Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is not just a word or phrase for a tragic event; it is literally about the signs and symptoms caused by the reaction to this traumatic event.
So how does this relate to Parental Alienation?
Parental alienation is a severe trauma to an important relationship between a parent and their child. It is pervasive and goes on and on, day in and day out until finally the victims either concedes to the stress of the emotional abuse or fights back with all their might. ~ Joan T. Kloth-Zanard - PAS Intervention
CALL TO ACTION!!!
Are you sick and tired of seeing our children being kidnapped, trafficked and drugged while our livelihood are be destroyed and managed by a corrupt government?
Then what are you going to do?
Are you just going to sit there and let this tyranny continue, or are you going to get up, grab a sign and protest?
So many children, single parents and families are facing the uncertainties of parental alienation and corruption within Family Law and Child Protective Services (CPS).
Fight to end Parental Alienation and Family Law / CPS corruption.
This beautiful animation above was created especially for Bubbles of Love Day on behalf of Kids Aiding the PAAO (KAPAAO).
Thank you to the very talented Bronwyn Coveney, from the United kingdom for volunteering her time and talent on behalf of children around the world. Bronwyn is the original visual creator of the PAAO and KAPAAO's, mascot Panda Abuzz.
This beautiful animation above was created especially for Bubbles of Love Day on behalf of Kids Aiding the PAAO (KAPAAO).
Thank you to the very talented Bronwyn Coveney, from the United kingdom for volunteering her time and talent on behalf of children around the world. Bronwyn is the original visual creator of the PAAO and KAPAAO's, mascot Panda Abuzz.
Dr. Bill Bernet, lead a group of interested professionals in encouraging the DSM 5 editing group to include Parental Alienation Disorder.
The DSM is the reference book for psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health providers Here is Dr. Bernet's unedited analysis of the result.Finally, DSM-5 was published today. The DSM-5 Task Force told us 2 or 3 years ago that they did not want parental alienation to be a separate diagnosis in DSM-5, but they thought that parental alienation could be considered an example of other diagnoses that are in DSM-5.
The actual words "parental alienation" are not in DSM-5, but there are several diagnoses that can be used in these cases. I would say the "spirit" of parental alienation is in DSM-5, even if the words are not.
Parent-child relational problem now has a discussion in DSM-5, not just a label. The discussion explains that cognitive problems in parent-child relational problem "may include negative attributions of the other's intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement." That is a pretty good description of a child's view of the alienated parent, although it is an unfortunate use of the word "estrangement."
Child psychological abuse is a new diagnosis in DSM-5. It is defined as "nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child's parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child." In many instances, the behavior of the alienating parent constitutes child psychological abuse.
Child affected by parental relationship distress is another new diagnosis in DSM-5. It should be used "when the focus of clinical attention if the negative effects of parental relationship discord (e.g., high levels of conflict, distress, or disparagement) on a child in the family, including effects on the child's mental or other physical disorders." That is also a good description of how parental alienation comes about.
Factitious disorder imposed on another is the DSM-5 terminology for factitious disorder by proxy or Munchausen disorder by proxy. Its definition is "falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms, or induction of injury or disease, in another, associated with identified deception." In some cases, that would describe the behavior of the alienating parent.
Delusional symptoms in partner of individual with delusional disorder is the DSM-5 terminology for shared psychotic disorder or folie a deux. The definition is: "In the context of a relationship, the delusional material from the dominant partner provides content for delusional belief by the individual who may not otherwise entirely meet criteria for delusional disorder."
In discussing this topic, I would say that the concept of parental alienation is clearly in DSM-5, although the actual words are not. This is a great improvement over DSM-IV-TR, especially with the addition of the new diagnoses, child psychological abuse and child affected by parental relationship distress.
Dr. Bernet is currently working with PAAO to present a webinar on this subject in the next 2 - 3 weeks. We will notify you of the details shortly.
The next mental health manual to be revised is the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems or the IDC-11. Watch for ways to have your say about Parental Alienation in time for inclusion there as well.
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.
This letter is written because of my concern to our Family Laws and the 60 million dollar business supporting them, It is my concerns that the laws are causing harm to our children and only help the Lawyers making Thousands in their present form. I understand that the awareness of abuse in the past and that the discrimination against men that they flee from their responsibility of children is the basis that these laws were incorporated, but the facts stated in background listed below shows just the opposite.
Lets deal the facts concerning the first of the incorporation of the understanding of the abuse issue:
The mercury reported in 2014 that “the legal system is not the place to domestic violence in majority of cases. Ploughing more money into prosecutors and creating criminal offenses will not assist in dealing with the root causes of family violence”.
