Friday, May 22, 2009
If you can't see this video featuring Dr. Sthephen Baskerville click on this link here:
Wednesday May 20, 2009, 5:00 AM
Theresa Ellis lost her child 17 years ago. The Division of Youth and Family Services took Yasmean away when she was 2 and placed her in a foster home. It's just one more tragedy Ellis brought on herself through heroin and cocaine addiction when she was young.
The agency, she said, deemed her unfit, terminated her parental rights, barred her from any contact until Yasmean turned 18. Ellis had no idea where her sixth child was or if she would ever see her again.
For a while, DYFS was in Ellis' life so often that most of her children were removed from her because of neglect. All except two were placed with relatives. Yasmean and another daughter, Michell, went to foster homes. But as she regained control of her life -- getting off drugs, completing parenting classes, finding employment -- Ellis began to get her kids back. Six of them are on their own now. Three live with Ellis. The youngest, Raquan, who would be 8 now, died when he was 2 after falling 17 stories from a window with faulty window guards.
Ellis doesn't sugarcoat her addiction. Getting high cost dearly. She says she doesn't beat herself up anymore, realizing that her past is not pretty but that it does not have to continue to define her.
She got off welfare, and she has a job heading up Newark's Family Success Center at Bradley Court, a public housing development where she lives and is looked upon by many as the mother of the neighborhood.
As she regained her life, Ellis began looking into the faces of young girls she met, wondering if one of them was Yasmean.
"That one might look like her, could it be her?" she would say in her travels. "Will I notice her if I walk past her on the street?"
Ellis wanted to ask passersby whether they had been adopted, had they ever heard the name Yasmean. Having Yasmean back would make her family whole again.
Unbeknownst to Ellis, the reunion began to take shape six years ago when Yasmean was watching the evening news at the home of her foster parent in Newark.
Ellis was being interviewed about Raquan's fall from the high-rise building in Newark. Her foster mother told her she thought that the woman on television was her mother, but Yasmean said she couldn't be certain. They did have the same last name.
At 13, she didn't know how to go about finding her mother. Five years went by until she met and shared her story with Naimah Golden last year. At the time, Yasmean was staying in Newark with Golden's aunt. When Golden heard her story, she said she was convinced Ellis was Yasmean's mother and encouraged the teenager to seriously look for her family.
Yasmean followed up on two leads that didn't pan out. One tip led her to a laundromat but Ellis no longer worked there. She tracked a sister down to a fast food restaurant, but she was gone as well.
"I always grew up thinking my mother gave me up and I didn't know why," she said.
The mystery began to clear last month when Golden and Ellis' niece, Shakira Pivot, bumped into each other in the Orange Municipal Courthouse building. As Pivot waited to speak to a clerk, Pivot saw Golden, who was there to be a witness for a wedding. The two had not seen each other in six years. After they said hello, Golden began to tell Pivot she talked to her "cousin" a few days ago.
Pivot was confused. She didn't know who Golden was talking about. What cousin? Golden didn't know Yasmean's real name and kept referring to her by a nickname that Pivot never heard before.
Everything was cleared up when Golden phoned her grandmother.
"Is her name Yasmean?" Golden asked Pivot.
"I just started crying," Pivot said.
Pivot said the family had been thinking of ways to find Yasmean. They even contemplated contacting the Locator, a television show where loved ones are reconnected. When Golden left the court building she went looking for Yasmean and found her at a polling site in East Orange. She called Pivot by phone and told her where to come.
When Pivot arrived, Golden told Yasmean that the woman approaching was her cousin. Yasmean was so nervous she ran inside. Pivot went after her, the cousin she remembered playing with as a child. They hugged and cried.
Pivot then took Yasmean to see her mother in Newark, where she was working at the Family Success Center.
"I hugged her and touched her," Ellis said. "I started crying, and she started crying."
Family members filled Ellis's office. Friends, too. Yasmean got passed around from one sibling embrace to another.
"I felt complete right then and there," Yasmean said.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
If you can't view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evnjRYPEOpU
I found this interesting, especially the part about her father being classified as "Absent Parent" although he lived next door to her daughter. Also I did not know that 9 of 10 parents with custody, leave the state? What kind of parent would take a child away from the other parent, and then move 100s, sometimes thousands of miles away?
Not a very good one, I think....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Posted: May 12, 2009
10:58 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A court hearing is scheduled tomorrow on arguments that allege the basic child custody procedures used by judges in Bradley County, Tenn., are unconstitutionally biased in favor of one parent.
WND previously reported on the case stemming from a divorce dispute that attorney Stanley Charles Thorne believes could impact custody decisions nationwide, because it calls down the authority of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to help fathers who are good parents.
According to Thorne, the case before Circuit Judge J. Michael Sharp is testing the court procedures used in the child custody case of 3-year-old Kate Hopkins, which began in 2007.
