Children's Rights

Thursday

"Your children have come into this world because of the two of you"

Minnesota Judge Has 200 Blunt Words

for Divorcing Parents

By Judge Michael Haas
2001

“Your children have come into this world because of the two of you.

Perhaps you two made lousy choices as to whom you decided to be the other parent. If so, that is your problem and your fault.

No matter what you think of the other party—or what your family thinks of the other party—these children are one-half of each of your.

Remember that, because every time you tell your child what an “idiot” his father is, or what a “fool” his mother is, or how bad the absent parent is, or what terrible things that person has done, you are telling the child half of him is bad.

That is an unforgivable thing to do to a child. That is not love. That is possession. If you do that to your children, you will destroy them as surely as if you had cut them into pieces, because that is what you are doing to their emotions.

I sincerely hope that you do not do that to your children. Think more about your children and less about yourselves, and make yours a selfless kind of love, not foolish or selfish, or your children will suffer.”

Family Courthouse -Miami-Dade The Miami-Dade Police Department Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics & Public Trust Citizens for a Healthy Miami-Dade Miami Herald Miami New Times Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts Faces of Miami Stop Mental Child Abuse Stop False Allegations of Domestic Violence The Father-Daughter Institute The Fathers' Rights Movement The Fatherhood Task Force of South Florida(FTFSF) Fatherhoodgov Father's Rights Are A Human Right Fathers Rights, Dads looking for support from an unjust...

Children's Rights American Coalition for Fathers and Children - ACFC Federation of Families, Miami-Dade Chapter Miami-Dade Police Department Headquarters Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Florida Family Policy Council Center for Children's Law and Policy SAVE for Falsely Accused False Accusations: Family Courts and the DV Industry "Fathers Fighting False Restraining Orders" False Allegations : It can Happen To You Victims of False Restraining Orders First Husbands Advocacy Group - Florida Alimony and Custody... NBC 6 South Florida Hispanic National Bar Association - Florida Region Por una Infancia Libre de Alienación, Trabajamos y Luchamos Fundación para la Prevención al Síndrome de Enajenación... Papas De Fin de Semana Denuncias Falsas Hombres Maltratados Asociación de Padres de Familia Separados Padres & Hijos Padres Maltratados Porla Injusticia S.O.S. padres: La batalla por los hijos Healthy Start Coalition of Miami-Dade CBS Miami Miami-Dade County, Fla. Our Kids of Miami-Dade/Monroe, Inc. Miami Children's Initiative Archdiocese of Miami Miami-Dade Democratic Party Miami Dade County Miami Children's Initiative Miami-Dade Chamber of Commerce Mi Familia Vota Dade Legal Aid & Put Something Back Miami Dade Roundtable Miami-Dade County Chamber of Commerce Miami-Dade County Department of Health Miami-Dade County Legislative Delegation Take Stock in Children Miami Dade Miami-Dade Police Training Bureau The United States Department of Justice Fathers-4-Justice USA Dads Justice American Center for Law and Justice U S Department of Justice Office of Legal Education Alliance for Justice And Justice 4 All ~ Florida Family Justice Center Alliance Justice 4 dads against bitter women who use children as weapons

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.

Re-blogged from:

Parental Alienation Dynamics

This is a weblog of Dr. Craig Childress, a licensed clinical psychologist. regarding the highly problematic family relationship process of parental alienation.

Dr. Childress Response to a Parent:

On Diagnosis

I receive many requests for help and guidance. When I am contacted, professional standards of practice prevent me from commenting on the specifics of an individual case. However, the relationship dynamics involved with the pathogenic parenting of “parental alienation” processes are exceedingly similar across families, because they originate in the same type of parental psychopathology (a narcissistic personality disorder with borderline features decompensating into persecutory beliefs regarding the targeted/rejected parent’s abuse potential relative to the child).

Recently I received the following question from a parent, and I thought my response to this parent might be helpful to other parents (and to mental health professionals).

“Hello Dr. Childress, What assessment tools do you use to identify the possibility of a likely Parental Alienation Dynamic? Would you need to interview the children? Melissa”

Hello Melissa,

The assessment of "parental alienation" (i.e., pathogenic parenting) involves clinical interviews primarily with the child, but also with the targeted parent and child. Additional interviews with the "alienating" parent can be helpful to confirm the diagnosis but are not necessary to making the diagnosis of "pathogenic parenting" associated with "parental alienation" processes.

