contact-me

The Truth About Parental Alienation

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:43:49 +0100

I always find it amazing that so much information is out there to help women and children however our judicial system and government seem hell-bent on punishing women for escaping violent situations.... is our judicial system and government telling us that we have no worth in this country?

by Irene Weiser

The truth about parental alienation, custody and abuse.

Proponents of Parental Alienation portray parental alienation as a destructive family dynamic, usually manifesting during custody battles, in which one parent purportedly turns the child’s sentiments against the other parent. Failure to recognize and correct this dynamic by ensuring that the child has a relationship with both parents, they claim, will cause great harm to the child.

Indeed, nothing can be further from the truth. Parental Alienation is a discredited, pseudo-psychological theory whose application in custody determinations has caused great harm to children.

Background

Parental Alienation Syndrome was first described in 1985 by the pro-pedophilia psychiatrist Richard Gardner, at a time when the epidemic of child sexual abuse in our country was first being recognized.

Gardner defines PAS as follows:

The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent . . .

Gardner proposed that most allegations of child sexual abuse in custody proceedings were false – that a bitter or vindictive parent had planted such suggestions into the child to turn the child against, or alienate the child from, the other parent. The remedy, Gardner held, was to punish the accusing parent and award custody to the parent the child rejected.

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of PAS , Gardner’s theory has not undergone peer review, and PAS has never been accepted by the American Psychiatric Association for inclusion as a clinical diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Nonetheless, the theory of PAS has been increasingly relied upon in family courts and its logic extended to apply not only to situations where child sexual abuse was alleged, but to any allegations of family violence.

Tragic Consequences

The results of its acceptance in family court have been tragic.

Parental Alienation fails to recognize that a parent or child may have legitimate reasons for having antipathy toward the other parent; it rejects out of hand the idea that allegations of abuse could be true. Thus, instead of investigating allegations of abuse, PAS turns the focus of the court’s investigation onto the motives of accuser. Evidence of animosity toward the other parent is regarded as evidence of PAS. As a result of this "through-the-looking-glass" thinking, when courts award visitation or custody to the parent the child has an aversion to, in many instances, the courts are awarding custody to abusers.

Some children placed in the custody of their abusers have committed suicide; others have run away, and countless others have endured the abuse and are permanently traumatized.. In recent years, children placed in custody of their abusers have been coming forward to tell their stories and to warn of the harms of PAS.

PAS Discredited in Mental Health and Legal Communities

This past year (2006) the American Bar Association’s Children’s Legal Rights Journal published an article that undertook a comprehensive analysis of the scientific, legal and policy issues involved in the evidentiary admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome, and found that there was no support for its use.

“PAS’s twenty-year run in American courts is an embarrassing chapter in the history of evidentiary law. It reflects the wholesale failure of legal professionals entrusted with evidentiary gatekeeping intended to guard legal processes from the taint of pseudo-science…. As a matter of science, law, and policy PAS should remain inadmissible in American courts.”

Jennifer Hoult Esq, The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, 26 Child. Legal Rts J. 1 (2006).

Also this past year, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges published a judges bench book that also found no scientific or legal basis for admission of parental alienation. Further, it cautioned:

The discredited "diagnosis" of "PAS" (or allegation of "parental alienation"), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children's behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be "alienated" have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children's responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children's other parent.

Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide, 2006, pg 24)

In 2003, the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse stated that

Although PAS may be hailed as a "syndrome" . . . in fact it is the product of anecdotal evidence gathered from Dr. Gardner's own practice. [...] PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research. […] PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.”

And the 1996 Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family states that

Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which mothers are blamed for interfering with their children's attachment to their fathers, the term is still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children's fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations.[pg 40] Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions. . . . Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women's responses to chronic victimization. Terms such as "parental alienation" may be used to blame the women for the children's reasonable fear of or anger toward their violent father. [pg 100]

Statistics

Multiple studies confirm the grim reality that at least 70% of contested custody disputes involve domestic violence. Further, there is considerable overlap between domestic violence, child abuse and incest. Multiple studies show that the majority of men who abuse their wives or girlfriends also abuse the children. At least half of incest perpetrators also committed domestic violence, and daughters of batterers are 6.5 times more likely than other girls to be victims of incest.

Conclusion

It is time for law guardians, evaluators and judges to stop believing in the myth of Parental Alienation, and instead investigate the abuse that protective parents and children allege.

Family Court Judges, when will you stop killing women and children?

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:39:24 +0100

I titled this article thusly because when our family court judges are ignoring the existence of domestic violence and the rise of family annihilators, they are guilty of depraved indifference. How many more women and children will die before our family court judges admit that they have made a mistake in believing in PAS and the "friendly parent" theory? It's bad enough to make the mistake, please stop compounding it by not admitting to it.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Father's Rights and Violence Against Women

Xy: Men, Masculinity and Gender Politics

by Michael Flood

Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.

--------

In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.

Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement

The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).

Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.

The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.

Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.

Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women

The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.

Priviledging contact over safety

Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence.

An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.

The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.

Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.

Discrediting victims

The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.

First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.

Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.

I have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.