After more than two years in court and five different judges, the case is set for trial beginning May 27 in Sharp's courtroom. But Sharp is hearing the constitutional issues before the rest of the case is heard.
Attorney Jeffrey Miller will argue on behalf of fit Tennessee parents and their children, and an attorney from the Tennessee attorney general's office, Warren Jasper, is expected to argue on behalf of the standard procedures.
According to a statement from Thorne, one of the procedures that will be challenged is the "80-day rule" created by local judges. It automatically takes effect as soon as a child custody case is filed, allowing one parent only 80 days a year with the child while the other parent is allowed 285 days – regardless of circumstances.
The rule, Miller argues, discriminates against one parent, violating the principle of equal protection as well as due process, since it is imposed without a hearing.
Such procedures would be banned if Sharp rules the practices are unconstitutional, Thorne's statement said.
Hundreds of divorce cases are filed daily across the U.S., and according to the Children'sJustice.org website, custody dispute cases leave nearly 38 percent of the fathers with no access or visitation rights to their children. In addition, four in 10 mothers report they interfered with the father's visitation to punish him at least once, half the mothers see "no value" in the father's continued contact with his children and 70 percent of the fathers wanted more time with their kids.
Thorne is serving as a consultant in the case of Jeremy Hopkins, a successful lawyer, in his attempts to be treated the same as his daughter's mother, Elisabeth, also a successful lawyer, in their custody of Kate.
Since the mother left the family in Tennessee and took Kate to Pennsylvania about two years ago, Jeremy Hopkins has been allowed only sporadic days with his daughter.
"All I want for my daughter is for her to have mom and a dad," Jeremy Hopkins told WDEF-TV in Chattanooga.
Michael McCormick of the Institute for American Families said the system is set up to pit a mother against a father in a marital dispute, when it should be working to accommodate the needs of a child for both a mother and father.
"The courts are going to pick a winner and a loser and when they do that, the child ultimately loses," he told the station at a recent rally regarding the case.
"If we look at what's happening to our society we can trace the social pathologies just as increased rates of incarceration, early sexual activity for girls, truancy issues related to the family breaking down and the social fabric of our society is breaking down in terms of the family breaking down, we are being weaken as a nation and we need to change that," McCormick added.
He estimates 17 million fathers nationwide do not have fair access to their children, and about 3 million mothers have the same problem.
Thorne, who has 25 years experience as a lawyer, most recently has specialized in constitutional issues in family courts, representing parents and children on various issues.
The family's life was disrupted by the mother's decision to leave, Thorne said, but the relationship of the father and daughter was aggravated by a "family court system that cares for neither of them while it keeps them mired in a swamp of never-ending legal hassles just to be together."
"Many constitutional issues will be decided by Kate Hopkins' case," he continued. "Perhaps the most important is where the Constitution draws the line to protect the relationship between an innocent child and an innocent parent from government interference."
he dispute came to a head just before last Christmas, following the expiration of the most recent visitation order. Jeremy Hopkins, on a scheduled visit with his daughter, decided to have her stay in Tennessee until a court hearing on the required court-ordered visitation plan.
Instead, he was arrested for interfering with a custodial plan, "even though there was no court order in force," and his daughter was returned to Pennsylvania. The warrant later was quashed by a judge, who essentially determined it never should have been issued.
Thorne questioned the legal system ordering a child taken from one parent "when the child is in no danger … and the child has never been abused, neglected, or harmed" and given to another parent absent a court order.
The 14th Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"This case affects not just the people of Tennessee," Thorne said. "This is huge."
Numerous organizations are working for the rights of fathers in disputes like the Tennessee case, including FathersCustody.org, LongDistanceParenting.org, Fathers False Charges Helpline, Fathers National Lawyers Referral, WinningCustody.com and FathersRights.org.
The original article can be found here:
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Blogs on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Rights
Many family law, CPS, and custody law litigants dealing with parental issues involving custody, education, religion and family can find help with the law from these websites:
ACLU Blog. From the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACSBlog. From the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Balkinization. Commentary on law, politics and culture. By Professor Jack M. Balkin of Yale Law School.
Behind the Homefront. Chronicle of news in homeland security and military operations affecting news gathering, access to information and the public's right to know. From the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
BlawgSearch.com Constitutional Law Blawgs. Directory of Constituional Law Blawgs.
Campaign for the Supreme Court. Blog on the politics and strategy of the appointment battle. From the Washington Post.
CrimProf Blog. Blog on criminal law, including civil rights, search and seizure and more.
EPIC West. Covers privacy issues. By the Senior Counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The First Amendment Project's Weblog. Focuses on freedom of information, expression and petition.
How Appealing. Covers appellate litigation. From Legal Affairs.