Science Debunks the “women are the gentler sex”, Medical Daily Jan. 30, 2014, in a symposium (June 25, 2013) on intimate partner violence at The British Psycholical Society”s division of forensic Psychology annual conference found women are more likely to be “INTIMATE TERRORIST” or PHYSICALLY AGGRESSIVE to their partners. 
Medical Xpress reported that Dr Elizabeth Bates study of 1000 students revealed that just as many women as men could be classified as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with SERIOUS levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. This study also found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners (and family, children?) And more likely to use physical aggression then men, ”it wasn’t just pushing and shoving”National Coalition Against Domestic Violence “men and boys (children) are less likely to report the violence. Sixteen percent of adult males who did report being raped or physically assaulted are victims of current, or former spouse, cohabitation partner.
Moving to the discrimination thought that fathers do not accept their responsibility: This idea only hurts the fathers that want to be with and care for their children, fact is that a father who wants his kids in his life WILL HAVE A LIVING ARRANGEMENT THAT ALLOWS THE CHILDREN THEIR OWN ROOMS, WILL BUY SCHOOL CLOTHES AND SUPPLIES, HAS EXTRA FOOD IN HIS HOUSE, PAYS FOR CHILD CARE WHEN HE WORKS, AND HAS ALL THE EXTRA BILLS FOR HAVING CHILDREN. We will discuss this further in child support laws.
Page 1 of 4
Researcher Shere Hite reports that 91 percent of divorces are initiated by wives, And David Chambers claims "the wife is the moving party in divorce actions seven times out of eight
Study of low-income fathers in England found "the most common reason given by the fathers for not having more contact with their children was the mothers' reluctance to let them. . . . Most of the men were proud to be seen as competent care givers and displayed a knowledge of child-care issues
Parental alienation (or Hostile Aggressive Parenting) even though not excepted by the American Psychological Association, is a theory first popularized by Dr. Richard A. Gardner as parental alienation syndrome. Under the theory, parental alienation occurs when a group of parental behaviors are damaging to children's mental and emotional well-being, and can interfere with a relationship of a child and either parent. Many courts and several countries have excepted it’s reality to parent child relationships and more importantly custody issue. THE RULES OF THE COURTS ALREADY, teach the principles of it in parenting classes and meditations, so why would the system not except it as a legal avenue?
Many counties and courts have taken that action and in fact bring charges and high fines against any action in which some person may use any appearance of similarThe 60 million dollar business of family law:
Parents spend Thousands to BECOME A VISITOR TO THEIR KIDS, spend thousands to be falsely accused, spend thousands to be charged 20 to 35 % of their income for child support to misused by other parent, spend thousand to see which lawyer has better tactics and the court ignore the truth because it was not allowed or mistakenly submitted under the rules of the courts, This is not the best interest of the child it is legal maneuvering!Indian Child Welfare Association, “lawyers who not only attempt to circumvent federal and state laws....”California Court of Appeals, false allegations, and other misconduct “marred the case by woman’s attorney, two lawyers sanctioned $5000 each (it costed client twice to three time s that amount to hire an attorney).
Journal star Dec. 18 2014, “while not often discussed publicly, the use of children to gain leverage...” “Courts should enforce existing rules that restrict the use of abusive tactics.” “Should amend our legal ethics rules to prohibit lawyers from using children as leverage” “the legal rules should provide that lawyers who are involved in child custody matters owe duties to both their client and TO THE MINOR CHILD” “the legal ethics rules should require special training for lawyers who handle child custody cases.” Commonly published dirty tactics listed by multiple attorneys and news articles: Misusing ex-parte hearings for non-emergency situations to gain a tactical advantage Repeating client’s lies even though the attorney should know something is amiss (unless of course he or she does not know they are lies, in which case perhaps the attorney is more careless and/or stupid than unethical), Lying in court about information known first-hand to attorney Discriminating against Pro Per (self-represented) opponents by refusing to communicate via means typically used with other attorneys, Acting as if he or she doesn’t know the rules, possibly to cover for his
Page 2 of 4or her client’s misdeeds or himself or herself breaking the rules, Stating that he or she has not seen documents that were personally served on the attorney plenty of time before a hearing, Lying to court clerks, claiming he or she was not properly noticed a hearing and then refusing to attend (angie media, elusive justice.wordpress, etc.)
Now that I have discussed the Basis and factual information of why the common sense of why these laws were falsely enacted by law makers of the past, Let us discuss present day reality of Family court, the 60 million Dollar industry of child custody and what is in the best interest of our children.