Men’s versus women’s violence (Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)

Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.

While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.

To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.

First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).

Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.

Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).

Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”. Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.

CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).

There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.

A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).

Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).

Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).

The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.

First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.

Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.

Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims

The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.

Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.

Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator. And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).

This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).

Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.

Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.

Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign

This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.

White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men's violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.

To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/

Conclusion

To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.

We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.

We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.

We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.

The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.

However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).

Beating the backlash

The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.

Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;

Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;

Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.

Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.

Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.

Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.

Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;

Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)

Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.

Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.

‘Speaking as a father…’

Tell women’s stories

Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.

In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.

(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )

Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.

More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.

Contact

Dr Michael Flood

Postdoctoral Fellow

Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS)

La Trobe University

E-mail: michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au

PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602

Permission is given for this document to be circulated or posted online.

Further resources and reading

Critiques of ‘fathers’ rights’ and ‘men’s rights’ claims about family law, violence, custody, etc.:

http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml#Violence

http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml#father

Published academic critiques of fathers’ rights perspectives:

http://mensbiblio.xyonline.net/fathering.html#Heading1042

Published academic critiques of men's rights perspectives:

http://mensbiblio.xyonline.net/mensrights.html#critiques

Web critiques of men's and fathers' rights:

http://www.xyonline.net/links.shtml#24

A short critique of fathers' rights and men's rights perspectives:

http://www.xyonline.net/Respondingtomen.shtml

the parental alienation tactic is historically based on a cover for child sexual abuse

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:45:58 +0100

I found this sentence interesting because, after all, PAS was created by a known child molester... so it makes sense that the father's who claim it are sexual predators. What does it say about the lawyers, judges and so-called experts who use it in their defense, rulings and findings? Are child predators more entrenched in society than we are aware of? I mean, all of these Father's Rights groups fight for the existence of PAS, are they really fighting for the right to have sex with their children??

from Randi James...

The So-Called Parental Alienation Christian View: Don't Go Trying to Get All Religious on Us Now

Ask yourself: Can you tell the difference between a nice wholesome Christian family and one who is not? And if so, what is/are the difference(s)? Don't fool yourself for the sake of trying to be holier than thou. We see Christian families on the news everyday for a variety of incidents that aren't so wholesome. But, someone will say they aren't Christian enough, they have backslid, they aren't really Christian, etc.

In Monika Logan's attempted appeal to the Christianity in you, she begins with this excerpt by Judith Wallerstein, a "scholar" whose works has been repeatedly misrepresented:

I discovered a well- known scholar’s excerpt, by Judith Wallerstein that reads, “We’ve seriously underestimated the long-term impact of divorce on children [and]…the numerous ways a child’s experience differ when growing up in a divorced family.”I am blessed as I do not know what it is like to be a child of divorce. I was raised in an intact home.
First off, the long-term impact isn't necessarily the divorce. This has been stated countless times in research. It is the conditions that existed prior to the actual divorce and then extend thereafter. Divorces don't happen in a vacuum. Children are often witnesses and participants of dysfunctional behaviors that pre-existed in the "intact" family. And what is an "intact" family anyway? Merely one that hasn't divorced? Divorce is only a legal procedure in which the government is involved. Intact doesn't mean better, or non-dysfunctional. As outsiders, we can only know what families choose to reveal to us. Everyone has a public and private face, even Christians.

Lastly, I am keenly aware that Churches frowns upon divorce and that Parental Alienation (PA) is misunderstand .I was taught that God hates divorce (see Malachi 2:16 NIV), but also was taught that God forgives. He is a God of grace and one that allows for second chances.
Churches frown upon divorce because of the inherently patriarchal and sexist attitudes that exist within its membership--amazingly, the same attitudes we see outside of the church. That God hates divorces but forgives is evidence of the contradictory nature of the Bible. People use whatever part of the Bible they see fit to support their opinion.

The idea of divorce does not occur to newly marrying couples.
It doesn't?

Divorce was also not Gods original intention. God allowed a clause about divorce to be included in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1). God wanted to prevent men from dumping their wives for frivolous reasons. Subsequently, I started to wonder about children who dump their parents for frivolous reasons
Did God say anything of "allowing" women to "dump" their husbands? And what exactly would be regarded as frivolous reasons? Great segue to her opinion.

In some divorces, especially vitriolic divorces, one parent attempts to turn the child against the other parent. The parent desires to wreak havoc on the other parent’s relationship with the child; a few methods include cruel words and the allure of material gifts. Messages made by parents that are perpetual and poisonous produce troubled kids. Eventually, the relentless actions and words of embittered parents pay off. These kids’ discard relationships of once-loved parents and treat their parents as their worst foe.
Are these vitriolic divorces the same as the "high-conflict" ones? If so, we cannot make any assumptions about why this level of vitriol exists in a family. Again, remember, that families choose to reveal what they want to reveal. We cannot know what the child's original feelings were about his or her parent(s) unless we were a part of that child's inner world. Troubled kids are produced by a lot more than poisonous messages--troubled kids need an environment in which there are few resources/little support. Troubled kids are not treated like people but rather objects. Troubled kids' emotions and space are not validated or respected. The truth is, we cannot know the depth of feeling any child once had for his/her parents, based off our own observation, or the word of the other parent.