Inside Scoop. Supreme Court blog. A project of the Alliance for Justice.
Law Professor Blogs. Includes blogs on criminal law, media law and more.
Legal Theory Blog. Covers recent scholarship in jurisprudence, law and philosophy, law and economic theory, and theoretical work in substantive areas. By Professor Lawrence Solum of the University of San Diego Law School.
LiveCurrent. Commentary on the Supreme Court. From the Los Angeles Times.
Media Law. About Freedom of the Press. By Robert J. Ambrogi.
Media Law and Policy Journal. Features current events in media law and interesting legal developments. From New York Law School.
Media Law Prof Blog. By Professor Christine A. Corcos of Louisiana State University.
The Oyez Supreme Court Podcast. Features podcasts of US Supreme Court oral arguments.
Religion Clause. Commentary by Professor Emeritus Howard M. Friedman of the University of Toledo College of Law.
SCOTUSblog. Features live coverage of the Roberts confirmation hearings as well as regular commentary on the Supreme Court. From Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
The Volokh Conspiracy. By Professors Eugene Volokh, David Kopel, David Bernstein, David Post, Erik Jaffe, Jim Lindgren, Juan Non-Volokh, Kevan Choset, Orin Kerr, Randy Barnett, Russell Korobkin, Stuart Benjamin, Todd Zywicki & Tyler Cowen.
Underneath Their Robes. Features news, gossip and commentary on the federal judiciary.
U.S. Supreme Court Blog. Offers summaries and commentaries on Supreme Court cases.
The Wall of Separation. From Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Del.icio.us: Supreme Court blog posts tagged Supreme Court
Technorati: Supreme Court blog posts tagged Supreme Court
Technorati: SCOTUS blog posts tagged SCOTUS
Resources on the Supreme Court
US Supreme Court. Features court opinions, orders, docket, oral argument transcripts and more.
Appellate.net. Features Supreme Court briefs, docket reports and articles. From the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw.
ACLU Supreme Court. Analysis of issues facing the US Supreme Court from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Curiae Project. provides Supreme Court records, briefs and other relevant materials. From Yale Law School.
Government Supreme Court Briefs. From the US Department of Justice.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Resources related to prominent cases. From Street Law and the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Supreme Court Merit Briefs. From the American Bar Association.
Supreme Court Collection. Supreme Court opinions. From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School.
Supreme Court Historical Society. Features selected volumes from the Journal of Supreme Court History.
Supreme Court Times United States Supreme Court cases,
plain-English descriptions and plain-talk commentary. From Ross Runkel and Lawmemo.com.
ALM/Law.com's United States Supreme Court Monitor. contains all cases in which the Court has granted certiorari. Provides case information about when certiorari was granted, lower court case history, counsel and amicus filings.
Web Guide to U.S. Supreme Court Research. By Gail A. Partin, Associate Law Librarian at Penn State's Dickinson School of Law.
Section 1. The right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.
Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their parents is a fundamental right.
Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule of court or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial in a court of common law that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect, abandonment or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, abolish, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Friday, May 8, 2009
May 8, 2009
Language to deny judges the right to accept the "non-scientific" theories in Family Court cases was removed from a proposed California law last week.
California Assembly Bill 612 (AB612) was targeted to deny the use of Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome as part of an evaluators report or considered as evidence in custody proceedings. An analysis of the Assembly Judiciary Committee found the bills sponsorship used "anecdotal evidence" is pushing for this measure and would be the first enacted anywhere in this country.
"Specifically, this measure seeks to prohibit, apparently for the first time anywhere in the country, a family law judge from considering any evidence of parental alienation or of so-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome," out of deep and sincere concern, and apparently anecdotal evidence, that some family law courts are dangerously misusing their discretion and making inappropriate custody decisions on the bases of these so-called "syndromes" that are not supported by a consensus in the scientific community," states the report. The complete analysis can be found on the California Legal Information website.
"The bill further provides that all other relevant evidence contained in a professional evaluator's child custody report that might assist the court in determining the children's best interests also shall be barred from the judge's consideration if any mention is made in the report pertaining to the possibility that one parent has been seeking to alienate the children from the other parent -- even presumably if the report contains significant admissible evidence that could help the court determine the best interests of the children."
It would seem that the sponsors of this bill were set on banning "significant admissible evidence" as well and this is not the first time the sponsors, and certain co-sponsors of this similar were set on pushing a child custody bill that would deny children to shared parenting after divorce. This is the third year in a row at such an attempt.
The Legislative Committee select the final language of the bill:
Section 3027.3 1 (a) "It is the intent of the Legislature that courts strive to protect the safety and best interests of children in custody matters by ensuring that allegations of physical and sexual abuse are investigated appropriatelyThe committee report goes on further to state:
and/or referrals are made to the child welfare services agency."
