships (and apparently major PAS pushers Richard Warshak, Randy Rand, and Michael Bone don't feel the need to be thorough, or legal. see ANYONE Can Diagnose PAS). And even then, you are limited by the what the observer happens to observe, what the participants choose to reveal, combined with the observers biased "objective" interpretation.

Parental alienation purports that this child is suffering from mental disorder-- disorder meaning that when compared to a normal population, this behavior is abnormal. What its supporters fail to reveal upfront is that according to their research, this only happens in "high conflict" divorces (see Parental Alienation and "High Conflict" Divorce)--meaning you must compare this behavior to the behavior of others in "high conflict" divorce. Is it still abnormal?

Parental alienation syndrome is said to be caused by the child's own parent (FYI--Its supporters also claim there is foster parent alienation, and grandparent alienation). The child is the victim. But what people do not understand is that parental alienation syndrome begins with the supposition that the child's thoughts are not really his/her own--that the child is lying about his/her experiences. Are there any other medical diagnoses that can be made based off of the word of someone other than the victim? Let's utilize this medical example:

You go to the doctor with a complaint of stomach discomfort. You tell the doctor your symptoms are stomach pain, esophageal burning, and nausea. The doctor gets a full history and does an examination. The doctor is able to verify the signs of vomiting, and weight loss, and test results of an increase in a certain bacteria in the lining of your stomach. The doctor rules out various illness according to your signs and symptoms. The doctor makes a diagnosis.

At no time does the doctor tell you upfront that you have _______ disease. He/she must rule out the possibilities. At no time does the doctor tell you that your signs and symptoms aren't really your signs and symptoms--that another set of signs and symptoms are really your signs and symptoms. At no time does the doctor tell you that he must ask your parents, friends, or neighbors if they are able to verify what you reported. And at no time does your doctor force you to do something against your will. (Best case scenario!)

And so a parental alienation claim serves to obfuscate evidence of any intra-familial abuse that has occurred. Its purpose is to place blame on one parent and absolve the other. There is no resolution to the conflict, short of utilizing brainwashing to re-frame the parental alienation as the actual abuse and to marginalize the child's feelings. Anyone who recognizes a dysfunctional family knows that the only party that deserves absolution is the child, although child and parents play the role in the dysfunction. And still, this is no mental disorder.

If psychology thinks that they are moving closer to science with nonsense like this, it is our responsibility to let them know that they are wrong. The teachings of pseudoscientific parental alienation syndrome from persons like Dr. Amy J. Baker have infiltrated our family courts, child protective systems, and educational systems. Would you trust any system which based its theories from the work of someone who defended child sexual abusers? This type of science is scary.


See Also: Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask

Hell Must Have Frozen Over

Monday

Amy Baker and Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is This What Scientific Research Looks Like?

(emphasis mine)

In 2005, Amy Baker conducted a study of adults who self-identified as having been alienated from one of their parents during childhood. Thirty-eight adults (14 males and 24 females) were recruited by word of mouth and from over one hundred advertisements placed on the internet message boards for people who had been victims of parental alienation syndrome.

Through one hour semi-structured telephone interviews, Baker learned about the participants’ perceived relationship with their estranged parent. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a content analysis program coding for “impact of the alienation on the participant” (Baker, 2005:292). All but seven of the alleged alienators were mothers. The findings showed that the alienation perceived by the participants negatively affected several areas of their adult lives and relationships. The participants reported high rates of low self-esteem/self-hatred, believing themselves unlovable because of the alienation from one parent, which they interpreted as rejection (2005:294). This self-hatred accounted for the guilt they felt because of the role they played in the alienation (2005:294). Over 70 percent revealed episodes of depression that they attributed to the separation from their alienated parent, and the lack of opportunity to mourn this loss while children (2005:296). Thirty-three percent of the participants had drug or alcohol addictions that they associated with their childhood circumstances. Some of these participants confessed to having a conflicted relationship with their alienating parent during their teen years because of their mental manipulation; they had turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape (2005:297-298). Sixteen people talked of their difficulties trusting others as well as themselves and of falling into the same divorcing and/or alienating pattern as their parents (2005:294). Sixty-six percent of the participants were divorced and of the twenty-eight who were parents, half were alienated from their own children (2005:300). All the participants believed they had been victims of parental alienation syndrome.