Sadly, many Christian parents whose kids reject them feel alone in their shame. Many believers fall prey to the idea that good parents always have good kids. They frequently support this standard by one preferred scripture, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6, NIV). Other scriptural lessons are discarded, such as Job or Aaron’s sons as seen in Leviticus 10.
Many kids reject their parents, even non-Christian ones. This is on account of a range of behaviors of that parent. Is it so hard to understand that just because someone is the parent, blood-relative, etc, that there is no guarantee that the temperaments will match...that they will have similar interests as their children? Love is not guaranteed to be reciprocated, nor can you dictate how someone else loves you. Children are people. How should we treat children? Well, Monika cites Proverbs 22:6, but a few verses later in, 22:15, it says this: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." She also mentions that Christians disregard Leviticus 10, where you can also find this part: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” (20:9) Hmmm.

Divided homes breeds deception, deceit, and disparagement. Common Christian advice is that parent’s post-divorce should keep the same chores, discipline, and rules. This guidance is helpful, but is not applicable to cases of PA. Dr. Warshak points out… “your children are being manipulated to serve as vehicles to express their other parents hostility…” (p.38). Parent’s in these cases do not care about the rejected parent’s wishes or their children’s best interests. It is a form of emotional abuse.
Non-divided homes breed the same things. How do you deal with it in those cases? The emphasis shouldn't be placed on thehome though, it is the people involved in the situation. Kids thrive with consistency and thus the same schedules should continue as possible. But we don't really hear that these days. All we hear is joint-custody--a situation that breeds no kind of continuity other than being a timeshare product. Separated parents can share parenting, where parenting was once shared before. Separated parents should not split 50-50 custody, where there was no 50-50 split in the child's time previously.

Children are being manipulated by parents who come to the sudden realization that, without the other parent's assistance, he/she has no real connection to his/her child. That parent did not build, maintain, and continue to foster a relationship with his/her own child. So now, in absence of any support, that parent refuses to understand the current dynamics are based on the past. And so that parent's escape, is to blame "alienation" on the parent to whom the child is closer. The parental alienation tactic allows an otherwise physically, emotionally, or spiritually absent parent to experience the absolution that is provided in Christianity.

In the cases where that parent was the abuser in the family, often times we cannot know because it was that same nice, wholesome, upstanding Christian neighbor. Abusers do seek to undermine the child's relationship with the parent to whom he/she is closer. This phenomena is not parental alienation. Parental alienation theorists are trying to mix all the definitions up in order to obscure an agenda--that the parental alienation tactic is historically based on a cover for child sexual abuse. Even in the original definition of parental alienation, if domestic abuse was present, parental alienation could not be considered as a "diagnosis." The definition continues to expand.

Alienated children often resemble children that are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Warshak, 2010, p. 27). These kids are angry, resentful, spiteful and vindictive . The only difference is that their unwarranted behavior is towards one parent, not both. I do not think Parental Alienation is the thorn in our flesh (see 2 Corinthians 12:17). Target parents are often humble enough. Parents and children need support, prayer, and love. Prayer is also needed for ex-spouses’ as many are un-happy and lonely after an un-wanted divorce. We should reserve judgment for God.
In an interesting conclusion, Monika tries to merge psychology with one more Christian rambling. Kids in any type of dysfunction are angry and resentful. As they fail to see any resolution to their problems, these kids can become spiteful and vindictive. These traits are not limited to the kids. And without careful inquiry we are not in a position to know whether that behavior is warranted, or not. We are also not in a position as outsiders to force our beliefs upon these children, especially in cases where domestic abuse may be the underlying cause. We are only looking at the signs and symptoms as they are revealed to us. What we can offer is support and belief in the children's words as they choose to present it to us. They need one positive adult with whom they can bond, and that adult should be his/her preferred parent.

As for the ex-spouse, some are un-happy, some are happier. Some are lonely, some re-partner quickly, some have no intention of partnering, some are dedicated to their child[ren], some have completely other interests. We don't need to assume. But by placing psychology into the dynamic of families, we are serving as judges. What would God think about that?Hopefully the Christian God is different from the God that Catholic priests and children are referring to. Then again, if He believes in parental alienation, maybe not.

American Mothers Political Party...it's time to save our children

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:55:45 +0100

AMPP will have a blog talk radio show every week... tune in and learn how to fight against the abuse and corruption running rampant through the family court system.

Thursday

American Mothers Political Party Blogtalk Radio Show 7/22/10

American Mothers Political Party
Blogtalk Radio Show
Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977
7/22/10 @5pm EST

Mothers across the world are uniting to expose the criminals of family court. We demand justice and equality within the system. We will discuss the impact that Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives have done to Motherhood. We will share what we have uncovered and who has been paid off. Please join us and share your story of family court nightmares!

Hosted by: Lorraine Tipton, Blogger, Activist/Advocate for Mothers Rights and co-founder of AMPP. Expert in domestic violence, family court corruption and custody disputes.