Let me start with the above issue of child support, the truth is that no matter who gets primary custody or secondary custody both have the EXTRA cost of having children. Both parents have to pay rent, both parents have utility bills it does not matter if there are children involved or not! Both parents buy items for their kids, both have child care during their time of custody (which should be a support system, friend, family to courts not cash flow), both have to buy extra food, and unless that parent wants CHILD SERVICES involved in their life both have to have a bigger residence then if they lived alone. Both parents have to have a reliable transportation to even enforce that time of custody. So under that COMMON SENSE logic the idea of child support does not justify itself! Now lets look at the above stats which are so low or are the result of ALIENATION the idea of support is again not justified. Continuing on this issue
because of the listed “extras” that the secondary parent incurs the law of chid support actually cause more harm to the child and substandard environment to child then the spirit of the law tries to accomplish, that many of these secondary custody parents do not have reliable transportation, work two jobs to cover the extra cost of VISITING their children, are not able to be there for their children because of the threat of jail (and for those not caring don’t care about jail anyway). The system of support should be family, friends, social groups, or religious groups IT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON CASH FLOW, I agree that insurance, medical bills, and school and/or education are and should be determined by the courts if parents can not work it out but the fight of custody should not be a consideration in the CASH FLOW of the other parent. IF ONE PARENT CAN NOT AFFORD PRIMARY CUSTODY ON THEIR OWN, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IN MIND AND LET OTHER PARENT HAVE PRIMARY CUSTODY!The past laws of primary and secondary custody are out dated, it was based on living locations and the many of the false assumptions listed above. Today many public school systems now have home school or online courses and/or programs. Extra curriculum activities are even being cut in schools and being swept up in the private sector due to budgeting.
The laws of old did not account for the studies of, A majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers and rapists all come from fatherless homes. Researchers have found that "The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families. An estimated 70 percent of the juveniles in state reform institutions, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers.The connection of social pathologies with fatherless homes is so strong that some researchers have concluded that the likelihood of children'sinvolvement in crime is determined by the extent of both parents' involvement in their children's lives, rather than income or race. These studies would only conclude that equal parenting far out weights any conception that there is and/or should be a primary or secondary custody issue.There are many opponents to equal parenting, research has shown that most of these are lobbyist (usually backed by attorneys) or attorneys themself because it would interfere with their cash cow!
There is no professional that can show that equal parenting is not in the best interest of the child! All the above studies and research proves that no government official should not support equal parenting if they really have the interest of their community in mind. I contend that equal parenting would in fact give our children a more expanded social environment and social skills then restricting them to a single environment view and that visiting one parent actually hinders the child since that child can never make any lasting or long term friendships. This should made retroactive to any custody order that has already being ordered under the “standard custody” or better in courts so as to limit any excessive case loads already in the courts.
1) make equal parenting the priority goal of the custody issue of courts2) end unfair child support, stop making the custody of children a matter of support3) make laws for the financial responsibility of custody for insurance, government repayment (if on assistance), medical bills, and school and or education ...ONLY4) take the custody of our children away from anyone trying to make a profit with these law changes, and prosecute with stronger penalties for any lawyer and/or person raising or making false accusations IN A CUSTODY MATTER, not even asking for any family matter.5) make tougher laws for anyone that interfere with custody for more then twice the travel time it would take to make the trip between the two custody custodians and to make such interference if not a felony on first violation at least a felony on the second violation6) end child support and make the state departments that handle it now a government reimbursement unit to help tax payers get back funds from those not trying to support their families7) make laws retroactive to any standard order of custody8) stop lobbyist from imput when it comes to custody of our children and letting lawyers use custody issues as their cash cow.
Thank you
Page 4 of 4
:
What Works for PTSD By Alexandra Carmichael, Co-Founder of CureTogether
ReplyDeletePublished by 23andMe under 23andMe Research
Some of the most popular treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are not necessarily the most effective, according to a new study by CureTogether, a free resource owned by 23andMe that allows people to share information about their health and treatments.
People in the study said they found some treatments without drugs — including art therapy and exercise — were the most effective. Conversely some popular treatments such as the use of antidepressants, were among the least effective, according to the study.
PTSD is an anxiety disorder that is often associated with combat veterans, but the disorder can occur in anyone who has experienced or seen a traumatic event. Finding the right treatment can be particularly difficult, so CureTogether asked people suffering from PTSD to rate the effectiveness of different treatments.
CureTogether’s study compiled responses from 531 people with PTSD, who rated the effectiveness of 31 different treatments.