Baker qualifies her study by stating it represents only a fraction of the data collected and that many of the 38 subjects reported having positive life experiences not included in her results. She only reported negative outcomes, presenting the subjects as unhappy, maladjusted individuals, and did not address possible confounding variables that could account for her results such as poverty and lack of opportunities. Instead, she presents the results as a package combining all the participants’ responses together under different headings such as “low self-esteem”, depression, and drug/alcohol problems, referring to the number of participants in the various categories as “some” or “many”. Baker based her study on the premise that parental alienation syndrome was a conclusive element in her subjects’ lives and drew on Gardner’s theory to analyze their retrospective stories. She does not volunteer the list of questions asked during the interviews and little information is provided regarding the content analysis of the transcripts. She does not offer any scale of reference to help the reader judge the extent of the impact on the subjects. The reader is expected to accept the author’s conclusions as “true”.

--SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME By F. Bessette
______

You will find Dr. Amy Baker across the internet, mainly on news publications that touch on, or allude to, parental alienation syndrome (see Every Child Has Parental Alienation Syndrome). She promotes her book heavily while expressing sympathy for victims...of PAS. She is touted as a major authority on the subject matter. With all the education she has received, you'd think that she recognize the lack of science in her "research."

In order for adults to self-identify with the concept of parental alienation syndrome, you'd have to assume they had some knowledge of what the term means.
  • Who provided the definition to them?
  • What did that definition consist of?
This is the first error of parental alienation syndrome: You cannot use the definition of the syndrome to diagnose the syndrome. This is circular reasoning. (ie, with a stomach ucler: the patient describes the symptoms, the practitioner observes the signs through testing measures, the diagnosis is then given based on the evidence. The practitioner does not tell the patient what constitutes an ulcer, and then have the patient verify that THOSE particular symptoms are present, and then confirm the diagnosis.)

Furthermore, it would be unwise to have an adult make a judgement about a situation that occurred during childhood because that adult is able to process and rationalize things in a different manner, which will be influenced by other life circumstances that may or may not be revealed to the researcher. Also, hindsight is 20/20, and some adults may be looking for an escape or excuse for behaviors for which they are indeed responsible. Their current perception of what once existed is not necessarily proof that it did [exist].
  • How can this adult know the difference between a protective parent that alienated, and a malicious parent that is alienated unless all truth be known about what occured in the past?
  • And how do you verify this without including the parents themselves?
This is another error of parental alienation syndrome: it is based on the victim's (just like the target parent) perception (although the victim of PAS is said to be the child) of what has occurred.

Is this what scientific research looks like?

Sunday

Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask

How do you know that someone really loves you?
  • What do you use as proof of this love?
Have you ever thought someone loved you and then discovered, somehow, that they really didn't?

Or, has anyone ever professed their love for you and yet, somehow, you weren't able to feel it--they weren't loving you in a way in which you understood love?

Apply these questions to a child or children.

There is an assumption that children love both parents the same (
in the same way) or equally, merely because they have two parents and that's the way it is supposed to be. But I want you to really think about it for a minute and consider if you felt the exact same about both of your parents. As an adult, this is going to seem simple because you have learned to explain away faults and chalk it all up to troubled years....or something. But try to remember about this as a child, one that had to submit to his/her parents' authority.

Did you feel the exact same way about both of your parents?

Again, don't kid yourself because you're now and adult and have washed away (pretended them away) or resolved the issues.

Or was there one parent you favored more than the other?
  • Was there one parent who you just preferred to communicate with, over the other?
  • Was there one that was more affectionate, or met your needs better than the other?
It would be natural to have some sort of favoritism in a household in which love is supposed to be equal. People are people, no matter if they are adults or children. We have different needs, different characteristics, we display our emotions differently, we enjoy different activities, we have different birth order and zodiac signs!!! The belief that everyone in a household is aligned in the same capacity is a false one.