Special Guest: Alexis Moore, Founder of Survivors In Action national crime victims’ organization. Expert in cyberstalking, privacy protection, stalking, identity theft and domestic violence advocating so "No Victim is Left Behind"

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts. We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children. We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute. We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser. We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts! We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t. We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled. Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children. Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child. Until Mothers and Childrens voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!

I nominate Philip Edward Clarke for father of the year....

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:28:16 +0100
A truly caring father beats his child until the child is brain - damaged and then stays in the picture to view his handiwork... Are we truly this sick and perverted as a society?? We have truly become the "United States of Abuse".

A FATHER who brain damaged his "very vulnerable" baby son has avoided an immediate jail term so he can be a "father figure" to the boy.
In May, a District Court jury found Philip Edward Clarke, 29, of Ingle Farm, guilty of the criminal neglect of his 12-week-old son William in 2006.
In sentencing today, Judge Wayne Chivell said Clarke had lost his temper and either shaken his son, or thrown him onto a soft surface with a hard base like a couch.
"It is clear ... that it was your actions, whatever they were, that caused his injuries," Judge Chivell said.
"(The) trauma required to inflict the sort of injuries suffered by William in this case would not have been minor."
William suffered bleeding in the space between his brain and skull, extensive brain damage and was blinded in both eyes.
RELATED COVERAGE
Avenging mother jailed for attack Adelaide Now, 11 Apr 2010
Three violent strikes - and finally jail Adelaide Now, 16 Oct 2009
Jongewaard wins sentence appeal The Australian, 21 Sep 2009
Jongewaard lodges sentence appeal Adelaide Now, 14 Sep 2009
Jongewaard jailed, cycling career in doubt Adelaide Now,11 Sep 2009
"It may be that his right optic nerve was severed ... William has suffered a gross loss of vision in both eyes."
Judge Chivell said a doctor who examined William's eyes said she had "never seen anything as bad in her entire career".
He said Clarke was aware his actions could cause serious harm to the child.
William - born nine weeks premature - was just 12 weeks old when Clarke snapped.
"His development age was really only about three weeks ... he was very small and very vulnerable to injury."
But, Judge Chivell said he "does not consider the extent of his injuries as total incapacity".
He said William was now being cared for by Clarke's parents - and he visited his child as often as allowed.
"It is unfortunate his mother has not seen him for the last three years.
"It is clear that she has many issues to deal with including her unresolved gried for what has happened."
He suspended a three-year prison sentence and two-year non-parole period on condition of a $1000, two-year good-behaviour bond because he said it was more "constructive" for Clarke to be a father figure to his son in the absence of the boy's mother.

Father's Rights Groups Fight for Right to Rape Their children... and family court says yes!!!

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:36:35 +0100

American PBS Documentary "Breaking The Silence The Children's Stories"
What Breaking the Silence Means

By Dominique Lasseur

Documentary film producer Dominique Lasseur set out to explore the failures of the family court system in "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories." But when public television broadcast the program in the fall of 2005, the father's rights movement was quick to react with scathing criticism and a deluge of viewer complaints.
What compelled you to take on this issue?
We didn't set out to produce a piece about custody issues. We had planned to make a documentary about the impact of domestic violence on children. We really wanted to show stories of what was being done to help children who were raised in domestic violence environments.
What we found was one story after another of protective mothers having their children taken away from them and given in sole or partial custody to the very man who terrorized the mother and the children. It was so outrageous, that when we heard the first stories we thought they were aberrations, but then we found that this was in fact happening often and everywhere. We knew at that point that this was the story to concentrate on.
When did you become convinced that there was a systemic problem within the family court system?
I met a woman in New Jersey and I spent an afternoon listening to her story. She had been divorced for two to three years and had lost custody of her kids. Her ex-husband was making her life a total prison by dragging her into court every month. She was a professional, intelligent woman, and I thought this can't be happening. This is clearly a horrible story, but it has to be one case in a million.
But looking further we found the same story everywhere, in Florida, New Orleans, Ohio, California, etc. I spoke with dozens of women who were very candid about what they had endured. After listening to one story after another, there was no way to ignore the extent of the problem.
We chose to feature the stories where there were extensive court proceedings so that we could verify that what the women was telling us was what she had testified in court as well. So there was a clear history of allegations of domestic violence and/or child physical or psychological abuse. All the women we interviewed went to court believing the system was fair, not thinking for a moment their kids could be taken from them.
It seems that we are now on this issue where we were 20-25 years ago on domestic violence. I would assume that it was as difficult at that time to talk about domestic violence, as it is to talk about this particular issue now. People don't want to believe it. They don't want to know about it. To tell you the truth, many in my interviews I said to the woman I was interviewing, "It would be easier to believe that you were fabricating all this because what you're telling me is so horrendous. It feels like you're telling me a story about some remote country where there is no notion of justice." And the fact that it's happening here in America was unbelievable, is unbelievable.
In your opinion what is the underlying problem?
In my view, the problem is that while criminal courts have made tremendous progress in dealing with domestic violence, family courts are not as informed about the dynamics of family violence.
Why hasn't the family court system progressed in the same way as the criminal court system?
On the record family court judges say to women, "You're an intelligent, professional woman, so I don't believe you've been abused." You would not hear a judge in criminal court say that because people know that domestic violence is not just happening in inner city, poor neighborhoods. That's one example.
The other example is people who are aware of the dynamic of domestic violence know what an abuser looks like and behaves like; they know that someone who is professional looking can be behind closed doors someone who has terrorized his wife and family. In fact, you have doctors, attorneys, actors who all look fabulous to the community but who are violent abusers. I think it comes down to a lack of training, lack of accountability.