(b) A child's expression of significant hostility toward a parent can, in the discretion of the court, be admitted as possible corroborating evidence that the parent has abused the child. The court cannot decide that an accusation of child physical or sexual abuse against a parent is false based solely on the child's expression of significant hostility toward that parent.
(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the provisions of this section shall be included in all trainings required pursuant to Section 3110.5.
This bill appears to create a hard and fast rule that anIn opposition to the bill, the California Psychological Association stated "significant scientific and agreed-upon knowledge base of the last 30 years on children who are`alienated. The proposed amendments to this scientifically inaccurate measure assume the truth of any accusation of abuse.
evaluator and a court may never determine that a child's
refusal to visit with the other parent can be caused by the
efforts of the parent to alienate the child's from the other
parent. However, such a bright line rule is in sharp contrast
to the long-standing foundational premise contained in
California's and most other states' Family Codes providing
broad and unfettered discretion to the trier of fact which has
been felt to be critical for making child custody decisions
that are in the best interests of children.
Family law judicial officers and counsel have long testified in
the Legislature that determining custody arrangements that
appear to be in the best interests of children is one of the
toughest jobs a court officer and an evaluator can ever make.
These decisions they state are extremely fact intensive inquiries - each family situation and each child is unique, and every judicial inquiry must consider those unique situations,
and have as much potential evidence before the court as the
court deems admissible and illuminating. However they note,
judicial discretion in this area is not unfettered. Courts are
limited by the rules of evidence. (See Evidence Code Section
801.) However, beyond that, opponents of this measure suggest
that any broad restriction on the information the court can
consider could well unintentionally compromise the court's
ability to make determinations that are in children's best
interests, and could inadvertently compromise child safety.
Family law statutes, opponents note, do provide some limits on
the court's authority in the form of various presumptions, but
judges still have discretion to rebut those presumptions if
they are not in the best interests of the child. (See Family
The Family Law Section of the State Bar, also in opposition to the bill stated:
More pernicious attempts could be made by parent who
cancels the other parent's visit without telling the
child that the visit has been canceled, creating a
"let down" for the child when that parent does not
"show up" for the visit. Threats could also be made
against the child for wanting to have visitation with
the other parent - "Fine, if you want to see [your
other parent] tonight, then you are grounded for the
rest of the week." Guilt can also be used to
influence a child to avoid visitation - "I'm not
feeling well and I wish you would stay here with me,
but if you have to see [your other parent] I will
understand." Rewards can also be used - "Sure, you
can see [your other parent] today, but I thought we
would go play laser tag with your friends today."
The committee report pointed out that PA and PAS training were not excluded in other states rather:
On the other hand, one state - Nevada - trains child custody mediators on parentalAlso in oppostion to the the bill were the California Judges Association and the Family Law Section of the State Bar:
alienation (Nevada Court Rules 5.70) and another state - North
Carolina - allows family court fees to be used to support supervised visitation and exchange centers that offer services on, among other things, domestic violence, mental illness and parental alienation (North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section
The California Judges Association opposes the bill because it
would "take away judicial discretion and replace it with an
unclear and inflexible standard for determining whether to
admit evidence in a child custody hearing. The bill would
hinder the courts, confuse and delay child custody evaluators,
and burden children and their families." Likewise, the Family
Law Section of the State Bar opposes the bill because "although
the stated purpose of AB 612 is to protect children, the bill
would actually place children at risk by prohibiting courts and
child custody evaluators from considering evidence relevant to
the best interests of the child."
With that action the Assembly Judiciary Committee accepted the bill by a vote of 9-0 and one assemblyman not voting with the revised language, which amounts to the evidence "angry children" shall be taken into account, but is not the only evidence to be considered.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
US Constitutional Attorney
If you cannot see this video, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i3MUFatgW8
If this treaty is accepted as federal "law" under the supremacy clause of the Constitution it would be the Supreme law of the land.
It would affect and effect massive child custody and CPS law in every state in the union. It would be a revolution, but not for the best. It would grant equal rights to children, in essence, leveling the playing ... Read Morefield. But do we really see children between the ages of 0-18 capable of making decisions "in their best interest" ??
Only the parents should be left with those decisions, and certainly not the state barring "clear and convincing" evidence of abuse and neglect.
Parents need to contact their representatives in Congress to support the House Joint Resolution 42 (H.J.R. 42) and urge them to sign on as a co-sponsor to this legislation.
May 7th, 2009
A California representative, Democrat Jim Beall, has reintroduced legislation as Assembly Bill 612 (AB 612) to ban the discussion of parental alienation in child custody evaluations. California judges, psychologists, and family law attorneys all oppose this legislation because they know that parental alienation is a real problem that is harming children in many families, especially in high-conflict divorces. So do the many California parents who have been alienated from their children. And so do the grown children who are victims of parental alienation and recognize it for the damage their alienating parent caused in their own lives.