Rated Most Effective by People with PTSD
1. Cognitive Behavior Therapy
2. Avoid certain places
3. Avoid certain noises
4. Art therapy
5. Exercise
6. Use clear shower curtain
7. Psychotherapy
8. Medical marijuana
9. Anti-anxiety medication
10. Daily routine
Among the most helpful treatments were Cognitive Behavior Therapy, avoiding places and noises that trigger symptoms, art therapy, and exercise. Also highly effective for those in the study were having a daily routine and participating in support groups. Also on the list was the use of a clear shower curtain, which addresses the fear some have of hidden threats. In contrast people in the study said anti-depressants and Exposure Therapy were not as effective.
Where did this data come from? This is the result of a four-year CureTogether study on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. We’d like to thank those who participated. And just as they shared their experience with PTSD treatments, we’re freely and openly sharing the results of the PTSD study.
This is part of a regular series of CureTogether research findings. CureTogether’s research findings are different than those made by 23andMe, which look at genetic associations with illness, traits and drug response. But as we continue our work with the CureTogether community, 23andMe hopes to incorporate more of this kind of self-reported information into our own research. CureTogether present its findings just as they are – patient-reported data – to stimulate discussion and generate new insights for further research.
Please tweet, blog, or pass this along to anyone who can benefit or is interested in PTSD. Thank you!
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel, they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
DeleteHey Bio-Mom,
DeleteI see you have found our little club here and you've decided to troll around for a bit. I first would like to say "welcome" on behalf of the men and women who suffer daily inside and outside these pages. We are glad you are here.
Feel free to take your time and peruse the stories of men and women who have lost everything. Take in the agony and the pain, read the horror stories of men who havn't seen their children in 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years. You will notice that all the stories share a familiar tone. The pain is real. The disbelief is palpable. The constant barrage of men ready to give up is unfortunately true. They may give up and stop fighting vindictive exes for their children and just move on, only to be later called a deadbeat loser from the same woman that deprived him of his children. They may give up and eat a bullet, jump from a bridge or tie a noose around their neck and say their final goodbye. You win, they lose. You are now an accessory to murder.
Stick around and look at the pictures of the children that are left behind. These are the other victims. The victims without a voice in all of this. Had they had a choice they would almost always choose to have a loving caring father by their side. You deprive them of that. Not only do you assist in the murdering of fathers, but you're also a child abuser. Congratulations.
Be sure to keep coming back to our little club here. Make jokes about how we are all domestic abusers who feel we have some ghastly privilege of fathering our children. Keep your kids close to you, be sure you cash that child support check and keep the children from Daddy if he misses a payment. It's only a fair punishment for him. Make him suffer. Make him hurt so bad he stays awake at night crying because he misses his kids so badly. Make him out to be the deadbeat you just know he is. Make his feel the depths of depression and despair by keeping his kids from him. Threaten to have him arrested and thrown in jail for inability to pay child support. You're cruising now bio-mom. You show them who is boss. Don't allow him to talk to his kids on the phone. Don't allow him to have one extra minute of "visitation". Marginalize him and make him feel what a scumbag he truly is. Don't tell him of your children's accomplishment or how they are doing in school. Keep any and all medical records from him. Keep him guessing who is with his children and where they are living. Keep doing what you are doing bio-mom. Now we all know who the boss is. It was never the judges or lawyers who caused all this. It was you.
Now look down at your children and realize everything you have done to your ex has also been done to them.
See, you are a child abuser after all.
Sleep tight,
Joe Makem
You must secure FACTS for your life... a fact is a truth... so let there be truth!! and light of course... and let that truth be that you have a court order from a judge or magistrate that defines your legal status as a parent based on your abilities and the best interests of yourself as a parent to this child and this child's interests respective of parental guidance.
DeleteDo not wait, do not ponder... do not will and wish and wash your own face with your tears. Simply gather the strength of your love for your child and the self respect and self love you have... Figure out the exact process to establish legal rights defined in a court order (starting with a piece of paper where you write down what you want from your relationship with your child WITHOUT the Mother being a part of your wants on this list...). Determine the process cost and starting point and start positioning yourself to engage the process.
Do not use the word 'fathers rights' in court. Use PARENTAL RIGHTS. Do not use HUMAN RIGHTS as a reference to a judge because the judge knows that is the end all and starting point of all rights and it can subconsciously come out as a condescending reference to a 'bigger idea'; instead use references such as: 'In regards to best interests of parenting' Approach 'parenting' as an idea that means so much more then Man Vs Woman (because it does...) and sell that... because most likely even some of the people reading this have deep seeds believing women are better or more natural parents then men. The reality is that you can brain wash children to grow up believing realities that simply divide and harm others.