What is the long-term impact of this problem?
As long as this situation continues we will undo years of progress on domestic violence because women are put in a Catch-22. If they don't report child abuse or domestic violence, they stand the risk of losing their kids because they failed to protect them. But if they do disclose domestic violence or sexual abuse then the kids are at risk of being taken away because the mothers will be blamed for alienating them or fabricating charges.
Was it difficult to find a network to back your show?
No, I can't say it was hard. We've been producing programs for Public Television for more than 20 years. I'm glad and proud that they are broadcasting our programs. We co-produced Breaking the Silence with Connecticut Public Television and it was aired nationally by PBS.

But the backlash has been pretty strong. There’s been an organized campaign mostly by father's rights groups to demand that PBS stop distributing the program. They characterized it as an attack on fathers. This is akin to saying because you're doing a documentary on the Holocaust you're accusing all Germans. It makes no sense. But it has given them a forum and they have jumped on it.
Our point was not to deny that some men are victims of domestic violence. We did not seek to portray all men as rabid violent abusers. What we wanted to say is simple: children should not be put in the custody of a parent who is endangering them. In reviewing the show, ombudsmen for both the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS criticized Breaking the Silence for lacking balance.
How do you respond?
The CPB Ombudsman, Ken Bode, clearly had some personal axe to grind. He did not bother to contact us before writing his "report" and simply regurgitated the fathers' rights arguments. He went on to write two more "updates" without any indication that he was interested in the fairness and balance he claimed our documentary was lacking. The PBS Ombudsman did a more honest job even if we disagreed with his conclusions. And unlike Ken Bode, he published letters he received from people who disagreed with his report.
PBS's official statement on the film indicated that, "The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program. Funding from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation met PBS's underwriting guidelines; the Foundation had no editorial influence on program content. However, the program would have benefited from more in-depth treatment of the complex issues surrounding child custody and the role of family courts and most specifically the provocative topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Additionally, the documentary's 'first-person story telling approach' did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been."

Did you look for a father who had a similar experience to some of the mothers featured in your show?
Yes, I spoke with a father's organization and it was clear that that they had a specific political agenda that they wanted to bring to this. The women we interviewed were simply mothers who were trying to protect their kids.
Your main source of funding for Breaking the Silence, the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, has also distanced itself from the program. Are you surprised by this?
The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation did not distance itself from the program. There are very strict guidelines for PBS underwriters who are not to exercise any control over the editorial content of the programs they support. Mary Kay simply made it clear that these rules had been respected and that we the filmmakers had full editorial control. The work of the foundation and of Mary Kay Corporation on the issue of domestic violence is remarkable and will continue to affect positively the lives of thousands of women across the country.
It seems that the discussion about Breaking the Silence has turned into a debate over style rather than substance. Would you agree?

If the documentary helps in any way to open a dialogue about how family courts are victimizing the very families they are supposed to protect, then any debate will have been positive.

Has there been any positive outcome?

Yesterday, I was in Westchester County where I showed an eight-minute excerpt of Breaking the Silence to family court judges and personnel. Some were aware of the issues we presented and others were surprised. But it was very positive to see this information being used. You are not the first journalist to get into hot water after reporting on this topic. Kristen Lombardi, another contributor to this book, was sued and lost after writing an expose in the Boston Phoenix.

Why do you think these stories generate so much of a backlash?

These are complex stories filled with pain and extreme passions. There are strong vested interests that want to keep the public from knowing what is going on in family courts. I believe we're approaching a tipping point when people will demand more accountability from our courts.

What advice do you give to other journalists who want to cover this issue?

My only advice is, get your facts straight, get good insurance and get a good attorney.

Are you planning to do a follow up to Breaking the Silence?

While our next project will not be on domestic violence, we are committed to do more on this issue and to follow up on what we have learned with Breaking the Silence.

Why don't we euthanize all children at the onset of divorce? It would be more humane....

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:34:03 +0100
I titled this article to shock and disgust because that is what we should feel about our family court system... disgust. Our judges are sexually assaulting our children by proxy... Yes, that is what they are doing. By ignoring the realities of Domestic Violence, Incest, Abuse - they are participants. Depraved Indifference.... So, if you are thinking or planning on getting a divorce, seeking child support from the dead beat dad ( like my children's father who beat me up in an attempt to cause a miscarriage) just euthanize your children - you would save them from a life time of suffering. Look at the statistics of what happens to children who are seperated from their mothers.... Because, you must remember - If you are not willing to prostitute yourself to your children's father - you are the problem!!!