In parental alienation, loving relationships that once existed between the [target] parent and child are said to have been destroyed, on account of the alienating parent, plus the alienated child. But how do we know that said loving relationship ever existed between this target parent and alienated child?
  • Whose word are we utilizing?
  • What did this loving relationship look like?
  • And how and WHY has it changed over time?
Going back to visualizing your childhood years...if you had "issues" with your parents, did you confront them directly? If your mom made you wear homely looking clothing, did you say something to her about it? If your dad made you look after your siblings at all times, did you express your anger toward him? Maybe you did.

Or maybe, after seeing how no change was evident in your parent's expectations or demands, you went to school, and told your friends. Maybe you shared your experiences in class. Maybe you kept secrets between your siblings or other similarly aged family members. Maybe you were able to communicate with your other parent. Or maybe, you just bottled it all up inside. How would anyone know?

Parental alienation assumes that there is an alienating parent that is causing the child to be alienated because, by definition, if there is no alienating parent, there is no alienated child (there can also be an alienating parent, without an alienated child, that is if the child is not affected by the alienating parent's actions). But how would we know whether or not this parent and child weren't already "aligned" in the intact household (pre-divorce)?
  • How do we know how great or how little alienation is from the alienating parent, or how great or how little the alienation is of the alienated child?
What if, by utilizing the word of the target parent, we are grossly misinformed of the previously existing "loving relationship"?
  • What if the target parent, by nature of being the non-preferred parent, or the less available parent, perceived the "loving relationship" to be something that it was not [to the child]?
  • What if the target parent is the emotional bully?
What if in fact, the target parent is the alienating parent with whom the child has NOT aligned?



Psychology, closer to science? Or further from evidence?




See Also: Will the Real Parental Alienation Please Stand Up?

Saturday

Parental Alienation in "High Conflict" Divorce: Questions We Must Ask

Parental Alienation is said to occur exclusively in "high conflict" divorces.

What is a "high conflict" divorce?
  • What does it look like?
  • What do its characters look like?
  • What are the characters' behaviors?
  • Are these behaviors justified?

Are divorces considered high conflict in a vacuum?...

Was there a "high conflict" marriage prior to the "high conflict" divorce?
  • What did it look like?
  • What did its characters look like?
  • What were the characters' behaviors?
  • Were those behaviors justified?

Whose word are you going to utilize to verify or refute what is or what was occurring?
  • Does one person's word have more weight than another's?
  • Would the word of neighbors and community members' be valid?

Does/can parental alienation occur outside of a "high conflict" divorce?
  • If it can, is it still labeled parental alienation?
  • If it can't, how can it be it classified as abnormal behavior?


The DSM V, no closer to science than your grandma's tea leaves.


See Also: Will the Real Parental Alienation Please Stand Up?

Same Ol Constitutional Argument for Fathers Having Child Custody

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "No Conclusive Evidence Supporting A Presumption of...":

Hey Randy. In the states there is something called the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Both have be violated by US Family Courts for decades.
Randi.

And yes, isn't it obvious that I know this--or else I, and many others, wouldn't be writing about it.
Clearly shown by the statistical out comes in child custody cases. These when 90% of all custody cases come out in the favor of mother. There is something wrong.
So, mothers getting custody of their children is evidence of the family courts' violation of Constitutional Rights?

Fail. And believe me I have seen this many times. Classic father's rights spew.

What percentage of these custody cases are ones in which mother-favor was the agreement of the mother and father?

What percentage of these mother-favor custody cases are ones in which father was not present to dispute the custody arrangement?

What percentage of these mother-favor custody cases in which the court did determine that the mother had been the primary caregiver thus is was in the best interest of the child that the mother have custody?