Beall Supports Child Abuse for Personal Political Gain
The real impetus to backing Beall’s pro-child-abuse legislation is to pander to the extremist anti-family organizations that deny that parental alienation even exists or ever happens. Such organizations as NOW (National Organization of Women) and the California Protective Parents Association, both part of the pro-child-abuse lobby, are blatantly dishonest and irresponsible in their claims. They aim to cover for women who are abusing children because it suits their political and gender goals. They don’t care about children except as property and tools. Beall is unethical and disingenuous enough to go along with this argument to try to get an advantage out of his alliance with them. For disgusting politicians like Beall, harming abused children and parents is a perfectly acceptable strategy to win political support. After all, the child-abusing dollars from NOW and CPPA can help him campaign for re-election.
Parental Alienation Should Not Be A Gender Issue
Parental alienation at its core is not a gender issue. It is a child abuse issue. The researchers who have studied it for decades make it very clear that parental alienation is a form of child abuse that can be committed by either mother or father, sometimes even being committed by both parents in a family. However, the pro-child-abuse lobby tries to distort reality by claiming mothers never abuse their children and that fathers are always abusers.
Any Nascent Research Has Flaws, But This Doesn’t Invalidate It Entirely
Richard Gardner’s seminal research on parental alienation syndrome has flaws. Virtually any seminal research is inevitably going to have flaws. To have no flaws means that either nothing new is being uncovered or the subject is so well understood that there is little need for more research. Neither was the case with parental alienation research, so flaws should be expected. Such flaws do not mean that the research is not about a real subject.
There is additionally a debate about what to call the parental denigration and brainwashing behaviors. The pro-child-abuse lobby claims that there is no “Parental Alienation Syndrome” because they don’t like the term or its meaning. They also portray parental alienation research as being “junk science” to thoroughly discredit it and to cover for the continuation of emotional child abuse by their allies and mis-characterization of mothers as inherently protective and fathers as inherently abusive. This is a continuation of the “victim feminism” that wreaks havoc with Western societies. Either gender can be protective, and either can be abusive. To deny this as the pro-child-abuse lobby does is ludicrous. But yet deny it they do.
“It’s junk science used to target women and take their custody rights away,” said Karen Anderson, a spokesperson for the California Protective Parents Association. “It’s a problem in courts all over the country.”
Child Abusers Misportray DSM as a Dogmatic Bible
One of the common criticisms that the pro-child-abuse lobby makes is that parental alienation is not mentioned in DSM-IV, the “Bible” of mental health professionals in its 4th major version. DSM hasn’t been updated significantly since 1994. The DSM-IV-TR version in 2000 was a very minor text revision that did not significantly change the contents of the book. So that means it was last significantly updated 15 years ago. This was only several years after the very first theories on parental alienation were being developed, not enough time for the many years long debate needed for the inclusion of substantially new material into this type of text.
As an example of how long it can take for well-established research to get into DSM, consider that earlier versions of DSM, prior to DSM-IV, didn’t mention AIDS or Tourette Syndrome. So when DSM-III was the latest version of DSM prior to the publication of DSM-IV in 1994, does that mean that AIDS did not exist? Tell that to the many tens of thousands of people who died from it prior to its inclusion in DSM-IV.
Was Tourette Syndrome “junk science” in 1993, but not in 1995, for the same reason? What were likely the first documented cases of Tourette Syndrome were published in 1885. It took more than 100 years for it to be included in DSM. Does that mean it never existed and/or was “junk science” in the meantime? This quote from Wikipedia’s coverage on Tourette Syndrome makes it very clear that a seemingly obscure and rare disorder can in fact be far more common than popularly believed until much more research is done and standards for how to diagnose it are determined:
Tourette syndrome was once thought to be rare: in 1972, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) believed there were fewer than 100 cases in the United States, and a 1973 registry reported only 485 cases worldwide. However, multiple studies published since 2000 have consistently demonstrated that the prevalence is much higher than previously thought. Discrepancies across current and prior prevalence estimates come from several factors: ascertainment bias in earlier samples drawn from clinically referred cases, assessment methods that may fail to detect milder cases, and differences in diagnostic criteria and thresholds. There were few broad-based community studies published before 2000 and until the 1980s, most epidemiological studies of Tourette syndrome were based on individuals referred to tertiary care or specialty clinics.
DSM-V, the next revision, isn’t scheduled for publication until 2012. Does that mean that nothing discovered in the fields of psychology and psychiatry between the late 1980’s and 2012 is real and it is all “junk science” until it is mentioned in DSM-V or some later version of DSM?