Three separate symptom features are evident in the child's symptom display:

1: Suppression of the normal range functioning of the child's attachment system relative to one parent.

2. The presence of a specific set of narcissistic and borderline personality disorder features in the child's symptom display, involving:

a.) "Splitting," in which the child views one parent as overly idealized and the other parent as overly devalued (see attached Appendix A: Splitting)

b.) A grandiose judgment of a parent in which the child is in an elevated status position in the family hierarchy above that held by the targeted/rejected parent;

c.) A sense of entitlement in which the child feels justified in inflicting a retaliatory retribution on the targeted/rejected parent if the child's entitled expectations are not met to the child's satisfaction;

d.) A haughty and arrogant attitude of contempt regarding the "fundamental human inadequacy" of the targeted/rejected parent;

e.) A complete absence of normal-range empathy and compassion for the feelings of the targeted/rejected parent;

3. An intransigently held, fixed and false belief system regarding the fundamental inadequacy of the targeted/rejected parent and/or the abuse potential (typically "emotional abuse") of the targeted/rejected parent.

If this specific set of 3 symptoms is present in the child's symptom display, the only possible origin of this particular symptom set is through induction. This specific symptom set CANNOT originate authentically to the functioning of the child's nervous system. This symptom set MUST be induced through pathogenic parenting - either from the distorted and aberrant parenting of the targeted/rejected parent, or from the distorted and aberrant parenting of the allied/idealized parent. One way or the other, this symptom set only arises from being induced in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.

The next diagnostic step is to rule-out pathogenic parenting emanating from the targeted/rejected parent. This involves joint parent-child sessions in which the parenting behavior of the targeted/rejected parent, and the child's responses to the parenting behavior of the targeted/rejected parent, are clinically evaluated.

If the parenting behavior of the targeted/rejected parent is broadly normal range[1] (i.e., no evidence of alcoholism, chronic drug use, excessive anger dysregulation, domestic violence, severely distorted communication processes), so that the parenting behavior of the targeted/rejected parent could not reasonably account for the creation of the child's symptom constellation of the three specific features noted above, then the pathogenic parenting MUST be originating in the aberrant and distorted parenting of the other parent.

There is no other alternative explanation for the presence of that specific set of symptoms displayed by the child. That symptom set CANNOT arise endogenously to the authentic functioning of a child's nervous system. That specific set of symptoms MUST be induced through interpersonal processes - i.e., through pathogenic parenting emanating either from the targeted/rejected parent or from the allied/idealized parent. If the targeted/rejected parent is not inducing that specific symptom set, then it MUST be induced by the allied/idealized parent. There is no other alternative explanation regarding the origins of that specific child symptom set.

Diagnosis is made from clinical interviews with the child and targeted/rejected parent. If the allied/idealized parent consents to clinical interviews, then these interviews can confirm the diagnosis, but they are not necessary to make the diagnosis.

Associated Clinical Signs:

Additional confirmatory symptoms are also typically present, and while not necessary for the diagnosis, these additional "associated clinical signs" can support the diagnosis:

1) Listen to the Child: The allied/pathological parent prominently evidences the phrase "...listen to the child..." - such as "I'm only listening to the child" - "you [i.e., therapists, attorneys, etc.] should just listen to the child" - "why isn't anyone listening to the child." This phrase by the allied/pathological parent comes from a need to empower the child, both to exploit the child’s expressed rejection for the other parent and also for a specific need to empower the child, originating from particular psychological dynamics with the allied/pathological parent. An associated effort for empowering the child is the allied/pathological parent advocating that “the child should be allowed to decide” if he or she goes on visitations with the targeted/rejected parent. The core issue is a need to empower the child.

2) Exploiting the Child’s Symptoms: An exploitation of the child's symptoms by the allied/pathological parent to limit, restrict, disrupt, and nullify the ability of the targeted/rejected parent to form a relationship with the child.

3) Protecting the Child: The allied/pathological parent prominently presents in the role as the "protector" of the child from the abuse (typically emotional abuse) of the targeted/rejected parent. The need to "protect the child" can reach almost obsessional levels.