Never should a law read Fathers, Mothers... It should simply read: Parents... a Parents rights account for the rights of a parent. the moment a gender is assigned, it is a gender discriminative marker granting access to violate your human rights.
You may not be able to get exactly what you want, or run through the streets waving the 'fathers rights' or HUMAN RIGHTS flag.... but you can learn how to speak to those who hold positions of authority and you can secure your rights as a parent.
If you have the strength and aptitude to stand up for yourself as a parent.
You MUST also write ONE letter to your local representatives and request that laws be reviewed to grant Equality to parents irregardless of gender and site local region or area examples of how gender bias prevents the best interest of a child from having two loving equal parents to raise that child.
NEW YORK -- Rebuffing an intensive lobbying campaign, a task force of the American Psychiatric Association has decided not to list the disputed concept of parental alienation in the updated edition of its catalog of mental disorders.
ReplyDeleteThe term conveys how a child's relationship with one estranged parent can be poisoned by the other parent, and there's broad agreement that it sometimes occurs in the context of divorces and child-custody disputes.
However, an acrimonious debate has raged for years over whether the phenomenon should be formally classified as a mental health disorder by the psychiatric association as it updates its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for the first time since 1994.
The new manual, known as DSM-5, won't be completed until next year, but the decision against classifying parental alienation as a disorder or syndrome has been made.
"The bottom line – it is not a disorder within one individual," said Dr. Darrel Regier, vice chair of the task force drafting the manual. "It's a relationship problem – parent-child or parent-parent. Relationship problems per se are not mental disorders."
Regier and his APA colleagues have come under intense pressure from individuals and groups who believe parental alienation is a serious mental condition that should be formally recognized in the DSM-5. They say this step would lead to fairer outcomes in family courts and enable more children of divorce to get treatment so they could reconcile with an estranged parent.
Among those on the other side of the debate, which has flared since the 1980s, are feminists and advocates for battered women who consider "parental alienation syndrome" to be an unproven and potentially dangerous concept useful to men trying to deflect attention from their abusive behavior.
Some critics of the concept say it's being promoted by psychologists, consultants and others who could profit if parental alienation had a more formal status in family court disputes.
"At its worst, it lines the pockets of both attorneys and expert witnesses by increasing the number of billable hours in a given case," wrote Dr. Timothy Houchin, a University of Kentucky psychiatrist, and three colleagues in an article earlier this year in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
"It creates an entire new level of debate, in which only qualified experts can engage, adding to the already murky waters of divorce testimony," they wrote, arguing that courts could deal with parent/child estrangement without labeling the child as mentally ill.
Advocates of the concept of parental alienation had been braced for a decision by the APA not to classify it as a syndrome or disorder, but held out hope that it would be specifically cited in an appendix as an example of a parent-child relational problem.
Regier, in an e-mail Friday, said this is "very unlikely," even though the final draft of the DSM-5 remains incomplete.
Dr. William Bernet, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, is editor of a 2010 book making the case that parental alienation should be recognized in the DSM-5. He contends that about 200,000 children in the U.S. are affected by the condition.
Bernet's proposal to the DSM-5 task force defines parental alienation disorder as "a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents are engaged in a high conflict divorce, allies himself or herself strongly with one parent, and rejects a relationship with the other parent, without legitimate justification."
In a telephone interview, Bernet contended that the task force had made up its mind based on factors beyond the scientific evidence.
"I think they're being motivated not by the science, but being driven by friendships, by political forces," he said.