More important, what is favoring the mother, anyway (versus favoring the child)? The only time something is wrong is when the best interest of that child in that case is not served.
All men can not be abusers as you claim.
Yeah, because I begin each of my posts with, "All men in the whole wide world are abusers." Whoops, my bad. I'll try to be mindful.
Not only are men entitled to "equal protection under the law" in any civil case but so are children.
Equal protection of the law deals with the right to have access to and equal treatment of the law. This means that any disadvantaged group, shares in this lack of protection. My concern is that the poor never have equal protection, and nor do children, because their rights are disregarded in favor of adults.
In the "best interest of a child" equal access to both parents and all relatives is a birth right.
Where is this listed? Where are birth rights listed? And how can equal access be determined? This would only mean that a child can have its mother, father, and relatives available to him/her. Equal access cannot be forced. In fact, [forcing ] it may be a violation of the child's best interest. In the best interest standard, the following are considered:
  1. The wishes and feelings of the child
  2. The physical, educational, and emotional needs of the child
  3. The likely effect on any change in the circumstances now and in the future
  4. Age, sex, background and any other characteristics the court considers relevant
  5. Any harm suffered or at risk of suffering now and in the future
  6. Capability of the parent in meeting the child's needs
  7. The range of powers available to the court under the Children Act 1989 in the proceedings in question
The notion that a child only needs mother is purely subjective and invented probably by an over bearing mother.
Thank you for your input. Very revealing.

Regardless, the mother carries the fetus and nurtures it with and within her body for 10 months. As the body is healing post-partum, the mother continues to nurture the infant with her body. The infant is familiar with the mother's voice and motions, among other things. The mother is automatically a child's first attachment via biological mechanisms. Also, a mother's body is healed and recovers through the nurturing of her infant. Until men can have babies, this will not change. I know father's rights groups have tried to re-write attachment theory and early childhood education research to replace and erase mother-bonding, but the biological basis cannot be annihilated.
Even the psychological evaluations are very subjective. Psychology is not an exact science and is very low on the list of predictable sciences.
I know this. Had you read anything else on this site, you'd know this also. Psychology is not a science at all, or at least, no more than Astrology. Yet, psychological evaluations are used to remove custody from fit mothers that have been successful primary caregivers. Abusive men pass these same tests with flying colors--even men who kill.
Ideas about raising children come and go with the popularity of magazines. Ideas on this so called science change every 5-10 years.
Most certainly. There is a book written about it. Fathers raising children is an idea that has gained a lot of popularity, but yet the actual actions of fathers have not caught up. If child support were abolished, maybe men would find another idea to promote.
Hey does Canada
have a Constitution?

Posted by Anonymous to Randi James at Jan 15, 2010 2:29:00 PM


Hey, Does the United States have to abide by Human Rights?

Thursday

Gender Bias in Florida's Court System: Shared Parental Responsibility

1. Many men file proceedings to contest custody as a way of forcing an advantageous property settlement. Too many attorneys knowingly participate in this practice.

2. When a court decides custody, it must consider Florida's presumption for shared parental responsibility. The Commission is concerned that the judiciary is improperly converting this presumption into a mandate by ordering shared parental responsibility without due consideration of factors specified in the statute, including parental desires and the best interests of the child.

3. Contrary to public perception, men are quite successful in obtaining residential custody of their children when they actually seek it.

--1990 Gender Bias Report of the Florida Supreme Court

And so Florida fixed this by enacting joint-custody law?

This one of the most important findings of this commission as it extinguishes the myth that men don't, or can't win custody of their children. This fact is augmented by further evidence that shows that abusive men are more likely to seek custody, and they also get it (70% of the time). And where there are men that want it, there are attorneys that have a clientele consisting mainly of these men. Google "Father's Rights attorney" and you will see an abundance of them, such as Jeff Leving of Illinois and Cordel and Cordel of Indiana.

When men fight for child custody, previous primary caretaking history is thrown out of the window along with any rights that the child may have in deciding with whom to reside. It isn't that these men are more fit (although they may be the breadwinners). It isn't that these men will suddenly assume more responsibility for child rearing (often times it is the new girlfriend, wife, or grandparents). It is the simple fact that a father taking a seeming interest in the kid, and claiming his RIGHT, that our system falls for. Add that to the single mother bashing and fatherhood exaltation which is well entrenched into every aspect of society.

It is different when couples agree to custody arrangements--which, most do. And that arrangement somehow still consists of the majority of the caretaking remaining with the mother. Even the agreed upon "joint-custody" households are NOT the 50-50 splitting that father's rights groups push. In this scenario, the jointness typically resides in the decision-making, not the actual physical arrangement of the kids. However under Florida's new law, and being the vacation spot that Florida is, kids are now timeshares.