Special Bulletin by the Leadership Council: What can you do to help solve the crisis in the nation’s family courts?

April 14, 2010

According to a conservative estimate by the Leadership Council, each year more than 58,000 children are ordered by family courts into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. (link to press release)

This crisis is larger than the one in the Catholic Church. It is also more dangerous. Children who are court ordered into the custody of their abuser have no one to turn to for help as these custody determinations are backed by the force of law.

What can you do to help solve the crisis in the nation’s family courts?

Find out about the domestic violence laws in your state. Most states prevent perpetrators of domestic violence from having custody or access. Is this law being upheld in your state? Join with others and work within your state to strengthen these laws.

Find out if Parental Alienation Theory being promoted in your state. Abusive parents often gain custody by convincing court evaluators that safety concerns raised by family members are indicative of “parental alienation syndrome” – a pseudoscientific theory that views child abuse claims as a custody ploy to deprive the accused parent of custody. Too often, protective parents are labeled as “parental alienators” and then punished by the courts for their appropriate protective efforts. Lobby legislators to limit thus use of nonscientifc theories in family court.

Demand specialized evaluations by experts in family violence in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. A regular custody evaluation is not sufficient to uncover family violence. Nor are evaluations done by Child Protective Services. Child Protective service agencies are usually not adequately staffed to comprehensively assess child abuse in the context of family conflict.

If you feel that the court system has harmed a child you know, tell your story. Fill out our online questionnaire and share your story with others. Careful research and increased media coverage are necessary to expose this crisis.

Join with others who are concerned about the crisis. Examples of some good organizations working to reform the nation’s family court system: The Battered Mother’s Custody Conference, Justice for Children, California Protective Parents Association, The Center for Judicial Excellence, DVLEAP Custody and Abuse Project, and Stop Family Violence.

Support the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. The Leadership Council trains professionals, sponsors research and submits amicus briefs in cases to inform the courts about the most current science on child abuse, interpersonal violence, and family conflict. Learn more about donating to the LC

CA Judge blows whistle and admits corruption... ...

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:28:58 +0100
Finally a judge in the US Family Court system has developed a conscience, when will other judges do the same? Maybe not all judges are corrupt or child molesters themselves. Maybe, just maybe, they are caught up in a system that forces them to go against their own values and beliefs. However, how many children will die before another judge develops a conscience???

My name is Judge DeAnn M. Salcido, of the San Diego Superior Court. I became a whistleblower, knowing I would face retaliation and possibly lose my job. I did this because I made a deep personal decision that I could no longer remain silent about court bias. The court culture that exists harms women and children, especially those who raise the issue of abuse in court. The judges of the entire court routinely disregard state law when sentencing people to who have pleaded guilty in domestic violence cases and are placed on probation. Supervising Judge Peter Deddeh as well as other judges don't require defendants as part of their probation to impose a one-year (52-week) domestic violence awareness class, surrender any firearms, and have a protective order entered against them. Instead, defendants are allowed to plead guilty to other charges, such as disturbing the peace, and Deddeh and other judges do not then enforce the one-year class, but instead only require a 12-hour class. When I insisted on imposing the more stringent probation terms, I was harassed by Judge Deddeh. When I became a whistleblower, I also acknowledged my own failures as a Judge. In 2003, while a Family Court Judge, I made a devastating error in the Joyce Murphy, Bud Parsons case. I relied on other judges who taught me that I should be suspicious of any woman who makes an abuse allegation during a divorce proceeding. I implemented the policy of the court and as a result I made a horrific and devastating decision. It is too late for me to correct the mistake. Nor can I correct the harm that I caused to Joyce Murphy. I ask Joyce to please forgive me. Joyce, if you are listening to this message, please know that I am deeply sorry for the harm that my actions on behalf of the San Diego Family Court System caused to you and your daughter. There may be others as well. I have no excuses for my decision. I am deeply sorry and I hope that by my adding my voice to the public voice to hold judges accountable for their failure to protect women and children, I can begin to assist to reform the pervasive court bias and corruption. I am willing to continue to speak out and expose the problems. Too many judges are recklessly disregarding abuse cases in court as well as other problems. Together we can make this a national campaign to reform Family Court. I want to work with protective parents across the country and, IF, you accept me, I want to include my voice with yours. My name is Judge DeAnn M. Salcido, of the San Diego Superior Court.

Attention Child Molesters! Becareful not to utter racial slurs while raping...

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 04:00:56 +0100

Apparently you can rape, beat up a child or woman, terrorize, utter racial slurs and do just about anything as long as you don't compound the issue by doing more than one at a time.... it's unfortunate that Mel isn't being tried in Family Court... then he might get an award!