Parental Alienation Supported by Reputable Researchers of Both Genders
Parental alienation has substantial scientific backing from reputable researchers and professionals at prestigious universities. There is simply no debate from responsible mental health professionals who have spent time researching high conflict divorces and child abuse that systematic denigration, access blocking, and false allegations designed to destroy one parent’s relationship with a child is not child abuse. There is undisputed and well-researched evidence that this conduct happens in many divorces by many parents of both genders. Such research has been done by many mental health, social sciences, and legal researchers of both genders. This is not a male versus female issue, it is an issue of those who oppose the abuse of children and destruction of their relationships with both parents versus those who are willing to sanction and advocate that such abuse should be allowed and even encouraged, despite the well-demonstrated damage it does to the children and the target parent.
Alienated children frequently are psychologically damaged in long-term ways. They often develop depression, substance abuse problems, eating disorders, and even manipulative behavior patterns similar to their alienating parents. Some compare growing up with an alienating parent as being kidnapped and brainwashed. Dr. Amy Baker studied and documented in depth the cases of 40 research subjects who as adults realized they are victims of parental alienation. Her book Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties That Bind mentions some disturbing statistics:
* 70% suffered from depression
* 58% were divorced
* Half of the 28 who had children are estranged from their own children
* 35% developed problems with drugs and alcohol
Mothers Wrongly Losing Custody Doesn’t Invalidate Parental Alienation
The pro-child-abuse lobby argues that some women have lost custody to child abusers because they falsely claimed parental alienation. Perhaps that is true. But even if you are 100% certain it is true and can prove it beyond any doubt, that doesn’t mean that parental alienation is not real. What it means is that the family law courts and justice system are flawed and reach inaccurate conclusions that cause damage to children and innocent parents.
Some Women Do Abuse Children, Including by Alienation Tactics
First of all, men are not the only people who abuse children. The facts are clear that children are abused by people of both genders. There is no way that all child abuse is done by men, and there is no scientific or research backing for any position even close to this. There’s no way to even make a case about the only parents who abuse children are fathers. The incidents that show that mothers abuse and murder their own children are numerous. See our article Murderous Mentally Ill Mothers and Government Negligence for some famous examples.
Fix Flawed Family Law Courts, Don’t Shelter Child Abusers
Courts are fallible and make bad decisions every day. Witness the repeated convictions and even death sentences handed down to people who were later exonerated by new evidence or discovery of perjury, often perjury by government employees or people manipulated by the government. Furthermore, it is entirely clear that there are some very dishonest and incompetent police officers, CPS social workers, and judges who have agendas that are anything but the best interests of the children.
As a drastic example of this line of thought, consider the Pennsylvania court judges who sent thousands of children to private jails without fair trials in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks. (See our article Corrupt Pennsylvania Courts Jail Kids for Cash.) These judges considered their personal financial gain to be more important than the lives of thousands of children whom in many cases didn’t even commit any crimes. Does that mean no child should ever be charged or tried for a crime? No, it doesn’t. It means that corrupt and evil government employees should suffer the consequences for their misconduct and that perhaps those consequences need to be made much more severe to ensure that government employees comply with the law. If government employees are willing to wrongly and severely damage or destroy the lives of thousands of young children, perhaps there should be penalties commensurate for the crimes. Jail time for such people hardly seems adequate, and apparently wasn’t enough of a disincentive to keep them from committing such crimes thousands of times over many years.
Perhaps the mothers who wrongly had their custody taken away were mistreated by the courts, police, or CPS. This is nothing new for fathers, it happens to them all the time and in fact it was public policy for decades that children should live with their mother and have little contact with their father. Fathers didn’t and don’t like bad public policy and incompetent court decisions. It is no surprise that mothers don’t like bad policies and incompetent courts now that they are more often wronged by them than before, in the days when custody assignment was a “children shall have only mothers” rubber stamp that more or less uniformly deprived children of a father as public policy.
Bad family law decisions indicate that courts are ill-equipped to deal with divorce cases involving mentally ill and abusive parties who are dishonest and fail to use the tools that should be used, such as prosecution for perjury, to make the legal process result in just and beneficial outcomes. But these bad decisions do not indicate in any way that parental alienation is not real.
None of the arguments presented by the pro-child-abuse lobby denying reality and portraying child abuse as acceptable and legal makes it ethically and objectively so. Child abuse is wrong because it hurts children. Parental alienation is wrong because it hurts children (and target parents and other target family member). It doesn’t matter if the alienating parent is the mother or father (or both!) — any way you cut it, parental alienation is child abuse.
It is likely true that some parents who claim parental alienation managed to estrange themselves from their kids, but are not abusers. It is also likely that some really did abuse their children and some of these parents ended up with custody because of false claims of parental alienation. That doesn’t mean that no parents ever brainwash their children to hate their other parent. Pretending parental alienation does not happen and making it impossible to address this form of child abuse in custody decisions and plans is effectively mandating state-sanctioned and state-assisted child abuse.