And me? My kid lived with me, since birth: taken care of by me, as a single mother, taken care of by me as a wife and stay at home mother, taken care of by me, as a separated and then divorced mother...all the while with minimal assistance from the father. Not to mention the abuse toward me...Not to mention the abuse towards my child...Not to mention that the father didn't give a shit about child custody OR visitation ON THE FINAL DIVORCE DECREE...Yet he still managed to forge the marital settlement agreement (the part about custody and visitation) and then, not one year later, petitioned to the court to modify the visitation, and then subsequently, custody.

Why oh why?

There were times when the father completely ignored me. There have been several months on end during which the father didn't do so much as place a phone call. Most of the times when he would call, he would ask about ME. ME! And when he would "visit," he would be concerned with ME. The kid? An afterthought. No birthday calls, holidays...presents...but he would ask me for photos of myself. BUT, when he would come up with some grand scheme about what HE wanted to do (how WE could serve HIS needs)...if I didn't acquiesce, he would throw a fit. And that's what happened. And that's what the judge allowed. And that's what nearly mentally ruined me, what emotionally ruined me, and what financially ruined me and my child....And there he was with an entire new family (and a couple old ones, too). And the judge didn't give a shit.

Why me?

Because I stood on my own and was accomplishing my goals without him. There is no other way to explain it.

And, I'm almost there.

Tuesday

Gender Bias in Florida's Court System: Equitable Distribution and Spousal Support

1. Fault plays a definite role in some marital dissolutions, despite the characterization of Florida's divorce law as being "no-fault." The statute's alimony section provides that the adultery of either spouse may be considered when determining the amount of the alimony, if any. Because women historically are the ones who must seek alimony, however, they have been disproportionately affected by findings of fault.

2. In many areas of the state, the courts have virtually abandoned permanent alimony or substituted in its place unrealistic rehabilitative alimony awards.

3. Many judges fail to award permanent alimony, preferring instead to use the vehicle of equitable distribution. Yet, because men usually have a greater earning potential, women are disadvantaged by "equitable" distribution when martial assets are too slight to provide sufficient income.

4. In equitable distributions, men generally receive sixty-five to seventy-five percent of the marital assets compared to twenty-five to thirty-five percent for women.

5. The new equitable distribution statute has an extensive list of factors to be considered in distributing assets, but it lacks a requirement of written findings of fact. This allows a trial court almost unreviewable discretion in dividing marital property.

6. The major asset of most marriages is the earning capacities of the partners.

7. Before the no-fault divorce and equitable distribution statutes were adopted, courts usually allowed the custodial parent and children to occupy the family home after divorce, in addition to receiving support. Common practice today, however, is to order sale of the family home so that a cash settlement can be made for equitable distribution purposes.

8. As a result of their almost unlimited discretion, trial courts distribute marital assets either as property or alimony with a lack of certainty and consistency. This may lead to inappropriate property settlements between the parties.

--1990 Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Report

And Florida fixed this by enacting "time-sharing" law?
____

Foolishly, I believed that all divorces were decided upon fault. I mean, isn't it always someone's fault that the marriage did not last? What I mean is that, I thought the grounds of the divorce were based upon what the couple wanted to publicly acknowledge (in the courtroom and on paper) as to what ended the marriage. And I believed that the court system would make determinations based on these facts.