Presumptive Best Interest of Child and Equal Time-Sharing
DeleteThere is no question that our family law statutes need to be reformed and that there is a great deal of "judicial discretion" in family law matters. Often times, the outcome of your case depends more on the judge that you have been assigned than the facts of your particular case. If you were to have your case in front of one judge, the outcome may be very different if you were to have your case in front of a different judge. The legislature is trying to change that, in particular when it comes to time-sharing with children. There are changes to alimony as well that I will address in a later blog, but I wanted my readers to be aware of the changes that are being proposed for time-sharing because it is substantial. If the Bill passes, there will now be a presumption that equal (50/50) time-sharing is in a child's best interest, with very limited exceptions. The exceptions would be in the nature of real harm to a child that a parent is incarcerated, a parent is unfit, or the parent's geographical distance would hinder the ability for a 50/50 time-sharing schedule to work. If this passes and is signed into law, most families would be automatically forced into a 50/50 timesharing arrangement if one party were to want that. I have had plenty of cases in the past and some cases right now where one parent does not want an equal time-sharing schedule for a variety of different reasons. Some reasons are valid; some reasons are not valid enough to take the issue before the Court. With this new law, if it is passed, every family will be forced into a 50/50 schedule provided that one parent is requesting it. We do a lot of 50/50 time-sharing arrangements and have had a Judge rule many times that 50/50 is what a couple is going to have, but there are many families who want to alter or adjust this schedule after the final hearing because the schedule is simply not working. Absent a substantial and permanent change of circumstances, couples are going to be stuck with these schedules, regardless of whether or not it’s "working". I agree with the idea that if we have a presumption that 50/50 is in the children's best interest, there will be less room for argument and people would have to acquiesce on this issue. Taking any argument off the table that 50/50 is not good because a parent simply doesn't want it will help insure that less litigation ensues over "best interest of the children". However, what I don't agree with is that we should take the approach of "one size fits all" when it comes to dealing with children. It'll be interesting to see how this develops and if you have issue with this potential law, I urge you to contact your representative. By Christine Bauer - A Florida Family Law Attorney
Posted FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013
The Three Types of Parental Alienation Syndrome Families
ReplyDeleteBased on my more recent work with these families, I have divided them into three categories: severe, moderate, and mild. Although there is actually a continuum, and many cases do not fit neatly into one of these classifications, the differentiation is still important with regard both to psychotherapeutic and legal approaches. If evaluators are to provide the most judicious recommendations, it is vital that they determine first the proper category in which the family fits. In each category I will discuss the mothers, the children, and the appropriate psychotherapeutic and legal approaches. I will use the mother as the example of the preferred parent because this is the case in the majority of such families. My explanation for this disparity has relevance to my theory of the causes of this disorder. However, the same considerations apply to the father when he is the favored parent.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that in many (if not most) cases the therapy of these families is not possible without court support. Only the court has the power to order these mothers to stop their manipulations and maneuvering. And it is only the court that has the power to place the children in whichever home would best suit their needs at the particular time. Therapists who embark upon the treatment of such families without such court backing are not likely to be successful.
Severe Cases of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.
The mothers of these children are often fanatic. They will use every maneuver at their disposal (legal and illegal) to obstruct visitation. They are obsessed with hatred of their husbands. In many cases, they are paranoid. Sometimes the paranoid thoughts and feelings about the husband are focused on him alone; in other cases, this paranoia is just one example of many types of paranoid thinking. Often the paranoia did not exhibit itself before the breakup of the marriage and is a manifestation of the psychiatric disintegration that often results from protracted divorce (especially custody) disputes.(2) Central to the paranoid mechanism is projection. These mothers see in their husbands many objectionable characteristics that actually exist within themselves characteristics that they do not wish to recognize. By projecting these unacceptable qualities onto their husbands, they can consider themselves innocent victims. When a sex-abuse accusation becomes incorporated into the package, such mothers may be projecting their own sexual inclinations onto the father. (3 6, 7) In the service of this goal they exaggerate and distort any comment the child makes that might justify the allegation. And this is not difficult to do because children normally will entertain sexual fantasies, often of the most bizarre form. I agree with Freud (8) that children are "polymorphous perverse," and they thereby provide these mothers with an ample supply of material to serve as nuclei for their projections and accusations.
Such mothers do not respond to logic, confrontations with reality, or appeals to reason. They will readily believe the most preposterous scenarios provided by or elicited from their children. Experienced and skilled mental health examiners - who claim that there is no evidence for the accusation are dismissed as being against them or as being bribed by the husband. And this is typical of paranoid thinking: it does not respond to logic, and any confrontation that might shake the system is rationalized into the paranoid scenario. Even a court decision that there is absolutely no evidence that the father is guilty of sex abuse does not alter her beliefs nor reduce her commitment to deprecation of the father. Energizing the rage is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteThe children of these mothers are similarly fanatic. They often share her paranoid fantasies about the father. They may become panic-stricken over the prospect of visiting their father. Their blood-curdling shrieks, panicked states, and hostility may be so severe that...
Dear Friends,
DeleteOne in six Americans know someone who has been falsely accused of domestic violence. The silver bullets in divorce, false allegations are sometimes used to obtain child custody. This despicable act removes fit and loving parents from the lives of their children.
Please take a moment, as soon as possible, and speak out for the millions of children who are missing a falsely accused parent. And do it for the parents who are grieving for their children, stolen with a lie.
Find your senators here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Take note of their party affiliation and phone number.
If your senator is a Republican, call, and ask them to support Sen. Grassley's Substitute Amendment to VAWA.