Is it Worse to Be a Racist or a Rapist? What Gibson, Brown and Polanski Teach Us:

Comments 18Last week we all watched as what was left of Mel Gibson's career died, along with his longtime agent, legendary talent rep Ed Limato. Following Limato's death it was announced that Gibson had beendropped by the agency that represents him, powerhouse firm William Morris Endeavor. Though his spokesperson tried to spin the news -- "At this point he doesn't seem to be in need of an agent" -- anyone could see what's what, namely that no matter how talented you are, there are some things that even Hollywood won't tolerate. The question the Mel Gibson case raises is just what that is.
Like a man on a mission of self-immolation, Gibson seemed to cruise through every public relations executive's "Worst case scenarios handbook;" being accused of domestic violence, making death threats, using the N-word, along with racial epithets against Hispanics in a span of a week. If there were an Olympics for being a jackass he would be this year's Michael Phelps, someone who not only won medals, but actually broke records.
But here's my question, what is it that's really finished off Gibson's career? Because the timeline of events, media headlines used, and other comparable cases -- from Roman Polanski to Chris Brown -- seem to indicate that allegations of assaulting a woman, or in the recently freed Polanski's case a girl, even with supporting evidence or a conviction, are not enough to permanently knock someone off of a pop cultural pedestal.
In Gibson's case it appears that everyone was so focused on not approving of his so-called "golddigging" girlfriend (whom Gibson accused of extortion) that whether or not he knocked her teeth loose became secondary to whether or not she was trying to possibly turn his knocking her teeth loose to her financial advantage. But the most telling clue regarding where our priorities lie, is that the majority of headlines chronicling Gibson's downfall in recent weeks, from major publications to small blogs, highlight Gibson's alleged use of the N-word on tape, not the fact that he appears to be terrorizing a woman with an infant on tape. It's as though everyone universally had it with Gibson only after tapes initially created to support her allegations of abuse happened to include his use of the N-word.
Now obviously I'm just as opposed to people using the N-word as the next person (okay, maybe more so since I am Black) but I was personally through with Gibson after "Sugartits Gate." (My theory has long been that those who don't care for Jews rarely care for Blacks, so I wasn't exactly shocked when it was alleged that Gibson doesn't have the warm fuzzies for my kind, despite his buddy routine with Danny Glover in the Lethal Weapon franchise.) But despite my opposition to hate speech, at the end of the day what our moms taught us as kids holds true: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me."
But fists do hurt. So does sexual abuse. So why is it that much of Hollywood
is ready to welcome admitted statutory rapist Roman Polanski back with open arms, and much of black Hollywood is arguing that people like myself need to get over it already regarding Chris Brown's assault on Rhianna? (Note to Polanski and Brown: It might help some of us who think you're both poo to "get over it" if you were to display an ounce of real remorse over what you did, as opposed to remorse for the inconvenience it has presented to your careers. If you'd like to see how "remorseful" Polanski really is (or rather isn't) for violating a child, listen to him in his own words in one of his last TV interviews on the matter.)
We all know that Gibson, Brown and Polanski are not the first notable public figures to be accused of abusing a woman, and will not be the last. Besides the countless professional athletes who have been accused of assault, in recent years various elected officials have been accused of everything from choking a woman, to slashing a girlfriend's face (Click here to view a tally of members of Congress accused of spousal abuse as recently as a few years ago.)
But I guess the silver lining for abusers everywhere is that it looks like unless you use a racial slur while committing abuse you might be okay, career wise.
Unless, as O.J learned, you make the mistake of actually killing her (allegedly.)
This post republished courtesy of TheLoop21.com for which Goff is a political writer.

www.keligoff. com

Another "Perfect" father kills...

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:40:28 +0100

One would think that family court judges would become wise to the "perfect" parent.... of course, that would mean that family court judges would actually have to give a damn about the children they are supposed to protect...

Another father kills his child with no other reason except to get even with the mother... when will family court judges begin to care about the safety of our children?

Dad arrested for murder of 5-year-old son; had been trying to get FULL CUSTODY of kids (Decatur, Georgia)
We just posted on this case earlier today. Notice how dad GARY DETOMA is coming into focus in this follow-up article: he's the very picture of a classic control freak abuser who wanted FULL CUSTODY as a way of maintaining power over/punishing his wife. But short of having full custody, killing the kids would do in a pinch. Also notice that the evidence now suggests he tried to strangle the dead boy's brother as well. But, like many abusers, he also managed to charm the neighbors into thinking he was the perfect dad. That's one reason these guys are so dangerous. Neighbors and casual acquaintances don't see behind the facade. And very often, judges and custody evaluators don't either, as DeToma did get visitation, though not the full custody he wanted.

http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/parents-of-dead-5-569077.html

Parents of dead 5-year-old boy were going through divorce
By Rhonda Cook and Ty Tagami

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Gary DeToma seemed like a loving dad to neighbors.

Dekalb County police and investigators work the scene where a 5-year-old boy was found dead in the Oakhurst Place Apartments in Decatur on Monday, July 12, 2010.

Gary DeToma, Sr., 41, was arrested and charged with murder in the death of his 5-year-old son.

He skipped work to take his two boys to the park. He took them on trips to see their grandparents. And on Sunday night, neighbors saw him outside their Decatur apartment, as usual, watching over the boys as they rode their bikes.

But by Monday morning, something had gone terribly wrong. Police were pounding on the door of DeToma's apartment, and he wouldn't let them in. Later in the day, a co-worker peered into a window and saw DeToma's 5-year-old, Gary Jr., sprawled on a bed. The boy was later pronounced dead.