Little did I know that Florida was a no fault divorce state. I should have gotten divorced somewhere like Pennsylvania:
  • willful and malicious and absence from the marital home...check, or
  • adultery...check, or
  • extreme cruelty...check, or
  • bigamy...almost, or
  • imprisonment..if only the military took family violence seriously, or
  • insanity...he was much to "cool" to be insane (yet if he killed me, certainly he would have plead insanity)
or Georgia:
  • Intermarriage by persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity...um, no, or
  • Mental incapacitation...who, me or him? or
  • Impotence at the time of getting married...can this include intra-maritally acquired impotence? or
  • Force, duress and fraud...what about feeling forced by the Department of Health and Human Services, in collusion with the church, to marry your babydaddy?, or
  • Pregnancy of the wife by a man other than the husband, at the time of the marriage, unknown to the husband...what about pregnancy of an ex-girlfriend, by a man that is your husband, at the time of the marriage, unknown to the wife, until husband decided to tell wife, then ex-girlfriend tells wife this isn't her first pregnancy by husband?, or, isn't this the next category anyway
  • Adultery by either spouse...can you have a pregnancy without adultery?, or
  • Willful and continued desertion by either of the spouses for the term of 1 year...what about for 6-9 months? how long should a spouse wait?, or
  • Conviction of a felony and imprisoned for a term of 2 years or longer...two years? by the way, you can get out of this waiting period via adultery, oh, but then it becomes YOUR fault, or
  • Habitual drunkenness...which may get you out of the marriage, but keep in mind that it doesn't get him away from your kids, or
  • Cruel treatment...same as above, or
  • Incurable mental illness...if you can trust any shrink, or
  • Habitual drug addiction...see "habitual drunkeness"

Now that I'm thinking about it, why can't you get a divorce just because? Yes, there is that good ol' irreconcilable differences category--which is automatic in no-fault states. But why do you need to make a declaration to the government about why your marriage didn't succeed? And why the hell do they need to approve it? Something is every wrong here. (I think we have gone wrong here in allowing the government to approve and sanction marriages, which therefore allows them to be involved in the dissolution. We are not married to the govt. They don't take part in our relationships. They aren't buying us rings or flowers, cooking us dinner...but some could argue that they are raising our kids and giving us a good fuck!) We the people need to take our lives back.

Anyway, so we divorced on irreconcilable differences, after living in separate households for a couple of years, but you see clearly none of this was my fault. I took about all I could have taken from this bastard. I could do bad all by myself!

However, if given the opportunity, would I even want to acknowledge, on paper, that my former spouse was a cheatin', baby-havin', rapin' bastard? No. I just wanted to be divorced, plain and simple. I wanted to move on and had moved on--I didn't even think the divorce was a requirement--it was more of a hassle. (however, in hindsight, it WAS a requirement for him and his "situation") It wasn't until he decided to fight me, less than a year later, for child visitation and custody--the same thing that had been already settled in the "amicable" divorce.

What happened? 1.He still kept having babies which complicated 2. Child support.

So when I went back to court to now introduce the parts about the marriage--the infidelity and abuse--the judge let me get in a couple sentences, and then cut me off. That shit wasn't important [to him]. I also learned from an attorney that it technically wasn't valid since I didn't mention it during the final divorce decree. Okay so if it isn't valid, how is his late child visitation and custody claim any more valid?

There were no assets, nothing to equally distribute except the debt, which neither of us bothered to sort out. The result: he rebuilt his life rather quickly, as he was the one employed by the military, and for me.................still recovering. As I stated in a previous post, I didn't consider asking for alimony originally because I didn't realize that I was in such a bad position. I just wanted to get back on track with my goals and I had no idea how difficult it would be...especially when your ex-spouse can take you back to court on an endless modification (and yet I couldn't go back and ask for alimony).

What earning capacity do you have when you have been a stay at home mother, a student, and a seasonal wage earner with totally screwed up credit and thousands in loans? The capacity only lies in the future. What does that have to do with the right now?

Thursday

Gender Bias in Florida's Court System: Appellate Review

As a consequence of limited finances, many women are virtually foreclosed from appellate review of trial court decisions. Frequently they cannot afford the trial transcripts or appellate counsel necessary for an appeal.

--1990 Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Report

And Florida fixed this by enacting "time-sharing" law?

This doesn't even begin to describe the tragedy of the lack of access to justice when that justice involves money. As I previously stated, when I got to the point in my case in which an attorney was a requirement, no one really wanted to take my case. One female attorney told me that I needed to take it to the appellate level and therefore needed an appellate attorney. I didn't know there were different attorneys that handled different levels of the court system. I asked how much it would cost, she told me $10,000. WHAT THE HELL? I barely had enough money to pay for a consultation fee, where would I get 10 grand from?

I couldn't even pay filing fees. I didn't even know there were fees to file a response that included a countermotion. And then Florida raised those fees! There is even a fee to file for indigent status!