If your senator is a Democrat, call, and ask them to demand changes to Sen. Leahy's VAWA (S. 1925), to curb false allegations of domestic violence.
Do it For the Children, Stolen with a Lie
Thank you for taking a stand for affected families everywhere.
"In the investigation of a neurotic style of life, we must always suspect an opponent, and note who suffers most because of the patient's condition. Usually this is a member of the family." ~
ReplyDeleteAlfred Adler
"To be a human being means to possess a feeling of inferiority which constantly presses towards its own conquest. The greater the feeling of inferiority that has been experienced, the more powerful is the urge for conquest and the more violent the emotional agitation." ~ Alfred Adler
DeleteA Support and Advocacy blog for Protective Parents and innocent Children harmed by wrongdoing under the color of law, the Family Law and CPS Industries. We investigate where the media can't or won't go.
DeleteThe people "have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good." In Keeping with the Constitution, Blind Bulldog is committed to serving the common good in Shasta County.
The following, brilliant take is from a Blind Bulldog affiliate from Southern Cal:
"The untethered aggression of family courts is due to a vacuum of institutional client advocacy--unlike criminal courts, which have firmly-established constitutional rights, strict state and federal oversight of state court judges, and a dedicated “criminal defense bar” to thwart government aggression, or civil courts that have “plaintiffs'” and “defense” bars to balance one another’s private agendas, family court has no “litigant bar.” The divorce attorneys themselves favor aggression for the simple reason identified in the movie--follow the money. Attorneys have not filled that vacuum to defend their own clients, leaving them vulnerable to the natural tendency of government to intrude. Family court litigants are, sad to say, woefully unaware of what they’re up against, and the body count shows results that are entirely predictable--but we think preventable.
Family court was created by lawyers and judges--literally--rather than the citizens it should be protecting. We’ve located the history through testimony and other documentation showing something like a Jekyll Island series of “off the record” meetings between California judges, attorneys, and bureaucrats in the 90’s to “set up” family court to their liking, then seeking what became essentially a rubber stamp granting unheard of discretion from the California legislature. This system is now unfortunately the model or trend for many states--hence our nationwide membership and approach. Citizens had virtually no input and maintain no control.
Federal courts have observed unusually broad adaptations of “federalism,” “comity,” “standing,” and “abstention” legal doctrines to leave the vacuum unoccupied by otherwise ordinary protections of federal rights for individual citizens and legal consumers. Litigants themselves are outmatched in organization--they’re a revolving door commodity. No one wants to stick around long enough to enforce reform. Hence rampant abuse in a lop-sided system of foxes guarding the henhouse, and you and I are on the ever-expanding menu."
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
The Father-Daughter Institute ~
ReplyDeleteA father who leaves or is taken away from his daughter suddenly, and never again lives in the home with her again, can leave a daughter forever afraid to allow herself to be vulnerable to a man as an adult woman, for fear he to will surely leave her.
Mrs. Johnson is a Psychotherapist, Researcher and Father-Daughter Communications Coach.
http://www.1karenjohnson.com
The Father-Daughter Institute - http://onlinefdi.info
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…”
ReplyDelete~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
Florida Judge and Lawyer Complaints
ReplyDeleteHow to file complaints against Florida Family Law Judges and Family Law Lawyers?
Each State has its own procedures for filing complaints against Judges. All states require a written and signed complaint. Some states have a form for you to fill out. Other States request a letter. Grievances of misconduct usually concern issues of conflict of interest or impartiality. Adverse rulings or judgments are not considered legitimate grievances. You must support the complaint to the JQC about the Florida Family Law Judge with sufficient documentation.
Florida Family Law Judge Complaints
Write to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
Florida Family Law Judicial Complaint
Mailing Address
Judicial Qualifications Committee (JQC)
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Telephone
850-488-1581
All states maintain an agency to process lawyer complaints. These disciplinary counsels can usually be found as a department of the state bar association or as a branch of the state Supreme Court. Complaints in Florida can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to The Florida Bar.
Florida Family Law Lawyer Complaints
The Florida Bar handles complaints about family law lawyers in Florida.
Mailing Address
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
Telephone
850-561-5600
OPINION: Lucrative divorce industry stands between divorced parents and kids
ReplyDeleteOne lawyer advocating against change billed $370,000 in one custody case.
I want to thank The Daily Republic and its staff this past legislative session for covering a very tough subject: kids’ right to as much time as possible with both parents in a divorce (i.e., shared parenting) in South Dakota.