Investigators believe he was suffocated. They also suspect the father may have tried to strangle his younger boy, Will, 4.

Gary DeToma is to make an initial court appearance Monday afternoon to face charges of murder and aggravated assault.

Police have not offered a motive, but the dead boy's parents were going through a divorce. Blue Spruell, the divorce attorney for the mother, said he suspects it was a way of getting back at her.

“It was not a good divorce,” Spruell said, adding that Gary DeToma wanted full custody of the children.

“He was a controlling personality,” Spruell said. “It was a six-year marriage. They had two things to be thankful for from that marriage, and he’s taken one of them.”

Next door neighbor Felicia Miller said Gary Jr. was a "beautiful" child, and his father seemed to cherish him. He often took the children to nearby McCoy Park, and had recently cut back on work to spend more time with the boys, she said. In the past year or so, the family had gone on trips to visit grandparents in Mississippi and some kind of cave in Tennessee, she said.

"He was the kind of dad that you would want for your child," Miller told the AJC. Or at least, that's what she thought until Monday evening, when she learned of the boy's death.

Miller said Melanie DeToma moved to a nearby apartment several months ago. Miller had noticed the couple arguing at times, and said Melanie told her last winter that the marriage was falling apart.

Melanie DeToma kept a blog entitled “My Boys’ World.” The photos of the boys and their parents suggest a happy family.

She wrote that she wanted to call her second born “Billy” after her father, but “Gary, my husband, didn't like the idea… So, he's Will, well, when he's not Bubba," she wrote Nov. 15, 2007.
Miller, the neighbor, said Gary, an electrician, was the sole breadwinner. The couple moved from Lithonia to the apartment on East Lake Drive in Decatur's Oakhurst neighborhood a year and a half ago, Miller said. They were in search of good schools, she said. Melanie DeToma told her she had quit working when she became pregnant so she could stay home with her children.

In April 2009, Melanie DeToma bemoaned sending Gary Jr. to pre-kindergarten and Will to a Head Start program.

“I'm not going to know how to behave with all those kid-free hours on my hands,” she wrote in her blog.

Spruell said Melanie DeToma left her husband in January and sought an uncontested divorce.

The two DeTomas had reached an agreement through mediation, but the settlement had not yet been filed with the court, Spruell said.

The visitation agreement was that the father would have his sons on alternate Fridays until the following Monday morning. This Monday, however, he did not bring the children to his soon-to-be ex-mother-in-law as was the agreement, Spruell said.

That prompted Melanie DeToma to call her lawyer, who called Gary DeToma's attorney.

Spruell and his client then called Decatur police, the DeKalb Sheriff’s Office and the Department of Family and Children Services, but the agencies said there was not enough to allow them to go into Gary DeToma’s apartment without permission.

“We tried to get the property owner and the property manager to let us in, and they said they wouldn’t unless the police let us in,” Spruell said.

“We did everything thing that we could do and not a single government entity wanted to help us out,” Spruell said.

Decatur police said no one responded when an officer went to the door earlier Monday.

"The residence was secure and the officers observed nothing suspicious," the police said in a statement.

Spruell and Melanie DeToma also called Gary DeToma’s employer, who said he had not come to work. State Sun Electric declined to comment.

Melanie DeToma knocked on Miller's door around 8 a.m. and asked her to call the property manager. Miller said the property manager came over immediately, but told police she couldn't let them in. Miller said she was surprised that one of the boys hadn't opened the door. They often opened it for no reason after learning how to, she said, and surely would have answered a knock. She said she was also surprised to see Gary DeToma's van outside the apartment. He usually left for work by 6:30 a.m.

Miller left for work. Later, one of Gary DeToma’s co-workers came to check on him. When Gary DeToma didn’t answer his knocks, the co-worker, an electrician, took an extension ladder off his truck and climbed up to look into a bedroom window, Spruell said.

He saw Gary Jr.’s body on a bed, the attorney said.

The co-worker was able to persuade the younger boy to open the door.

“He went in and saw Mr. DeToma and the little boy was deceased,” Spruell said.

Moments later, Melanie DeToma made her second trip of the day to the her husband’s apartment.

When she drove up, she saw the co-worker standing on the sidewalk with Will, still in his pajamas.

The official cause of Gary Jr.'s death is pending an autopsy to be performed Tuesday, but the results will not be released until a toxicology report is completed in two to three weeks.

Meanwhile, neighbors such as Miller must wrestle with the sudden loss of a child. On Sunday evening, she saw Gary DeToma with his boys as they road their blue bicycles outside the apartment. The younger boy was frustrated because he couldn't ride as fast as Gary Jr., who was recently liberated from training wheels.

Her own boy, 7, played with the DeToma boys, and as of Tuesday afternoon, she hadn't yet told him about Gary Jr.'s death.

"He's going to ask," Miller said, as her son squeezed past her out the apartment door with a scooter. "I'm hoping it's not going to be as hard as I think it's going to be, but I'm going to have to tell him."

__._,_.___