I couldn't pay the fee to get a court reporter--in fact I thought court reporting and transcription was standard and it wasn't until I was faced with proving that my judge was an outright liar, that I found out that nothing was on the record, aside from the judge's own notes!!!

I hear of mothers paying hundreds of dollars in transcript fees because at the appellate level, all of the documents must be originals. These documents often consist of hundreds of pages.

Here's word from Linda Sack's, also in Florida, as she has much more experience in the area of fees:

...the court transcripts that I have must be well over $15,000. I have every one but one. I have plastic bins of every court document and hearing.

The last 2 day hearing in April 09 was $2600.00 just for 2 days and just to get them printed.

Court Reporters just to sit for a one hearing is $60.00 paid in advance..just to sit..then if would need it typed up its close to $4.95 a page. If it’s a all day hearing you must pay in advance based on the hourly rate...

To file for appellate review in FL it cost $300.00 then another $100.00 for the clerk of the courts to prepare the record and all of the copies of the Motions for Rehearing, they want, all of the Certified Copies of the Final Judgement…without an attorney this time I have spent over $600.00 so far. Ink, paper, stamps, it’s timely and expensive.

The first appeal Case 5D07-1682 cost $80,000. Can you imagine 80,000 just to undo the ufair custody ruling…only to be right back in the lovely Judge Brieses courtroom.
Yes, Linda Sacks spent $80K and won an appeal...and then her judge requested the case...the same case that he erroneously ruled on.
And the Writ of Prohibition cost $5,000 just to ask them…please take the “honorable Judge Briese off her case due to the violations..contained in the 28 pages..they denied it and in OCT 2008…gave me right back to him.

In the last 3 years I have spent close to $140,000 and still do not have my daughter’s back.
This is like ransom money:

How much are your kids worth to the court system? To you?

What lengths do you/can you go through, to buy you and your children's freedom?

Monday

Every Child Has Parental Alienation Syndrome, Even David Goldman's Son!

UPDATED AGAIN and AGAIN!!!

Parental alienation syndrome theorists say that there must be a alienating/aligned parent, an alienated child, and a target parent. Supposedly, Sean Goldman is the alienated child, therefore making David Goldman the target parent. But who is the alienating parent?

Bruna Bianchi is dead. And Sean Goldman has been in the care and custody of his maternal grandmother and step-father. Can non-mothers be alienators, too, now?

According to Richard Gardner, father of parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation syndrome occurs in the context of divorce. David Goldman and Bruna Bianchi divorced a couple of years ago. Bruna has been dead since 2008, is her parental influence and control still lingering on?

Richard Gardner also said a child of parental alienation should display some of the following "symptoms":
1. The Campaign of Denigration
2. Weak, Frivolous, or Absurd Rationalizations
3. Lack of Ambivalence
4. The "Independent-Thinker" Phenomenon
5. Reflexive Support of the Alienating Parent in the Parental Conflict
6. Absence of Guilt Over Cruelty to and/or Exploitation of the Alienated Parent
7. Presence of Borrowed Scenarios
8. Spread of the Animosity to the Extended Family and Friends of the Alienated Parent
Are these symptoms present in order to be able to diagnose Sean Goldman with parental alienation syndrome/disorder?

Is Sean Goldman hostile towards his father? What is the evidence...that he won't call him "dad"?

Can someone who wasn't raised in United States be diagnosed with this type of "disorder" when there are cultural and language differences?

It has been obvious ever since this case hit the media, based on the false premise that this was an abduction case, that this would become a great opportunity for parental alienation theory to gain footing (also based on false premises, as cited above):


We must wonder what the theorists, like Dr. Amy J. Baker, who are pushing for its inclusion in the DSM, are really about? Are they about the children? Are they about the money? Or are they about punishing custodial parents and family members (see previous post for "remedy" for parental alienation syndrome)?


If there are no symptoms [in the child], is there a disease [disorder]? Even Dr. Gardner says, no. Today's parental alienation syndrome theorists, always say, yes.

Will this be the new ADHD?



See Also: ANYONE Can Diagnose Parental Alienation Syndrome