While the bill failed again this year, we hope for continued support, because this issue isn’t going away. Our current standard placement model is keeping great parents and extended family out of our kids’ lives, and the laws are out of date and creating more problems than they solve.
What will it take to bring about change? That’s tough to answer, because the divorce industry has quite a stranglehold on the Legislature.
The State Bar Family Law Committee gives the recommendations for the visitation guidelines to the state Supreme Court. The people who should be giving these recommendations are not attorneys, but rather therapists, teachers, counselors and psychologists. Unfortunately, many noncustodial parents don’t have the money to fight these rulings made by these guidelines and many judges rule in accordance with the guidelines, because that’s what they believe the Supreme Court says is best.
Only five spoke out this year against the Kids Need Both Parents bill in committee: three attorneys, the State Bar and a domestic violence group. All of them stand to financially lose if parents are granted more equal time with their children in a divorce. The scare tactics of how terrible it would be to presume it is in a child’s best interest to have as much time as possible with both parents were atrocious, and at best were decades-old arguments that, across the nation, state by state, others are realizing couldn’t be further from the truth.
Rapid City attorney Linda Lea Viken, a member of the State Bar’s Family Law Commitee, was among those to testify against a rebuttable presumption of involving both parents equally at a time of divorce and said “the system works fine as it is.” Viken, in one custody case alone, billed more than $370,000 (Schieffer v. Schieffer) just this past year.
Why would someone who can make quite a living off conflict in a custody case thanks to our current adversarial system want anything to change? Very few parents who want equal and meaningful contact with their kids can afford $370,000.
Viken lost in Schieffer v. Schieffer, with the state Supreme Court apparently seeing the benefit of more equitable parenting time for both parents when there are two fit parents.
So, what will it take for our circuit court judges to start extending these same benefits to a family at the initial time of divorce, not after they’ve financially given up everything to fight simply for fair time with their kids? And when will the Legislature begin listening to the growing voice of their constituents asking for change, versus the few voices of a financially lucrative industry?
In South Dakota as a whole, we are good people, and generally speaking, the parents of our children are great parents, so why in divorce do we assume one parent gets four days per month as stated in the visitation guidelines? It is time to stop treating every custody case in South Dakota as if one parent is a drug-abusing child molester and start assuming we have two good, stable, loving parents and then decide what is best for the child.
Mitchell’s own Sen. Mike Vehle has argued against shared parenting, comparing some parents in South Dakota to Charlie Sheen and comparing divorce to the Middle East conflicts.
Yet there is not one study in the past 30 years that says an every-other-weekend or four-days-per-month custody schedule for noncustodial parents is good for kids, and that is what South Dakota’s system is still based upon.
— Casey Wilson, of Flandreau and formerly of Plankinton, has been a leader in the effort to pass legislation known as the Kids Need Both Parents bill.
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.
Hi there great website! Does running a log like this tzke a assive amount work?
ReplyDeleteI've absolutely no understanding of computer programming but
I was hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyways, should you have any suggestions or techniques for new blog owners please share.
I understand this is off topic nevertheless I just wanted to ask.
Kudos!
my blog post - send group text messages
You need to take par in a contest for one of the most usefu blogs on the net.
ReplyDeleteI will highly recommend this blog!
Here is my webhpage - most recent videos reviews of hyundai santa fe
This blog was... how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I've found something that
ReplyDeletehelped me. Kudos!
My web page ... sms short code
To all those with morals and to all those who love all children, that this David J. Glass Esq. PhD would giggle & laugh at me while waiting to see the judge. Shortly after this attached letter dated 2-12-2012 was received by the community of Malibu, CA this David J. Glass Esq. PhD conspired to injure a 3rd party (myself) , suborned perjury and falsified evidence just before he closed down his practice and went to FMBK Law.The CA State Bar has just received a 2nd complaint regarding this matter.
ReplyDeleteHollander
Getting divorced/seperated?
Odds R you will face false allegations
(sexual)
Google : FMBK ANTEAU (Hundreds of results Present the 2-12-12 letter & other documents to Law Enforcement, DCFS Agents,
Child Abuse Detectives, School Officials, District Attorneys Office, Judges & the Public
PROTECT YOURSELF , LOVED ONES & OTHERS from CHILD ABUSE by DESIGN
Unquestionably believe that that you stated.
ReplyDeleteYour favourite reason seemed to be on the net the easiest factor to take into accout of.
I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people think about
worries that they just do not realize about. You controlled to
hit the nail upon the highest as neatly as outlined out the whole thing with no need side-effects , other people could
take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thank you
Also visit my site ... businessinternetcoach.net (www.fizzlive.com)