4) Selective Parental Incompetence: The allied/pathological parent presents as selectively incompetent, typically using the phrase "...what can I do, I can't make the child..." - for example; "I encourage the child to go on visitations with the other parent, but what can I do, I can't make the child go if the child doesn't want to go." - "I tell the child to cooperate with the other parent, but what can I do, I can't make the child be nice to the other parent. I'm not there, how am I supposed to make the child be nice to the other parent?" The presence of this phrase has to do with the narcissistic exploitation of the child's symptoms.

5) Justifying – “I know just how the child feels…”: The selective incompetence of the allied/pathological parent is often accompanied by a statement of understanding for the child's hostility and rejection of the other parent - "I tell the child to be cooperative, but what can I do, I can't make the child be cooperative, I'm not there. And, actually, I know just how the child feels. The other parent acted just like that with me during our marriage."

6) Typical Complaints: The typical complaints regarding the targeted/rejected parent are,

A) too insensitive, the targeted/rejected parent doesn't “listen to the child;”

B) too rigid, inflexible and controlling, the targeted/rejected parent always has to have things his (or her) way;

C) anger management issues, the targeted/rejected parent has anger management problems;

D) too selfish and self-centered, combines doesn't listen to the child and always has to have things his or her own way.

7) Disregard of Court Orders: The allied/pathological parent displays a cavalier disregard for the authority of Court orders, so that the targeted/rejected parent must continually return to Court seeking enforcement of Court orders. This represents the expression of narcissistic personality processes of the allied pathological parent. Narcissists to not recognize (i.e., perceptually register) the construct of "authority" - only the power to compel. For the narcissist, the construct of "authority" (such as the Court's authority) is synonymous with the "power to compel." If the Court does not compel, then the Court has no authority in the mind of the narcissist.

Appendix A: Splitting

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford

Linehan on Splitting:

“They tend to see reality in polarized categories of “either-or,” rather than “all,” and within a very fixed frame of reference. For example, it is not uncommon for such individuals to believe that the smallest fault makes it impossible for the person to be “good” inside. Their rigid cognitive style further limits their abilities to entertain ideas of future change and transition, resulting in feelings of being in an interminable painful situation. Things once defined do not change. Once a person is “flawed,” for instance, that person will remain flawed forever.” (p. 35; emphasis added)

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

“Splitting: The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by compartmentalizing opposite affect states and failing to integrate the positive and negative qualities of the self or others into cohesive images. Because ambivalent affects cannot be experienced simultaneously, more balanced views and expectations of self or others are excluded from emotional awareness. Self and object images tend to alternate between polar opposites: exclusively loving, powerful, worthy, nurturant, and kind – orexclusively bad, hateful, angry, destructive, rejecting, or worthless.” (p. 813; emphasis added)

Borderline Personality Disorder Criterion 2:

“A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation” (p. 710; emphasis added)

Siegel, J.P. (2006). Dyadic splitting in partner relational disorders. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 418–422.

“Splitting is an identified symptom of both borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.” (p. 419)

Watson P. J. and Biderman, M.D. (1993). Narcissistic personality inventory factors, splitting, and self-consciousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61 (1), 41-57.

“Splitting is often thought to be central to pathological narcissism” (p. 44)

[1] Consider normal-range parenting – not perfect parenting. What type of parental behavior occurs in most typical homes? Does this less than “perfect” parenting (i.e., typical parenting) result in the type of child reactions evidenced in the child’s symptom display? Parents frequently become angry at children, set rules for children, deny children a favored toy or activity, and none of these parenting practices results in the child displays of total rejection and excessive hostility seen with “parental alienation” processes (e.g., the child’s haughty and arrogant attitude of contempt, verbal abuse, complete lack of empathy, and desire to completely sever the relationship with a parent).

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Post by Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - PAAO.

Dad...I'm watching you

From the moment he walks her down the aisle to the tears that may fall during the father-daughter dance, dear old Dad is a very important part of a woman’s wedding day.

It’s never easy for a Dad or a woman’s father figure to give away his “little girl” to the man she loves, but it’s such an extraordinary gesture that means the world to both of you. One Dad wasn’t sure how to tell his daughter how much she meant to him on her special day, so he decided to do something extra special to let her know he will always love her.