Advocates for the State of California to assist in abusing children (like Beall is) want to claim that just because decades-old research and papers on parental alienation were scientifically flawed means that all the current research and studies that are not flawed and show it is a real phenomenon. They want to pretend that brainwashing a child to hate a parent is not child abuse and their vile constituents who do this should be allowed to abuse their children with no consequences.
AB 612 Is Immoral, Even Evil
To deny that parental alienation is happening and to cover it up is nothing short of supporting the legalization of systematic emotional abuse of children. NOW, Democrat Jim Beall, and their ilk are essentially mass child abusers. Metaphorically, their relationship to the parents committing such child abuses is little different than the relationship between Nazi party members who pushed for funding and resources to “control the Jew problem” but didn’t actually drop cyanide into gas chambers, leaving that to SS executioners. NOW, Beall, and allies are making themselves just as guilty as the abusive parents who are in the children’s faces abusing them, often on a daily basis.
As another example, sometimes anti-white discrimination in hiring decisions occur. Yet is anybody seriously arguing that all non-whites should be enslaved or banned from employment so as to ensure that discriminatory hiring decisions won’t adversely affect some whites again? Such a proposal would be blatantly racist and immoral. Yet the proposal to ban parental alienation as a factor in custody decisions because courts have made mistakes is little different from such an extremist and racist position.
Beall Advocates for State-Assisted Child Abuse as Public Policy
Beall is an advocate of state-backed child abuse, as the other misguided California assembly representatives and parties collaborating with him in support of child abuse. These people do not represent the interests of the children of California. They place their own political futures and support of misguided special interests above the well-being of children.
Beall and the California Assembly should withdraw support for state-backed child abuse. Legislation and policies making the emotional child abuse tactic of parental alienation legally allowed is not good for California children, just like laws and policies that promoted the genocide of populations in German concentration camps and the mass-enslavement of millions were not good for the victims of those policies.
How to Contact Jim Beall
Please let Beall know that his support for child abuse and destruction of children is not appreciated. Contact information follows.
Jim Beall Jr. - Democrat
Assembly District 24
AB 612 Will Make It Harder to Protect Children from Parental Alienation
Child Custody Evaluation Changes
Parental Alienation: Not In The Best Interest Of The Children
US court found PAS met the Frye Test for Scientific Acceptability
Bill Wades In to Custody Battles (PAS)
Alienating Mom Denies Dying Man Chance to See Child
Kids’ Parental Alienation Book: “I Don’t Want to Choose!”
The original source for this article can be found: http://angiemedia.com/?p=2240
Saturday, May 2, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By David R. Usher
For the past 15 years, liberals have abused the consequences of marriage-absence as political wildcards to justify legislation entitling even more of it.
The term "marriage-absence" refers to adults of marriageable age living outside the institution of heterosexual marriage.
In the vast majority of cases, living in a state of marriage-absence drives our most costly and urgent social and economic problems, including the majority of poverty for women and children, lack of health care coverage, intergenerational illegitimacy, child educational and mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence and much of our crime problem. The budget burden is growing explosively. Economic conservatives must note that tremendous costs of marriage-absence imposed on business and taxpayers has historically precluded sustainable zero-deficit spending since the 1960s.
Living outside the institution of marriage is often thought to be a lifestyle choice. However, this simplistic view ignores the vast array of federal and state policies baiting individual to prefer non-marriage, to the ultimate detriment of themselves, their children, society and taxpayers. The problem of intergenerational marriage-absence will not abate, and the success of the American Experiment is already in great danger. It is now necessary to address the policies entitling harmful lifestyle choices, replacing them with policies that encourage positive lifestyle choices.
Conservatives fail to grasp the necessity of positively applying these problems as motivators to effect marriage-positive change for the benefit of everyone.
Welfare reform was unsuccessful because the important goals of improving marriage rates and reducing out-of-wedlock births were not addressed. Single mothers must work full time and children must be raised by day-care centers and schools – driving the day-care and schools-as-parent crises. Welfare reform turned fathers into status criminals facing jail if they cannot provide a mandated welfare payment often in excess of real earning capacity.
Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed and marriage rates continue to slide. Robert Rector pointed to the missing policy link in 2007: "If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty."
The recently enacted SCHIP program is national health care in the name of marriage-absent children. It is just another entitlement luring more bad marital and reproductive decisions that invariably come full circle to hurt most women.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was hastily re-authorized with full bipartisan support in late 2007. Unfortunately, VAWA is a primary destroyer of marriage, immigration law and due process standards. Only a sworn statement is required to instantly seize marriages, assets, green cards and a breathtaking array of free benefits. VAWA has historically provided no salient results and has harmed marriage because it fails to positively address the primary driver of spousal violence – substance abuse – a preventable and very treatable addictive disorder.