An At-Home Parent Finds His Non-Parenting Niche

Kevin McKeever at NYC Dads Group - *By Dave Lesser, NYC Dads Group Guest Contributor* "It is the best job I've ever had ... but the pay sucks." That’s what I tell people when they ask how I like being a stay-at-home dad to two kids. And it's true. I love so many things about doing what I do. I get to laugh and play for a living. And there's important work to be done. I mold minds, for crying out loud! I nurture bruised knees and bruised feelings. I hear the lessons I teach and the words I say repeated back to me in the world's most adorable voices. Some of the words are not totally age-appropriate, but that makes the... more »

Judicial supremacy and the infamous Dred Scott decision.

— The most carefully concealed skeleton in Judges' closets.

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years. In 1820, he was taken by his owner, Peter Blow, to Missouri, where he was later purchased by U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson. After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, which was located in Illinois. Illinois, a free state, had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a state.

In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, which was located in the Wisconsin territory (in what would become the state of Minnesota). Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including the location of Fort Snelling, was a part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson, a slave who had been acquired by Emerson at the fort.

In 1837, the Army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.

Before the end of the year, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana. There Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway along the Mississippi River between Iowa and Illinois. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom, but did not. Finkelman suggests that in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods in a free state. This was Louisiana state precedent for more than 20 years.

Toward the end of 1838, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Eliza returned to St. Louis with their slaves Scott and Harriet, while Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the Army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Eliza inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, but Eliza Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question once and for all, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Most scholars today (as did many contemporary lawyers) consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision would prove to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave blacks full citizenship. As of 2007 it is widely regarded by scholars as the worst decision made by the United States Supreme Court.

But Schlafly’s most startling revelation is the origin of judicial supremacy. The tyranny of judges stems not from the modest claims of Marbury v. Madison but from the infamous Dred Scott decision—the most carefully concealed skeleton in the judicial supremacists’ closet. In spite of everything, Schlafly concludes, the Constitution is on democracy’s side. It provides all the tools necessary—if only we’ll use them—to rescue America from the tyranny of judges.

The Supremacists - The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It

The gravest threat to American democracy is the supreme power of judges over political, social, and economic policy. In this bracing indictment, Phyllis Schlafly exposes the courts’ fifty-year conquest of legislative authority, made possible by presidents, congressmen, and voters who surrendered without a fight. The Supremacists is both a warning that self-government is in peril and a battle plan for overthrowing the tyranny of judges.

Kevin Roy, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, is an expert on fatherhood and social policy. His new book, Nurturing Dads, challenges ideas about mainstream fatherhood and discusses ways to encourage meaningful engagement among different kinds of dads and their kids. His conversation with Center Director Julie Drizin follows:

DRIZIN: Why did you and Bill Marsiglio decide to write Nurturing Dads?

ROY: Bill was approached by the Russell Sage Foundation to think about a book on fatherhood and social policy. We’ve been working together for probably about 10 years and we really have been working on this idea of nurturance as being pretty important for fathering. Typically when anyone in social policy or even popular media talks about fathers, its’ a very traditional stereotype. It’s guys who are providing for their kids and residing and married to their partner-- you see that a lot with Father’s Day. You get these very typical images of ties and blah blah. But we know through the work I’ve been doing that men and families and their interaction with kids and family members is so diverse, and really has been changing a lot in the past couple decades.

So what we focus on is nurturance, and that’s the relationship of men with children and families… Providing and residing in marriage and the relationships with mothers and the kids are still important, they don’t go away, but we really thought, here’s a policy book that shows what men are thinking, what they want out of policy and law, which is a way to support their efforts to be nurturing providers or nurturing caregivers really…

SHARE YOUR STORY

We always encourage all parents and extended family to share experiences of Family Court horrors, or Parental Alienation and its impact on you, your children and family. That way the ripple effect of the information and experiences shared will create positive change for other people who are affected or who may be affected in the future.

Comment anonymously, call yourself whatever you want. Email addresses are strictly confidential, and providing one is optional (but will allow you to be notified of others’ responses and to dialogue immediately if you wish). This blog was viewed over a half a million times. For the public to be aware of procedural abuses, it has to hear about them. The blog author’s own story is here. Civility is the only constraint upon your speech.

The Communications Decency Act exempts this blog’s author from any liability for what you say.