Democrats have briskly accelerated execution of the National Organization for Women's gender juggernaut since the elections. President Obama anointed eponymous lesbian Kim Gandy as social policy guru by creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. Gandy ecstatically bragged, "We got the entire Cabinet." She forgot to mention the rest of Congress and America, too.
Liberals know that Republicans always go along with feminist social legislation if it is unrelated to abortion or gay marriage. Liberals now see a fantastic opportunity to sneak volumes of legislation through Congress while Republican attention is focused on tumultuous economic and war issues.
In the coming months, we will witness a torrent of gender-based federal legislation designed to further destroy heterosexual marriage and force everyone with cash to subsidize it.
For example, the National Organization for Women wants legislation ensuring that America's economic vicissitudes impact only men (who have already sustained nearly 80 percent of job losses in the current recession). The Security and Financial Empowerment Act (H.R. 739) would make it difficult or risky for businesses to dismiss women who claim to be victims of domestic violence, and leave businesses on the hook for unemployment benefits if a woman claims she cannot work due to alleged abuse. The existence of evidence of abuse or trauma is not required.
President Obama wants to expand marriage-absence by creating "baby colleges." This is a dangerous merger of the nanny state with education. It would form a leviathan encouraging unmarried mothers to become workaholics while their parental roles are further weakened. More children will be raised at the whim of the state (like Maoist China once did), while more essentially parentless children will end up in foster care.
Additionally, we will soon see legislation to enact I-VAWA (which would directly entitle U.N. feminists to destroy marriage around the world), reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, criminalize those who oppose gay marriage, ratify CEDAW (placing our laws, customs and educational materials under control of U.N. feminists) and enact the "Freedom of Choice Act," repealing all state controls on abortion.
Realizing achievable conservative answers
Republicans were overrun by Herbert Marcuse's new-left war on marriage-based capitalism because the RNC lacks policy positively addressing the desperate problems of women living in marriage-absence. The RNC still does not understand it will continue losing elections until carefully crafted marriage-positive policies attractive to women (and men) are brought forth.
Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem we face. The vast majority of poverty, crime, child problems, the "need" for abortion and deficits would disappear if we develop policies that stimulate women to choose marriage, reward marital responsibility, provide simple elective programs helping spouses rise above or recover from common problems such as substance abuse, and smoothly transition men and women from the claws of the welfare shredder to marriage.
Marriage is the only institution guaranteeing women economic support and the necessary assistance of an invested husband. Conservatives who wish to win must build their races on "marriage values" – restoring the right of women to enjoy these benefits – while short-circuiting programs encouraging or enticing women to throw their rights out at a weak moment.
Marriage predicts the best outcomes for women and children. The conservative agenda must promise women better futures than merely surviving as perennial wards of Washington – living in unsustainable communities full of disaffected men.
Ronald Reagan set an end-goal we have not yet pursued when he said, "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." Marriage is unquestionably the replacement for welfare. Trickle-down socioeconomic policies will build strong marriages as successfully as trickle-down economics builds the economy. Concurrent application of trickle-down social and economic polices confidently predicts an era of consistent zero deficits, a stronger and more competitive workforce, and substantial budget left over for the war on terror and rebuilding the economy.
My college classmate John Podesta established the Center for American Progress not as a think tank, but an "action tank" designed to formulate, market, organize and enact liberal policies. Without a similarly aggressive conservative organization bearing brilliant marriage-values policy, Republicans will never muster the votes necessary to retake Congress and the White House. I urge Republican leadership to pursue "marriage values" as soon as conservatively possible.
David R. Usher is president of the ACFC Missouri Coalition, a social policy analyst for over 20 years and a 1974 graduate of Knox College in Galesburg, Ill..
Friday, May 1, 2009
To quote from RightWing News: http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/congress_passes_obama_youth_bi.php
By passing the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act. Translating from the liberal Newspeak, "volunteerism" means "coercive servitude," and "education" means "statist indoctrination."
The "GIVE" act is now on the way to the Senate. InfoWars reports:
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled "Duties," in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the "Youth Engagement Zone Program" and states that "service learning" will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."
As noted at Gateway Pundit, GIVE includes a provision for uniforms.
At best, this reprise of Hitler Youth will nationalize charitable work, using slave labor to help the State to further marginalize Christianity, which is one of the few remaining obstacles to totalitarianism. At worse, this and Obama's Serve America Act are part of his stated plan to create a race-based, Gestapo-style "Civilian National Security Force" as large and well-funded as the military.
There is nothing scarier than a brainwashed teenager holding a machine gun, as Americans may soon be learning firsthand.